Kitabı oku: «England, Canada and the Great War», sayfa 17

CHAPTER XXXII.
A Most Reprehensible Abuse of Sacred Appeals To The Belligerent Nations

I cannot qualify in milder words the use Mr. Bourassa has made of the solemn appeals His Holiness the Pope of Rome has, at different dates, addressed to the belligerent nations in favour of the restoration of peace. I bear to the Head of the Church I am so happy to belong such a profound respect and devotion that I will scrupulously abstain from any comment of the Sovereign Pontiff's writings and addresses. I have read them several times over with the greatest attention and veneration, so sure I was that, emanating from the highest spiritual Authority in the world, they were exclusively inspired by the ardent desire to promote a recurrence to good-will amongst men, in obedience to the Divine precept.

Having to reproach the Nationalist leader with having abused of the weighty words of His Holiness, to support his own misconceptions of duty as a loyal British subject and a Christian publicist, I will refrain with great care from writing a sentence which might be construed as the shadow of an attempt to do the same.

I will take from Mr. Bourassa's own comments of the Sovereign Pontiff's appeals, the two conclusions upon which he lays great stress, and which clearly summarize the convictions of His Holiness Pope Benedict XV.

Praying with all the powers of His heart and soul for the orderly future of the world, the Sovereign Pontiff implored, in the most touching terms, the belligerent nations to agree to a "Just and Durable Peace."

As it was certain, even if He had not said so with such pathetic expressions, His Holiness drew the saddest possible picture of the untold misfortunes war, carried on in such vast proportions, was inflicting upon the peoples waging the struggle.

I will only quote the few following words from the first letter of His Holiness, dated July 28, 1915: —

"It cannot be said that the immense conflict cannot be terminated without armed violence."

No one can take exception to this truism, authoritatively expressed under circumstances greatly adding to its importance and to its solemn announcement. It is just as true to-day as it was, – and has been ever since, – when the whole world was passing through the crucial ordeal of the days during which England and France were almost imploring Germany not to plunge the earth into the horrors of the war she was determined to bring on.

The questions at stake could then have been easily settled without "ARMED VIOLENCE," if the Imperial Government of Berlin had listened to the pressing demand of Great Britain in favour of the maintenance of peace.

It is scarcely believable that the Nationalist leader has abused of those weighty words to the point of attempting to persuade the French-Canadians that the Allies, even more than the Rulers of the Central Empires, have refused to listen to the prayers of the Pope. In January last, he published a new pamphlet, entitled "The Pope, Arbiter of Peace," in which he reproduced from "Le Devoir" his numerous articles, from August 1914, on the intervention of the Sovereign Pontiff in favour of the cessation of the hostilities, and on the current events of the times.

The oft-repeated diatribes of Mr. Bourassa against England were bound to be once more edited in the above pamphlet. Their author, in a true fatherly way, not willing to allow them to die under the contempt they deserve, would not lose the chance to have them to survive in tackling them with his comments on His Holiness' letters.

This pamphlet, the worthy sequel of its predecessors which, for the good of Mr. Bourassa's compatriots, should never have seen the light of day, would call for many more refutable quotations than I can undertake to make in this work. A few will suffice to show the deplorable purport of the whole book.

In his letter dated, July 28, 1915, the Pope wrote: —

"In presence of Divine Providence, we conjure the belligerent nations, to henceforth put an end to the horrible carnage which, for a year, dishonours Europe."

Positively informed about the horrible crimes committed by command of the German military authorities in Belgium, and Northern France, and by the ferocious Turks in Armenia, well might His Holiness say that Europe was being dishonoured by such barbarous deeds. If the military operations had been conducted by the nations of the Alliance in conformity with the principles of International Law, most likely the Pope would not have used the same language. For, however much to be regretted are the sufferings inseparable from a military conflict carried on with the utmost regards for the fair claims of human feelings and justice, it could not have been pretended that such a war was a dishonour for the belligerents on both sides, especially when fighting with an equally sincere conviction that they are defending a just cause.

Referring to recent history, none asserted, for instance, that the Russo-Japanese war was a dishonour to Europe and Asia. It was fought out honourably on both sides. Peace was restored without leaving bitter and burning recollections in the minds of either peoples. And when Germany dishonoured herself and stained Humanity with blushing shame, both Russia and Japan joined together to avenge Civilization.

Let us now see how Mr. Bourassa distorted the words of the Pope so as to use them for his own purpose of misrepresenting the true stand of the Allies, and more especially of England.

The first sentence of his article dated, August 3, 1915, to be found at page 11 of the pamphlet, under the title: "The Pope's Appeal," reads thus: —

"The anniversary of the hurling of the sanguinary fury which makes of Europe the shame of Humanity has inspired the Rulers of peoples with resounding words."

And after eulogizing the Pope's intervention, he adds: – "that men will not hear his voice, drunk as they are with pride, revenge and blood."

This may be cunningly worded, but it should deceive nobody.

One cannot help being indignant at the contemptible attempt to place the Allies on the same footing as the Central Empires with regard to the responsibility in hurling the sanguinary fury in 1914.

The plain, incontrovertible, truth is that the outbreak of the war was a shame, not for Humanity, the victim of Teutonic treachery, but for Germany herself; whilst the sacred union of Belgium, France, England and their allies to resist the barbarous onslaught hurled at them all, was an honour for Civilization and the promise of an heroic redemption.

At page 12 of the pamphlet, he closes the first paragraph with the following words: – "since the fatal days when peoples supposed to be Christian hurled themselves at one another in a foolish rage of destruction, of revenge and hatred." In French, it reads thus: – "depuis le jour fatal ou les peuples soi-disant chrétiens se sont rués les uns contre les autres, dans une rage folle de destruction, de vengeance et de haine."

Read as a whole, with the full meaning they were intended to convey, those words constitute a daring falsehood. Historical events of the highest importance cannot be construed at will. There are facts so positively true, and known to be such, that they should preclude any possibility of deceit.

It is absolutely false that, on a fatal day of mid-summer, 1914, peoples hurled themselves at one another. What really took place, in the glaring light of day, was that Germany, fully prepared for the fray, hurled herself at weak Belgium, throwing to the waste basket the scraps of the solemn treaties by which she was in honour bound to respect Belgian neutrality. She had first opened the disastrous game by hurling her vassal, Austria, at weak Servia.

Rushing her innumerable victorious armies over Belgian trodden soil, she hurled herself at France with the ultimate design to hurl herself at England.

That in so doing, Germany was raging with a foolish thirst of destruction, of revenge and hatred, is certainly true. But Mr. Bourassa's guilt is in his assertion that the victims of Germany's sanguinary fury were actuated by the same criminal motives in heroically defending their homes, their wives, their children, their all, against the barbarians once more bursting out of Central Europe, this time bent on overthrowing human freedom.

Is the respectable citizen who bravely defends himself against the ruffian who hurls himself at his throat, to be compared with his murderous assailant?

But England was not alone in hurling herself at Germany, as Mr. Bourassa so cordially says. Without a word, even a sign, by the only momentum of her furious outburst of foolish destruction, she was followed by the whole of her Empire. How much we, Canadians, were, for instance, deluded, the Nationalist leader is kind enough to tell us in his ever sweet language.

When the Parliament of Ottawa unanimously decided that it was the duty of the British Dominion of Canada to participate in the war; when Canadian public opinion throughout the length and breadth of the land, almost unanimously approved of this loyal and patriotic decision, we, poor unfortunate Canadians, thought that we were heartily and nobly joining with the mother-country to avenge "outraged Justice," to rush to the rescue of violated Belgium, of France, once more threatened with agony under the brutal Teutonic ironed heels, of the whole world – Mr. Bourassa's commanding personality included – menaced with the HUNS' DOMINATION.

How sadly mistaken we were, Mr. Bourassa tells us. According to this infallible judge of the righteousness or criminality of historical events, we were labouring under a paroxysm of passion —of a rage of foolish destruction, of vengeance and hatred.

Once overpowered by this vituperative mood of calumnious accusations, the Nationalist leader slashes England, as follows, – page 18 – : —

"England has violently destroyed more national rights than all the other European countries united together. By force or deceit, she has swallowed up a fourth of the earthly globe; by conquest, and more especially by corruption and the purchase of consciences, she has subjugated more peoples than there were, in the whole human history, ever brought under the same sceptre."

Thus, in Mr. Bourassa's impartial estimation, the depredations and slaughters of the hordes commanded by Attila, the savagery of the Turks of old and present days, the crimes of Germany in this great war, are only insignificant trifles compared with the horrors of British history. Shame on such outrageous misrepresentation of historical truth.

Mr. Bourassa accuses England to have by force or deceit swallowed up a fourth of the earthly globe. Considering the happy and flourishing condition of the vast British Empire, the Nationalist leader, as every one else, must admit that England is endowed with great digestive powers, as she does not show the least sign that she suffers from national dyspepsia from having swallowed up a fourth of the universe. Her national digestion is evidently sound and healthy, for instead of weakening and decaying, she grows every day in strength, in stature, in freedom, in prestige, and, above all, in WISDOM.

The Nationalist leader has thought proper to express his formal hatred of militarism. One would naturally suppose that, in so doing, he should have pointed at the worst kind of militarism ever devised – the German type of our own days. Let no one be mistaken about it. At page 58 of his pamphlet, Mr. Bourassa bursts out as follows in the top paragraph: —

"As a matter of fact, of all kinds of militarism, of all the instruments of brutal domination, the naval supremacy of England is the most redoubtable, the most execrable for the whole world; for it rules over all the continents, hindering the free relations of all the peoples."

Was I really deluded when I felt sure that in peaceful times, British naval supremacy on the seas was not interfering in the least with the freest commercial intercourse of all the nations, whose mercantile ships can, by British laws, enter freely into all the ports of Great Britain? Mr. Bourassa's assertion to the contrary, I shall not, by the least shadow, alter my opinion which is positively sound.

From the above last quotation, I have the right to infer that Mr. Bourassa is very sorry that, in war times like those we have seen since July 1914, British naval supremacy is sufficiently paramount to protect the United Kingdom from starvation, to keep the coasts of France opened to the mercantile ships of the Allies and of all the neutral nations, to "rule the waves" against both the German military and mercantile fleets, chased away from the oceans by the British guns thundering at the Teutonic pirates on land and sea. If he is, he can be sure that he is alone to cry and weep at a fact which rejoices all the true and loyal friends of freedom and justice.

Mr. Bourassa cherishes a wish that will certainly not be granted. He will not be happy unless England agrees to give up her naval supremacy to please Germany. Let him rest quietly on his two ears; the dawn of such a calamitous day is yet very far distant.

At the end of page 12, Mr. Bourassa asserts that the Germans proclaim their RIGHT to "Germanize" Europe and the world, and that the English imperiously affirm their RIGHT to maintain their Imperial power over the seas and to oppose "Anglo-Saxonism" to "pan-Germanism."—

I have already refuted the Nationalist leader's pretention, and informed him that England, no more than any other country, has no "Sovereign rights" on the seas outside the coastal limits as prescribed by International Law. He appears totally unable to understand the simple truth that Great Britain's sea supremacy is nothing more nor less than the superiority of her naval strength created, at an immense cost, out of sheer necessity, to protect the United Kingdom from the domination of a great continental power.

Does he not know that, in the days prior to England's creation of her mighty fleet, she has been easily conquered by invaders? Is he aware of the great British historical fact called the Norman Conquest? Has he never heard that before starting on his triumphant march across Europe, culminating at Austerlitz, the great Napoleon had planned an invasion of England, with every prospects of success, if he had not been deterred from carrying it out by the continental coalition which, calling into play the resources of his mighty genius, he so victoriously crushed and dispersed? Has he never read anything about panic stricken England until she was relieved from the dangers of the projected invasion?

Does he not realize that, unless they were madmen, no British ministers will ever consent to renounce their "UNDOUBTED RIGHT" to be ever ready for any emergency, to save their country from enslavement by would-be dashing invaders? It is the height of political nonsense to suppose that responsible public men ever could be so blind, or so recreant to their most sacred duty, as to follow the wild course recommended by extravagantly prejudiced "Nationalists."

The man who would throw away his weapons of defense would have nothing else to do but to kneel down and implore the tender mercy of his criminal aggressor. Truly loyal subjects of the Empire cannot clamour to bring England down to such an humiliating position. They know too well that if ever matters came to so disastrous a pass, Great Britain could easily be starved into irremediable submission with the consequent and immediate destruction of the whole fabric of the Empire. A Nationalist, yawning for such an end, may suggest the best way to reach it. But no loyal man, sincerely wishing the maintenance of the great British Commonwealth, will ever do so.

No wonder that he who came out openly in favour of Imperial Federation for the express purpose of ruining the Empire, endeavours to achieve his most cherished object in first destroying British naval supremacy on the seas. Imperial Federation would then no longer be necessary for the consummation of his longing wishes.

Freedom of the seas and British naval supremacy are not antagonistic by any means, as I have previously well explained. It is an unanswerable proposition – a truism – to say that supremacy on the ocean will always exist, held by one nation or another. The Power commanding the superior naval fleet will for ever be supreme on the seas. It is mere common sense to say so. Mr. Bourassa would vainly work his wind-mill for centuries without changing this eternal rule of sound sense.

If, by whichever cause, England was to lose her sea supremacy, it would at once, as a matter of course, pass on to the next superior naval Power.

In a subsequent chapter on the after-the-war military problem, I shall explain the way or ways, by which, in my opinion, the question of the freedom of the seas, so much misunderstood, could be settled to the satisfaction of all concerned.

With regard to the supposed conflict of "anglo-saxonism" and "pan-germanism" I will merely say that it is only another sample of Mr. Bourassa's wily dreams.

As I have already said, this last pamphlet of the Nationalist leader is, for a large part of it, but the repetition of his diatribes so often hurled at England. I will close this chapter by quoting from page 57, the following paragraph which summarizes, in a striking way, the charges Mr. Bourassa is so fond to hurl at the mother-country. It reads thus: —

"What has allowed England to bring Portugal into vassalage? to dominate Spain and keep Gibraltar, Spanish land? to deprive Greece of the Ionians and Cyprus Islands? to steal Malta? to foment Revolution in the Kingdom of Naples and the Papal States? to run, during thirty years, the foreign policy of Italy and to throw her in Austria's execrated arms? to take possession of Suez and to make her own thing of it? to chase France from the Upper Nile, and subsequently from the whole of Egypt, to intervene in the Berlin treaty to deprive Russia of the profits of her victory, to galvanize dying Turkey, to delay for thirty years the revival of the Balkan States and to make of Germany the main spring of continental Europe? In a word, what has permitted England to rule the roost in Europe and to accumulate the frightful storm let loose in 1914? Who? What? if it is not the "naval domination" of England ever since the destruction of the French and Spanish fleets at Trafalgar."

It would be most difficult to condense more erroneous historical appreciations and political absurdities in so few lines.

Many will be quite surprised to learn, from Mr. Bourassa's resounding trumpet, that England had been for many years gathering the storm which broke out in 1914. So far all fairminded men were convinced that this rascally work had been done by Germany, in spite of England's exhortations to reduce military armaments.

In all sincerity, I am unable to understand how Mr. Bourassa can expect to successfully give the lie to such incontrovertible truths as the guilt of Germany in preparing the war she finally brought on more than four years ago, and as the unceasing determination of England to maintain peace.

CHAPTER XXXIII.
A Case For True Statesmanship

Whatever the TRUE and the FALSE friends of Peace may hope and say, it is perfectly useless to close our eyes to the glaring fact that its restoration can only be the result of military effort combined with the highest practical statesmanship. After all what has happened, and the oft-repeated declaration of the Rulers of the belligerent nations, it would be a complete loss of a very valuable time to indulge any longer in the expression of views all acknowledge in principle, but which no one, however well disposed he may be, is actually able to traduce in practical form.

When writing my French book, in the fall of 1916, reviewing the situation as it had so far developed, I said: —

"All are most anxious for peace. However it is infinitely better to look at matters such as they are. It is evident that the military situation does not offer the least hope that the war can be immediately brought to an end. Successes have been achieved on both sides. But nothing decisive has yet happened. The armies are facing one another in defiant attitude. The belligerent nations, on both sides, have yet, and for a long time, great resources in man-power and money."

"If Germany, which should first give up the fight in acknowledging her crime, is obdurate to final exhaustion, how can it be possibly expected that the Allies who were forced to fight, will submit to the humiliation and shame of soliciting from their cruel enemy a peace the conditions of which, they know, would be utterly unacceptable. Consequently they must with an indomitable courage and an invincible perseverance go on struggling to solve, for a long time, the redoubtable problem to which they are pledged, in honour bound, to give the only settlement which can reassure the world."

I am still and absolutely of the same opinion. The present military situation has certainly much improved in favour of the Allies since 1916. However, looking at the question, first, from the standpoint of the developing military operations, there is no actual, and there will not be for many months yet – more or less – practical possibility of a satisfactory peace settlement.

Secondly, looking at the question from the standpoint of true statesmanship, it is very easy to draw the inexorable conclusion that, again, there is not actually the least chance of an immediate restoration of peace.

Statesmen, responsible, not only for the future of their respective countries, but, actually, for that of the whole world, are not to be supposed liable to be carried away by a hasty desire to put an end to the war and to their own arduous task in carrying it to the only possible solution: – A JUST AND DURABLE PEACE.

A broad and certain fact, staring every one, is that the Berlin Government will not accept the only settlement to which the Allies can possibly agree as long as her armies occupy French and Belgian territories. If Mr. Bourassa and his "pacifists" friends – or dupes – have really entertained a faint hope to the contrary, they were utterly mistaken.

Present military events, however proportionately enlarged by the increased resources, in man-power and money, of the belligerents, are not without many appropriate precedents. History is always repeating itself. Great Powers having risked their all in a drawn battle, do not give in as long as they can stand the strain, considering the importance of the interests they have at stake.

For the same reason above stated, but reversed, the Allies will not negotiate for peace before they have thrown the German armies out of French and Belgian soil, and repulsed them over Teutonic territory. I do not mean to say that peace must necessarily be proclaimed either from Berlin or from Paris. But it will only be signed as the inevitable result of a final triumphant march on the way either to Berlin or to Paris. There is no possible escape from the alternative. In such matters, there is no halfway station.