FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   120   121   122   123   124   125   126   127   128   129   130   131   132   133   134   135   136   137   138   139   140   141   142   143   144  
145   146   147   148   149   150   151   152   153   154   155   156   157   158   159   160   161   162   163   164   165   166   167   168   169   >>   >|  
Herr Schoenborn admits that Germany was pledged to respect the neutrality of Belgium, but the said neutrality was non-existent, which appears somewhat paradoxical. Yet this is not the least logical part of his case. "The passage of German troops through Belgium was indispensable in the interests of the preservation of the German Empire. A successful resistance to the annihilation-plans which our enemies had wrought for our downfall seemed possible only by this means. The Government regretted that, by so doing, we should commit a formal infringement of the rights of a third State (Belgium), and promised to make all possible compensation for the transgression. "The judicial point of view which influenced the decision of the German Government is perhaps, best illustrated by a parallel taken from the ordinary laws of the country: A forester (game-keeper) is attacked by a poacher, and in that same moment perceives a second poacher bearing a gun at full-cock, creeping into a strange house in order to obtain a better shot at the forester. Just as he is about to enter the house the forester breaks the door open and thus forestalls him--in order to surprise and overcome him. The forester is justified in taking this step, but must make good all damage resulting to the householder."[146] [Footnote 146: Ibid., p. 575.] The instance holds good in the land of _Kultur_, where law and order affords so little protection to a civilian and his property; but in countries where laws are based upon culture the author believes that the forester would receive condign punishment for breaking into another man's house, no matter under what pretext. Unconsciously the learned professor is humorous when he compares Germany to a gamekeeper and Russia and France to poachers; but he is naive to a degree of stupidity, when he makes France carry a weapon fully prepared to shoot the forester. We will consult another German authority to show that France's weapons were not at full-cock. "During the last ten years France has given special attention to the fortresses on the German frontier. But those facing Belgium have been so carelessly equipped that we see clearly to what a degree she relied upon her neighbour. The forts are in the same condition as they were twenty or thirty years ago. As some of these fortifications were built fifty years ago, various points on the frontier are strategically, absolutely useless. "A typical example of this, i
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   120   121   122   123   124   125   126   127   128   129   130   131   132   133   134   135   136   137   138   139   140   141   142   143   144  
145   146   147   148   149   150   151   152   153   154   155   156   157   158   159   160   161   162   163   164   165   166   167   168   169   >>   >|  



Top keywords:

forester

 

German

 
France
 
Belgium
 

Government

 
frontier
 

degree

 
poacher
 

Germany

 

neutrality


pretext
 

points

 

matter

 

Unconsciously

 

compares

 

humorous

 

professor

 

fortifications

 

learned

 

breaking


property
 

countries

 
useless
 

civilian

 

protection

 
affords
 

absolutely

 

culture

 

punishment

 

typical


gamekeeper

 

condign

 

receive

 

author

 

believes

 
strategically
 

thirty

 

special

 

relied

 

During


neighbour

 

attention

 

carelessly

 

equipped

 

fortresses

 
weapons
 
condition
 

stupidity

 
poachers
 

facing