Part 21

As the Ambassador entered the church, where but a few hours before had been gathered the worshippers, he could easily picture the scene that followed the explosion. The amount of débris, remaining just as it fell on the floor, covered the entire space between the lofty columns supporting the arches at each side. Only a miracle could have saved from death or serious injury those who escaped the falling mass. The scene was that of some horrible shambles, and it was not until well into the night that all the bodies were recovered. Upon the floor in many places could still be seen the blood of the victims, among whom were many prominent and well-to-do people.

The Ambassador called to express his sympathy to his Swiss colleague, whose lifelong friend, the Secretary of the Swiss Legation, was killed while leaving the church. The Minister was deeply affected as he spoke of the great loss to him through the Secretary's death. The Secretary was well known in Washington, where he served with the Swiss Legation from 1902 to 1904, and was very highly esteemed by all who knew him.

In conclusion, Mr. Sharp says that the exceptional circumstances under which this tragedy occurred, both as to the sacred character of the day and the place, have greatly aroused the indignation of the people of Paris toward an enemy who seeks to destroy human life without regard to the immunities prescribed by the laws of civilization and humanity, and, instead of terrorizing the people, shells of the great cannons, as well as the bombs dropped from the German airplanes, only serve to strengthen the resolve of the French to resist, to the last man, if necessary, the invasion of such a foe.

CHARACTER OF THE GUN

Portions of exploded shells examined in the Municipal Laboratory of Paris indicated that the calibre of the new German gun was a trifle less than nine inches, and that the projectiles, weighing perhaps 200 pounds, contained a comparatively weak charge of high explosives, arranged in two chambers connected by a fuse, often causing two distinct explosions a minute or more apart. It was stated later by German military scientists that it took each shell more than three minutes to travel from the mouth of the gun to Paris, and that on its way it had to rise to a height of more than twenty miles from the earth. Three Paris experts found that at least two of these great guns were being used. According to German prisoners, one of the guns exploded on March 29, killing a German Lieutenant and nine men.

In their jubilation over the new weapon the German newspapers stated that the first bombardment of Paris had been witnessed by the Kaiser and by the builder of the long-range gun, Professor Fritz Rausenberger, who is an artillerist, manager of the Krupp Works, and builder of the famous 42-centimeter (16½-inch) gun used to demolish the Belgian forts at the beginning of the war.

The violence of the concussion of the new weapon was indicated by the statement of American scientists that every shot was found to be recorded by seismographs all over the United States; in other words, the shock of each discharge caused the needles of earthquake detectors three or four thousand miles away to record small dots on the smoked paper used in these instruments.

Paris, though embittered by the new form of attack, refused to be frightened by the long-range shells. The attendance at the churches on Easter Sunday was even larger than usual. The police authorities issued an order on April 4 that theatre matinées and afternoon entertainments of all kinds should be temporarily discontinued; but, owing to numerous protests, this order was modified next day, and the usual daytime performances in the theatres were allowed on condition that the bombardment had not begun at the hour of assembly, and that the place of amusement be evacuated immediately if the shelling began during the performance. In the weeks that followed the bombardment became more and more desultory and ineffectual.

It was recorded on April 9 that French aviators had discovered the location of the new guns at Crepy-en-Laonnais, near the road from La Fère to Laon, and that continual bombardment of the spot was causing the increasingly intermittent nature of the German long-range fire. The French had learned the location to a yard, and from a powerful battery ten miles away they were dropping enormous shells weighing half a ton each into the low hills where the German monsters were hidden. There were three of the supercannon, and a few days later an air photograph showed that two French shells had fallen on the barrel of one of them, putting it out of commission. Tremendous craters had been made around the others, and one French shell had fallen on a main railway line, blocking it a whole day. A correspondent who visited the French battery engaged in this work wrote on April 13:

"It is stated that these German guns are ninety-six feet long. At the moment of firing, other big guns let fly simultaneously, to confuse the French, and a smoke screen is emitted in the vicinity to hide the pieces from aircraft. Up to yesterday there had been no firing at night, lest the flashes show the position of the cannon. How necessary this precaution is may be illustrated by my experience last night, when I saw the whole northern sky constantly lit up by the guns on the eighty-mile front of the German offensive."

After April 13, when the Germans knew that their secret was fully known, they began bombarding Paris by night, though without any increase in effectiveness. Up to the middle of April a total of 150 long-distance shells had fallen in Paris, and the only ones that had caused any notable casualties were those which struck the Church of St. Gervais, an infant asylum, and an old man's bowling green.

The Irish Guards

By RUDYARD KIPLING

[Read at a matinée in London in aid of the Irish Guards' War Fund, for which it was written by Mr. Kipling.]

We're not so old in the Army List, But we're not so young at our trade, For we had the honor at Fontenoy Of meeting the Guards Brigade. 'Twas Lally, Dillon, Bulkeley, Clare, And Lee that led us then, And after a hundred and seventy years We're fighting for France again! _Old Days! The wild geese are flighting, Head to the storm as they faced it before! For where there are Irish there's bound to be fighting, And when there's no fighting, it's Ireland no more! Ireland no more!_

The fashion's all for khaki now, But once through France we went Full-dressed in scarlet Army cloth-- The English--left at Ghent. They're fighting on our side today, But before they changed their clothes The half of Europe knew our fame As all of Ireland knows! _Old days! The wild geese are flying, Head to the storm as they faced it before! For where there are Irish there's memory undying, And when we forget, it is Ireland no more! Ireland no more!_

From Barry Wood to Gouzeaucourt, From Boyne to Pilkem Ridge, The ancient days come back no more Than water under the bridge. But the bridge it stands and the water runs As red as yesterday, And the Irish move to the sound of the guns Like salmon to the sea! _Old days! The wild geese are ranging, Head to the storm as they faced it before! For where there are Irish their hearts are unchanging, And when they are changeful, it is Ireland no more! Ireland no more!_

We're not so old in the Army List, But we're not so new in the ring, For we carried our packs with Marshal Saxe When Louis was our King. But Douglas Haig's our Marshal now And we're King George's men, And after one hundred and seventy years We're fighting for France again! _Ah, France! And did we stand by you When life was made splendid with gifts and rewards? Ah, France! And will we deny you In the hour of your agony, Mother of Swords? Old Days! The wild geese are flighting, Head to the storm as they faced it before! For where there are Irish there's loving and fighting, And when we stop either, it's Ireland no more! Ireland no more!_

The Guilt of Germany

German Ambassador to Great Britain in 1914 Proves That His Country Forced the War

Prince Lichnowsky, who was the German Ambassador to Great Britain when the war began, is the author of an extremely interesting and important historical document which became public in March, 1918. It is in the form of a private memorandum written by the Prince, in which he frankly and definitely admits that the guilt for starting the world conflict rests upon his own country. The document, through some unrevealed agency, reached the Stockholm newspaper Politiken, the influential mouthpiece of the Swedish Socialists, and was printed in installments.

The publication created a profound sensation throughout Europe. It evoked passionate rebukes of the Prince in the Reichstag and drew forth an important utterance from the former German Foreign Minister, who failed to refute its supremely important revelations. It was reported early in April that the German Government had taken steps to institute proceedings against the Prince on the charges of revealing State secrets and of treason to the State.

The memorandum was written by Prince Lichnowsky about eighteen months ago for the purpose of explaining and justifying his position to his personal friends, and only half a dozen typewritten copies were made. One of these copies, through a betrayal, reached the Wilhelmstrasse, and caused a great scandal, and another was communicated to some members of the Minority Socialist Party. But how it happened that a copy got across the German frontier remains a mystery. Internal evidence, however, leaves no doubt in regard to the authenticity of the document. It is entitled "My London Mission, 1912-1914," and is dated "Kuchelna, (Prince Lichnowsky's country seat,) August, 1916."

Prince Lichnowsky begins with a recital of the circumstances which led to his being appointed to London after many years of retirement from diplomacy, and a description of the European position as he then found it. The moment, he believes,

was undoubtedly favorable for a new attempt to get on a better footing with England. Our enigmatical Moroccan policy had repeatedly shaken confidence in our peaceful disposition and aroused the suspicion that we were not quite sure what we wanted, or that our intention was to keep Europe in suspense, and, when occasion served, to humiliate the French. An Austrian colleague, who was long in Paris, said to me, "If the French begin to forget révanche, you regularly remind them of it by treading heavily on their toes."

After rejecting M. Delcassé's attempt to come to an agreement with us in regard to Morocco, and declaring that we had no political interests there, an attitude which was in full accordance with the traditions of the Bismarckian policy, we suddenly recognized in Abdul Aziz a Kruger No. 2. To him, also, like the Boers, we promised the powerful support of the German Empire--at the same cost and with the same result. For both affairs ended, as they had to end, unless we were already then resolved to undertake a world war--namely, in withdrawal.

Our attitude promoted the Russo-Japanese and the Russo-British rapprochements. In face of the German peril all other conflicts fell into the background. The possibility of a new Franco-German war had become evident.

THE BRITISH PROGRAM

After describing the futility of Germany's Moroccan policy, Prince Lichnowsky goes on:

When I arrived in London, in November, 1912, public opinion had calmed about the Morocco question. Mr. Haldane's mission had certainly failed, since we had demanded a promise of neutrality instead of satisfying ourselves with a compact which would secure us against a British attack or an attack with British support. Sir Edward Grey, however, had not given up the idea of reaching an agreement with us and, as a beginning, made an attempt in this direction in the economic and colonial spheres. With Herr von Kühlmann as expert intermediary, an exchange of views took place concerning the renewal of the Portuguese Colonial Agreement and the Bagdad Railway, the object of which was to divide the aforesaid colonies, as well as Asia Minor, into spheres of interest. The British statesman desired, since the old disputes with France and Russia were settled, to reach a corresponding agreement with us. His aim was not to isolate us, but to get us to take part in the already established concert. Having succeeded in throwing a bridge across the Franco-British and Russo-British divisions, he wished also, as far as possible, to remove the causes of friction between England and Germany, and, by a network of agreements--to which might well eventually have been added an agreement on the unfortunate naval question--to secure the peace of the world.

This was Sir Edward Grey's program. In his own words "Without prejudice to the existing friendly understandings with France and Russia, which pursued no aggressive aims, and involved in themselves for England no binding obligations, to reach a friendly rapprochement and understanding with Germany." In short, to bring the two groups nearer together.

In this connection two schools of opinion--the optimists, who believed in the possibility of an understanding; the pessimists, who considered that war was sooner or later unavoidable. To the former belonged Mr. Asquith, Sir Edward Grey, Mr. Haldane, and most of the members of the Liberal Cabinet, as well as the leading Liberal organs, like The Westminster, The Chronicle, and The (Manchester) Guardian. To the pessimists belonged, primarily, Conservative politicians like Mr. Balfour, who on repeated occasions allowed me to know his opinion, and leading soldiers like Lord Roberts, who preached the necessity for the introduction of compulsory service; also the Northcliffe press, and the important English journalist, Mr. Garvin. During my time in office, however, this party refrained from all attacks, and maintained, both personally and politically, a friendly attitude. But our naval policy and our conduct in 1905, 1908, and 1911 had created among them the belief that some day it would come to war. The first school, exactly as among us in Germany, are now accused of foolishness and short-sightedness, while the second are regarded as true prophets.

Prince Lichnowsky goes on to describe the situation during the Balkan war. There were two policies, he says, open to Germany--to act as an impartial mediator and seek a stable settlement in accordance with the wishes of the Balkan peoples, or to conduct a strict Triple Alliance policy. He himself recommended the former, but the Wilhelmstrasse determined on the latter. Austria wished to keep Serbia from the Adriatic; Italy wished to prevent the Greeks from reaching Avlona; Russia supported the Serbs, France supported the Greeks. Germany had no motive whatever for supporting her allies, and thus bringing about a bad settlement, except the desire to consolidate what, in Prince Lichnowsky's opinion, was a palpably worthless alliance--worthless because it was obvious that Italy would break from the alliance in the event of war, while Austria was absolutely dependent on Germany in peace and war without an alliance.

The best way to increase Austria's dependence was to cultivate friendly relations between Germany and Russia. The Kaiser, for dynastic reasons, was in favor of the division of Albania between Greece and Serbia, but "when I, in a letter to him, urged this solution, I received from the Chancellor a severe reprimand to the effect that I was supporting Austria's enemies, and should refrain from direct correspondence with the Emperor."

Thus Germany decided to take her stand on the side of the Turkish and Magyar oppressors for the sake of the Triple Alliance--a fatal blunder, which Prince Lichnowsky describes as "all the more striking since a sudden Franco-Russian assault--the only hypothesis which could justify the Triple Alliance policy--could, in fact, be ruled out of our calculations."

DANGEROUS BALKAN POLICY

It was not only unnecessary, he declares, but dangerous, to pay attention to Austria's wishes, since to look at the Eastern question through Austrian spectacles must lead to a collision with Russia and a world war.

Such a policy, moreover, was bound to alienate sympathy among the young, strong, and aspiring communities of the Balkan Peninsula, who were ready to turn to us and to open their markets to us. The opposition between courts and peoples, between the dynastic and the democratic idea of the State, was clearly defined, and, as usual, we stood on the wrong side. * * * In Serbia, against our own economic interests, we supported the Austrian policy of strangulation. We have always ridden horses whose collapse could be foreseen--Kruger, Abdul Aziz, Abdul Hamid, and William of Wied--and finally we came to grief in Berchtold's stable.

Prince Lichnowsky proceeds to describe the Conference of Ambassadors in London in 1913, and the influential and conciliatory part played there by Sir Edward Grey, who always, he says, found a way out of every apparent deadlock.

But we, instead of taking up a position analogous to that of England, invariably espoused the standpoint of Vienna. Count Mensdorff led the Triple Alliance in London; I was his second. My task consisted in supporting his proposals. In Berlin the prudent and experienced Count Szögyény was in control. "Here the casus foederis arises," was his constant refrain, and when I once ventured to question the correctness of this conclusion I was seriously warned for Austrophobia. At all points we accepted and supported the views of Austria and Italy. Sir Edward Grey, on the other hand, practically never sided with Russia or France. Usually, indeed, he took the side of our group, so as not to provide any pretext for conflict. That pretext was supplied later by a dead Archduke.

THE GUILT ESTABLISHED

Lichnowsky states that a few days after the Serajevo murder of June 28, 1914, he was in Berlin, and from interviews with Chancellor von Bethmann Hollweg he found that the latter did not share the Prince's belief that peace might be maintained, and complained of Russian armaments. The memorandum continues:

I then went to Dr. Zimmermann, who was representing Herr von Jagow, [Foreign Secretary,] and from him learned that Russia was about to raise 900,000 fresh troops. His words showed an unmistakable animosity toward Russia, which, he said, was everywhere in our way. Of course, I was not told that General von Moltke was pressing for war. I learned, however, that Herr von Tschereschky [the German Ambassador in Vienna] had received a rebuke because he reported that he had advised moderation in Vienna toward Serbia.

Subsequently I learned that at a decisive conversation in Potsdam July 5 an inquiry addressed to us by Vienna found positive assent among all personages in authority. Indeed, they added that there would be no harm if war with Russia were to result. I received instruction that I was to induce the English press to take up a friendly attitude if Austria gave the deathblow to the Great Serbian movement, and as far as possible I was, by my influence, to prevent public opinion opposing Austria.

I gave warning against the whole project, which I described as adventurous and dangerous, and I advised that moderation be recommended to the Austrians because I did not believe in localization of conflict.

Herr von Jagow answered me that Russia was not ready, that there doubtless would be a certain amount of bluster, but that the more firmly we stood by Austria the more would Russia draw back. He said Austria already was accusing us of want of spirit and we must not squeeze her; and that, on the other hand, feeling in Russia was becoming ever more anti-German and so we must simply risk it.

I knew that Sir Edward Grey's influence in Petrograd could be turned to use in favor of peace, so I used my friendly relations with Sir Edward, [British Foreign Secretary,] and in confidence begged him to advise moderation in Russia if Austria demanded satisfaction from Serbia.

At first the attitude of the English press was calm and friendly to the Austrians because the murder was condemned, but gradually more and more voices were heard to insist that, however necessary it was to punish the crime, exploitation of crime for political purposes could not be justified. Austria was strongly urged to show moderation.

When the ultimatum appeared, all the papers, except The Standard, which was always like slow water and apparently was paid by the Austrians, were as one in their condemnation. The whole world, except in Berlin and Vienna, understood that it meant war, and indeed a world war.

The British fleet, which chanced to be assembled for review, was not demobilized.

England and Russia for Peace

At first I pressed for a conciliatory answer as far as possible on the part of Serbia, since the attitude of the Russian Government left no further doubt of the seriousness of the situation. The Serbian reply was in accordance with the British efforts, and everything actually had been accepted except two points, about which a readiness to negotiate had been expressed.

If Russia and England had wanted war in order to fall upon us a hint to Belgrade would have been sufficient, and the unheard of [Austrian] note would have remained unanswered. Sir Edward Grey went through the Serbian reply with me and pointed to the conciliatory attitude of the Government at Belgrade. We then discussed his mediation proposal, which was to arrange an interpretation of the two points acceptable to both parties.

Cambon, [French Ambassador in London,] Marquis Imperiali, [Italian Ambassador in London,] and I should have met under Sir Edward Grey's presidency, and it would have been easy to find an acceptable form for the disputed points which, in the main, concerned the participation of Austrian officials in the investigation at Belgrade.

Given good will, everything could have been settled in one or two sittings, and mere acceptance of the British proposal would have relieved the tension and would further have improved our relations to England. I urgently recommended the proposal, saying that otherwise a world war was imminent, in which we had everything to lose and nothing to gain.