ion
according to their opinions as if they stood on a height above the
contestants and, from this lofty standpoint, were holding an
anticipated Last Judgment on kings and statesmen.

The same phenomena show themselves with regard to judgments concerning
methods of warfare. It goes without saying that each belligerent party
reports all the atrocities which are committed by its opponents and is
silent as to its own shortcomings. Once more, neutrals feel compelled
to form a judgment, and therefore, if they are conscientious, read the
reports of both sides, and, as a result, find themselves in a
desperate situation, because it is impossible, from the assertions and
counter-assertions of the belligerents, to ascertain the actual facts
of the case. In practice, mere chance decides which set of reports one
comes across. And the exact proof of details is impossible to the most
zealous newspaper-reader. Therefore one's judgment remains
vacillating, and one is likely to come to this conclusion: to believe
nothing at all. Naturally, the case is different here also, if one is
previously in sympathy with one party. Then one believes the reports
coming from that side, and leaves out of consideration those that
stand against them. In this case, again, neutrals become as one-sided
as belligerents, without having the indubitable right to be one-sided
which the belligerents have.

And finally, in the decisive question, neutrality is excluded.
Whatever judgments one may form as to the cause of the war, and as to
methods of waging it, the final outcome is always the decisive factor.
Only a completely demoralized and stupid man can boast, in cynical
indifference, that the result of the war leaves him cold. Where
spiritual life functions, wishes and prayers, hopes and fears, are
passionately involved in the course of the mighty conflict. For it is
not a question whether this or that nation shall experience more
pleasure or pain, but the form of all Europe and of the world, for
long periods to come, will be fixed by the decision of this war. That
cannot be a matter of indifference for any thinking human being. An
equilibrium of view, a real neutrality is as little possible here as
it would have been in the Persian or Punic wars, or, a hundred years
ago, in the revolt of Europe, against the domination of Napoleon. He
who, invoking the neutrality of his state, does not takes sides in
this decisive question, debases himself and his people with