England would certainly remain neutral--and I think we may fairly say
that the extent to which Germany counted on this expected neutrality is
evidenced by her disappointment and public rage when she found that she
was mistaken.

Germany's initiative in the matter is further evidenced by her _instant
readiness_ to attack. She was in Luxemburg within a few hours of the
declaration of war with Russia; and it was clearly her intention to
"rush" Paris and then turn back upon Russia.

It may be said that from her own point of view Germany was quite right
to take the initiative. If she sincerely believed that the _Entente_ was
plotting her downfall, she was justified in attacking instead of waiting
to be attacked. That may be so. It is the line to which General
Bernhardi again returns in his latest book (_Britain as Germany's
Vassal_, translated by J. Ellis Barker). But it does not alter the fact
that this was an immense responsibility to take, and that the immediate
onus of the war rests with Germany. If she under all the above
circumstances precipitated war, she can hardly be surprised if the
judgment of Europe (one may also say the world) is against her. If she
has played her cards so badly as to put herself entirely in the wrong,
she must naturally "dree her weird."

There remains the case of her treatment of Belgium. Britain
certainly--who has only lately assisted at the dismemberment of Persia,
and who is even now allowing Russia (in the face of Persian protests) to
cross neutral territory in the neighbourhood of Tabriz on her way to
attack Turkey, who has uttered, moreover, no word of protest against the
late Ukase (of mid-November) by which the independent rights of Finland
have been finally crushed--Britain, I say, need talk no cant about