do their unconscious little bit of harm to the future of freedom and
civilization, by repeating that England "has always been our enemy." Then
they mention the Revolution, the War of 1812, and England's attitude
during our Civil War, just as they invariably mentioned these things in
1917 and 1918, when England was our ally in a struggle [or life, and as
they will be mentioning them in 1940, I presume, if they are still alive
at that time.

Now, the Civil War ended fifty-five years ago, the War of 1812 one
hundred and five, and the Revolution one hundred and thirty-seven.
Suppose, while the Kaiser was butchering Belgium because she barred his
way to that dinner he was going to eat in Paris in October, 1914, that
France had said, "England is my hereditary enemy. Henry the Fifth and the
Duke of Wellington and sundry Plantagenets fought me"; and suppose
England had said, "I don't care much for France. Joan of Arc and Napoleon
and sundry other French fought me"--suppose they had sat nursing their
ancient grudges like that? Well, the Kaiser would have dined in Paris
according to his plan. And next, according to his plan, with the Channel
ports taken he would have dined in London. And finally, according to his
plan, and with the help of his "army of spies" overseas, he would have
dined in New York and the White House. For German madness could not have
defeated Germany's plan of World dominion, if various nations had not got
together and assisted. Other Americans there are, who do not resort to
the Revolution for their grudge, but are in a commercial rage over this
or that: wool, for instance. Let such Americans reflect that commercial
grievances against England can be more readily adjusted than an
absorption of all commerce by Germany can be adjusted. Wool and
everything else will belong to Mathias Erzberger and his breed, if they
carry out their intention. And the way to insure their carrying it out is
to let them split us and England and all their competitors asunder by