the treaty-breaking invasion, and more than invasion, of Belgium, who is
suffering because of this step "so necessary for Germany."

Thirdly--England, as is repeatedly demonstrated by the official
documents, of both sides, strained every means to bring about a common
understanding. The appeals of Sir Edward Grey for more time in the
Servian ultimatum and for a council of Ambassadors were met by the
Austrian and German Governments respectively with evasion. And England
was the last of the great powers to enter the conflict, her plea being
the moral obligation of supporting treaties in which she guaranteed the
integrity of a weak neighbor and undertook to defend her ally, France,
when attacked.

The Case of England.

We may justifiably ask, then, What basis is there for the charge that
England's "brutal, national egoism" provoked the world war? The answer
is a two-fold one. Historically, England has exhibited aggression in the
extension of her interests; morally, England supports the Russian
aggressor, who declined "to allow Austria the thoroughgoing punishment
of an ignominious murder," cloaking her real intentions behind the
mantle of a "contemptible sanctimoniousness" and "hypocrisy" concerning
treaty obligations.

The first charge against England is unfortunately true. History records
instances of British aggression in the extension of her interests and
the cases cited (destruction of the Danish fleet and the taking of Dutch
colonies) are good examples. The implication, however, involved in the
statement is that such aggression is not to be found in the history of
Prussia. This is clearly an error.

From the time of the Markgrafen even unto the Agadir incident it has
been characteristic of Prussia to extend her boundaries and interests
under the plea of military necessity. Aggression is the only word to
characterize Frederick's seizure of Silesia and part of Poland. South
and East Prussia were added by the same forcible means (1793-1795). In
the Napoleonic wars Swedish Pomerania fell as the booty of military
necessity. Schleswig-Holstein was filched from Denmark (1866) by the
same "extension of her greatness." Once more it was the plea in
Alsace-Lorraine--"so necessary for Germany."

Nor are we here urging immunity of criticism for ourselves. It is sadly
true that the history of many nominally Christian States, including that
of the United States, and not excluding the Papacy, includes chapters of
aggressio