I'm sometimes white, Although sometimes I'm black. I take you there, But never bring you back. What am I? ... Read more of I'm sometimes white, at Free Jokes.caInformational Site Network Informational
Home - World War Stories - American Heros - Hero Stories - War Stories - British Navy

War Stories

There are many ways of fighting, and the Germans, in their ...

Can War Ever Be Right?
After England had entered the war against the Central Power...

The Beast In Man
A German leader once said, "The oldest right in the world i...

Carry On!
It's easy to fight when everything's right, And yo...

The Hun Target The Red Cross
All the civilized nations of the world have agreed to respe...

The Battles Of The Marne
At Marathon (490 B.C.) and at Salamis (480 B.C.) the Greeks...

The Shot Heard Round The World
On April 19, 1775, was fired "the shot heard round the worl...

The Mexican Plot
It is true that Germany does not know the meaning of honest...

Killing The Soul
As the centuries pass, the greatest glory of any nation, it...

The Queen's Flower
On July 25, 1918, nearly every person in Washington, the ca...

Bacilli And Bullets
Sir William Osler, one of the greatest medical men in the w...

Let Us Save The Kiddies
At 12:20 noon, on Saturday, May 1, 1915, there steamed out ...

When Germany Lost The War
No man knows exactly when and where the three and twenty al...

Daring The Undarable
We are thirty in the hands of Fate And thirty-one wi...

She is a wall of brass; You shall not pass! You sh...

Marshal Foch
A Great German philosopher said many years ago that history...

And The Cock Crew
"I hate them all!" said old Gaspard, And in his we...

What One American Did
If a person had been standing one night beside the railroad...

Why We Fight Germany
Because of Belgium, invaded, outraged, enslaved, impoverish...

He hurried away, young heart of joy, under our Devon sk...

Can War Ever Be Right?

After England had entered the war against the Central Powers, Gilbert
Murray, an English writer, asked this question and answered it by
saying "Yes," and giving his reasons.

He had always favored peace. He hated war, not merely for its own
cruelty and folly, but because it was an enemy of good government, of
friendship and gentleness, and of art, learning, and literature.

Yet he believed firmly that England was right in declaring war against
Germany on August 4, 1914, and that she would have failed in her duty
if she had remained neutral. France, Russia, Belgium, and Serbia had no
choice. They were obliged to fight, for the war was forced upon them.
Germany did not wish to fight England; but after carefully looking over
the whole matter, England, of her own free will, declared war. She took
upon her shoulders a great responsibility. But she was right.

With a few changes in the wording and some omissions, the argument of
Gilbert Murray is as follows:

"How can such a thing be? It is easy enough to see that our cause is
right, and that the German cause is wrong. It is hardly possible to
study the official papers issued by the British, the German, and the
Russian governments, without seeing that Germany--or some party in
Germany--had plotted this war beforehand; that she chose a moment when
she thought her neighbors were at a disadvantage; that she prevented
Austria from making a settlement even at the last moment; that in order
to get more quickly at France she violated her treaty with Belgium.
Evidence shows that she has carried out the violation with a cruelty
that has no equal in the wars of modern and civilized nations. Yet
there may be some people who still feel doubtful. Germany's wrong-doing
they think is no reason for us to do likewise. We did our best to keep
the general peace; there we were right. We failed; the German
government made war in spite of us. There we were unfortunate. It was a
war already on an enormous scale and we decided to make it larger
still. There we were wrong. Could we not have stood aside, as the
United States did, ready to help refugees and sufferers, anxious to
heal wounds and not make them, watchful for the first chance of putting
an end to this time of horror?

"'Try for a moment,' they say, 'to realize the suffering in one small
corner of a battlefield. You have seen a man here and there badly hurt
in an accident; you have seen perhaps a horse with its back broken, and
you can remember how dreadful it seemed to you. In that one corner how
many men, how many horses, will be lying, hurt far worse, and just
waiting to die? Terrible wounds, extreme torment; and all, further than
any eye can see, multiplied and multiplied! And, for all your just
anger against Germany, what have these wounded done? The horses are not
to blame for anybody's foreign policy. They have only come where their
masters took them. And the masters themselves ... though certain German
rulers and leaders are wicked, these soldiers, peasants, working-men,
shop-keepers, and schoolmasters, have really done nothing in

particular; at least, perhaps they have now, but they had not up to the
time when you, seeing they were in war and misery already, decided to
make war on them also and increase their sufferings. You say that
justice must be done on such wrong-doers. But as far as the rights and
wrongs of the war go, you are simply condemning to death and torture
innocent men, by thousands and thousands; is that the best way to
satisfy your sense of justice? These innocent people, you say, are
fighting to protect the guilty parties whom you are determined to
reach. Well, perhaps, at the end of the war, after millions of innocent
people have suffered, you may at last, if all goes well with your arms,
get at the "guilty parties." You will hold an inquiry, you will decide
that certain Prussians with long titles are the guilty parties, and
even then you will not know what to do with them. You will probably
try, and almost certainly fail, to make them somehow feel ashamed. It
is likely enough that they will instead become great national heroes.

"'And after all, this is supposed to be a war in which one party is
wrong and the other right, and the right wins. Suppose both are wrong;
or suppose the wrong party wins? It is as likely as not; for, if the
right party is helped by his good conscience, the wrong has probably
taken pains to have the odds on his side before he began quarreling. In
that case, all the wild waste of blood and treasure, all the suffering
of innocent people and dumb animals, all the tears of women and
children have not set up the right, but established the wrong. To do a
little evil that great or certain good may come is all very well; but
to do great evil for only a chance of getting something which half the
people may think good and the other half think bad ... that is neither
good morals nor good sense. Anybody not in a passion must see that it
is insanity,' So they say who think war always wrong.

"Their argument is wrong. It is judging war as a profit-and-loss
account. It leaves out of sight the fact that in some causes it is
better to fight and be broken than to yield peacefully; that sometimes
the mere act of resisting to the death is in itself a victory.

"Let us try to understand this. The Greeks who fought and died at
Thermopylæ had no doubt that they were doing right to fight and die,
and we all agree with them. They probably knew they would be defeated.
They probably expected that, after their defeat, the Persians would
easily conquer the rest of Greece, and would treat it much more harshly
because it had resisted. But such thoughts did not affect them. They
would not consent to their country's dishonor.

"Take again a very clear modern case: the fine story of the French
tourist who was captured, together with a priest and some other white
people, by Moorish robbers. The Moors gave their prisoners the choice
either to trample on the Cross or to be killed. The Frenchman was not a
Christian. He disliked Christianity. But he was not going to trample on
the Cross at the orders of a robber. He stuck to his companions and
died with them.

"Honor and dishonor are real things. I will not try to define them; but
will only notice that, like religion, they admit no bargaining. Indeed,
we can almost think of honor as being simply that which a free man
values more than life, and dishonor as that which he avoids more than
suffering or death. And the important point for us is that there are
such things as honor and dishonor.

"There are some people, followers of Tolstoy, who accept this as far as
dying is concerned, but will have nothing to do with killing. Passive
resistance, they say, is right; martyrdom is right; but to resist
violence by violence is sin.

"I was once walking with a friend of Tolstoy's in a country lane, and a
little girl was running in front of us. I put to him the well-known
question: 'Suppose you saw a man, wicked or drunk or mad, run out and
attack that child. You are a big man, and carry a big stick: would you
not stop him and, if necessary, knock him down?' 'No,' he said, 'why
should I commit a sin. I would try to persuade him, I would stand in
his way, I would let him kill me, but I would not strike him,' Some few
people will always be found, less than one in a thousand, to take this
view. They will say: 'Let the little girl be killed or carried off; let
the wicked man commit another wickedness; I, at any rate, will not add
to the mass of useless violence that I see all around me.'

"With such persons one cannot reason, though one can often respect
them. Nearly every normal man will feel that the real sin, the real
dishonor, lies in allowing such an act to be committed under your eyes
while you have the strength to prevent it. And the stronger you are,
the greater your chance of success, by so much the more are you bound
to interfere. If the robbers are overpoweringly strong and there is no
chance of beating them, then and only then should you think of
martyrdom. Martyrdom is not the best possibility. It is almost the
worst. It is the last resort when there is no hope of successful
resistance. The best thing--suppose once the robbers are there and
intent on crime--the best thing is to overawe them at once; the next
best, to defeat them after a hard struggle; the third best, to resist
vainly and be martyred; the worst of all, the one evil that need never
be endured, is to let them have their own will without protest.

"We have noticed that in all these cases of honor there seems to be no
counting of cost, no balancing of good and evil. Ordinarily we are
always balancing results, but when honor or religion come on the scene,
all such balancing ceases. The point of honor is the point at which a
man says to some wrong proposal, 'I will not do it. I will rather die.'

"These things are far easier to see where one man is concerned than
where it is a whole nation. But they arise with nations, too. In the
case of a nation the material consequences are much larger, and the
point of honor is apt to be less clear. But, in general, whenever one
nation in dealing with another relies simply on force or fraud, and
denies to its neighbor the common consideration due to human beings, a
point of honor must arise.

"Austria says suddenly to Serbia: 'You are a wicked little state. I
have annexed and governed against their will some millions of your
countrymen, yet you are still full of anti-Austrian feeling, which I
do not intend to allow. You will dismiss from your service all
officials, politicians, and soldiers who do not love Austria, and I
will further send you from time to time lists of persons whom you are
to dismiss or put to death. And if you do not agree to this within
forty-eight hours, I, being vastly stronger than you, will make you. As
a matter of fact, Serbia did her very best to comply with Austria's
demands; she accepted about two thirds of them, and asked for
arbitration on the remaining third. But it is clear that she could not
accept them all without being dishonored. That is, Serbia would have
given up her freedom at the threat of force; the Serbs would no longer
be a free people, and every individual Serb would have been humiliated.
He would have confessed himself to be the kind of man who will yield
when an Austrian bullies him. And if it is urged that under good
Austrian government Serbia would become richer and safer, and the
Serbian peasants get better markets, such pleas cannot be listened to.
They are a price offered for slavery; and a free man will not accept
slavery at any price.

"Germany, again, says to Belgium: 'We have no quarrel with you, but we
intend for certain reasons to march across your territory and perhaps
fight a battle or two there. We know that you are pledged by treaty not
to allow any such thing, but we cannot help that. Consent, and we will
pay you afterwards; refuse, and we shall make you wish you had never
been born.' At that moment Belgium was a free, self-governing state. If
it had yielded to Germany's demand, it would have ceased to be either
free or self-governing. It is possible that, if Germany had been
completely victorious, Belgium would have suffered no great material
injury; but she would have taken orders from a stranger who had no
right to give them, simply because he was strong. Belgium refused. She
has had some of her towns destroyed, some thousands of her soldiers
killed, many more thousands of her women, children, and non-combatants
outraged and beggared; but she is still free. She still has her honor.

"Let us think this matter out more closely. The follower of Tolstoy
will say: 'We speak of Belgium's honor and Serbia's honor; but who is
Serbia and who is Belgium? There is no such person as either. There are
only great numbers of people who happen to be Serbians and Belgians,
and who mostly have had nothing to do with questions at issue. Some of
them are honorable people, some dishonorable. The honor of each one of
them depends very much on whether he pays his debts and tells the
truth, but not in the least on whether a number of foreigners walk
through his country or interfere with his government. King Albert and
his ministers might feel humiliated if the German government compelled
them to give way against their will; but would the ordinary
population? Would the ordinary peasant or shop-keeper or artisan in the
districts of Vise and Liége and Louvain have felt particularly
disgraced or ashamed? He would probably have made a little money and
been greatly amused by the sight of the troops passing. He would not
have suffered any injury that can for a moment be compared with what he
has suffered now, in order that his government might feel proud of

"I will not raise the point that, as a matter of fact, to grant a right
of way to Germany would have been to declare war against France, so
that Belgium would not, by giving up her independence, have been spared
the danger of war. I will assume that it was simply a question of
honor. And I believe that our follower of Tolstoy is very wrong.

"Is it true, in a healthy and well-governed state, that the average
citizen is indifferent to the honor of his country? We know that it is
not. True, the average citizen may often not understand what is going
on, but as soon as he knows, he cares. Suppose for a moment that the
King, or the Prime Minister, or the President of the United States,
were found to be in the pay of a foreign state, can any one pretend
that the ordinary citizens of Great Britain or America would take it
quietly? That any normal man would be found saying: 'Well, the King, or
the President, or the Prime Minister, is behaving dishonorably, but
that is a matter for him, not for me. I am an honest and honorable man,
and my government can do what it likes.' The notion is absurd. The
ordinary citizen would feel instantly and without question that his
country's honor involved his own. And woe to the society in which it
were otherwise! We know of such societies in history. They are the kind
which is called 'corrupt,' and which generally has not long to live.
Belgium has proved that she is not that kind of society.

"But what about Great Britain herself? At the present moment a very
clear case has arisen, and we can test our own feelings. Great Britain
had, by a solemn treaty, pledged herself to help keep the neutrality of
Belgium. Belgium is a little state lying between two very strong
states, France and Germany, and in danger of being overrun or abused by
one of them unless the Great Powers guaranteed her safety. The treaty,
signed by Prussia, Russia, Austria, France, and Great Britain, bound
all these Powers not to attack Belgium, move troops into it, or annex
any part of it; and further, to resist by armed force any Power which
should try to do any of these things. Belgium, on her part, was bound
to maintain her own neutrality to the best of her power, and not to
side with any state which was at war with another.

"At the end of July, 1914, the exact case arose in which we had
pledged ourselves to act. Germany, suddenly and without excuse, invaded
Belgium, and Belgium appealed to us and France to defend her. Meantime
she fought alone, desperately, against overwhelming odds. The issue was
clear. The German Chancellor, Herr von Bethmann-Hollweg, in his speech
of August 6, admitted that Germany had no grievance against Belgium,
and no excuse except 'necessity.' She could not get to France quick
enough by the direct road. Germany put her case to us, roughly, on
these grounds. 'True, you did sign a treaty, but what is a treaty? We
ourselves signed the same treaty, and see what we are doing! Anyhow,
treaty or no treaty, we have Belgium in our power. If she had done what
we wanted, we would have treated her kindly; as it is we shall show her
no mercy. If you will now do what we want and stay quiet, later on we
will consider a friendly deal with you. If you interfere, you must take
the consequences. We trust you will not be so insane as to plunge your
whole empire into danger for the sake of "a scrap of paper."' Our
answer was: 'Evacuate Belgium within twelve hours or we fight you.'

"I think that answer was right. Consider the situation carefully. No
question arises of overhaste or lack of patience on our part. From the
first moment of the crisis, we had labored night and day in every court
of Europe for any possible means of peace. We had carefully and
sincerely explained to Germany beforehand what attitude she might
expect from us. We did not send our ultimatum till Belgium was already
invaded. It is just the plain question put to the British government,
and, I think, to every one who feels himself a British citizen: 'The
exact case contemplated in your treaty has arisen: the people you swore
to protect is being massacred; will you keep your word at a gigantic
cost, or will you break it at the bidding of Germany?' For my own part,
weighing the whole question, I would rather die than submit; and I
believe that the government, in deciding to keep its word at the cost
of war, has expressed the feeling of the average British citizen.

"War is not all evil. It is a true tragedy, which must have nobleness
and triumph in it as well as disaster, but we must not begin to praise
war without stopping to reflect on the hundreds of thousands of human
beings involved in such horrors of pain that, if here in our ordinary
hours we saw one man so treated, the memory would sicken us to the end
of our lives; we must remember the horses and dogs, remember the gentle
natures brutalized by hardship and filth, and the once decent persons
transformed by rage and fear into devils of cruelty. But, when we have
realized that, we may begin to see in this desert of evil some oases of

"Do the fighting men become degraded? Day after day come streams of
letters from the front, odd stories, fragments of diaries, and the
like; full of the small intimate facts which reveal character, and
almost with one accord they show that these men have not fallen, but
risen. No doubt there has been some selection in the letters; to some
extent the writers repeat what they wish to have remembered, and say
nothing of what they wish to forget. But, when all allowances are made,
one cannot read the letters and the dispatches without a feeling of
admiration for the men about whom they tell. They were not originally a
set of chosen men. They were just our ordinary fellow citizens, the men
you meet on a crowded pavement. There was nothing to suggest that their
conduct in common life was better than that of their neighbors. Yet
now, under the stress of war, having a duty before them that is clear
and unquestioned and terrible, they are daily doing nobler things than
we most of us have ever had the chance of doing, things which we hardly
dare hope that we might be able to do. I am not thinking of the rare
achievements that win a V.C. or a Cross of the Legion of Honor, but of
the common necessary heroism of the average man; the long endurance,
the devoted obedience, the close-banded life in which self-sacrifice is
the normal rule, and all men may be forgiven except the man who saves
himself at the expense of his comrade. I think of the men who share
their last biscuit with a starving peasant, who help wounded comrades
through days and nights of horrible retreat, who give their lives to
save mates or officers.

"For example, to take these two stories:

"Relating his experiences to a pressman, Lance-Corporal Edmondson, of
the Royal Irish Lancers, said: 'There is absolutely no doubt that our
men are still animated by the spirit of old. I came on a couple of men
of the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders who had been cut off at Mons.
One was badly wounded, but his companion had stuck by him all the time
in a country swarming with Germans, and, though they had only a few
biscuit between them, they managed to pull through until we picked them
up. I pressed the unwounded man to tell me how they managed to get
through the four days on six biscuit, but he always got angry and told
me to shut up. I fancy he went without anything, and gave the biscuit
to the wounded man. They were offered shelter many times by French
peasants, but they were so afraid of bringing trouble on these kind
folk that they would never accept shelter. One night they lay out in
the open all through a heavy downpour, though there was a house at hand
where they could have had shelter. Uhlans were on the prowl, and they
would not think of compromising the French people, who would have been
glad to help them.'

"The following story of an unidentified private of the Royal Irish
Regiment, who deliberately threw away his life in order to warn his
comrades of an ambush, is told by a wounded corporal of the West
Yorkshire Regiment now in hospital in Woolwich:

"'The fight in which I got hit was in a little French village near to
Rheims. We were working in touch with the French corps on our left, and
early one morning we were sent ahead to this village, which we had
reason to believe was clear of the enemy. On the outskirts we
questioned a French lad, but he seemed scared and ran away. We went on
through the long narrow street, and just as we were in sight of the
end, the figure of a man dashed out from a farmhouse on the right.
Immediately the rifles began to crack in front, and the poor chap fell
dead before he reached us.

"'He was one of our men, a private of the Royal Irish Regiment. We
learned that he had been captured the previous day by a party of German
cavalry, and had been held a prisoner at the farm, where the Germans
were in ambush for us. He tumbled to their game, and though he knew
that if he made the slightest sound they would kill him, he decided to
make a dash to warn us of what was in store. He had more than a dozen
bullets in him and there was not the slightest hope for him. We carried
him into a house until the fight was over, and then we buried him next
day with military honors. His identification disk and everything else
was missing, so that we could only put over his grave the tribute that
was paid to a greater: "He saved others; himself he could not save."
There wasn't a dry eye among us when we laid him to rest in that little

"Or I think again of the expressions on faces that I have seen or read
about, something alert and glad and self-respecting in the eyes of
those who are going to the front, and even of the wounded who are
returning. 'Never once,' writes one correspondent, 'not once since I
came to France have I seen among the soldiers an angry face or heard an
angry word.... They are always quiet, orderly, and wonderfully
cheerful.' And no one who has followed the war need be told of their
heroism. I do not forget the thousands left on the battlefield to die,
or the groaning of the wounded sounding all day between the crashes of
the guns. But there is a strange, deep gladness as well. 'One feels an
extraordinary freedom,' says a young Russian officer, 'in the midst of
death, with the bullets whistling round. The same with all the
soldiers. The wounded all want to get well and return to the fight.
They fight with tears of joy in their eyes.'

"Human nature is a mysterious thing, and man finds his weal and woe not
in the obvious places. To have something before you, clearly seen,
which you know you must do, and can do, and will spend your utmost
strength and perhaps your life in doing, that is one form at least of
very high happiness, and one that appeals--the facts prove it--not only
to saints and heroes but to average men. Doubtless the few who are wise
enough and have enough imagination, may find opportunity for that same
happiness in everyday life, but in war ordinary men find it. This is
the inward triumph which lies at the heart of the great tragedy."

* * * * *

O yet we trust that somehow good
Will be the final goal of ill,
To pangs of nature, sins of will,
Defects of doubt, and taints of blood;

That nothing walks with aimless feet;
That not one life shall be destroyed,
Or cast as rubbish to the void,
When God hath made the pile complete;

That not a worm is cloven in vain;
That not a moth with vain desire
Is shrivelled in a fruitless fire,
Or but subserves another's gain.

Behold, we know not anything;
I can but trust that good shall fall
At last--far off--at last, to all,
And every winter change to spring.


Next: What One American Did

Previous: Alan Seeger

Add to Informational Site Network

Viewed 1911

Untitled Document