_Lusitania_
horror, the strewing of mines broadcast, the use of poisonous gases
causing death by torture or incurable disease; the taking of hostages;
the arbitrary imposition of monetary indemnities and penalties, and so
forth. It is these facts that the non-combatant nations charge
against Germany, and quite apart from the responsibility for the war,
it is in them that may be found the main reason why public opinion in
neutral countries has more and more turned against Germany as the war
has continued.

I say "innocent Belgium," for it is entirely evident that the
Belgian-English pourparlers, of which Germany discovered documentary
evidence, _related merely to the eventuality of Germany's violating
Belgian neutrality_, and therefore in no way constituted a
relinquishment of neutrality on Belgium's part. _In so far as these
pourparlers did not keep strictly within these limits_ (manifestly as
a result of excessive zeal on the part of the English military attache
in question) _they were formally and categorically rejected and
disavowed, by both the Belgian and English Governments_. This is shown
by official papers which have been published. It cannot be doubted
that these proceedings of disavowal were entirely _bona fide_, for
they took place at a time and under circumstances such that no one
could possibly have imagined that the correspondence evidencing them
would ever see the light of day. Inasmuch as you mention these
Anglo-Belgian pourparlers as among the reasons justifying Germany's
invasion of Belgium, it is worth pointing out that this treaty defying
invasion was perpetrated _before_ Germany had discovered the existence
of the documents which evidenced that such pourparlers had taken
place.

Germany's reasoning that she was compelled to take the initiative in
violating the treaty of neutrality in order to avoid the imminent
danger that England and France would do so first and thereupon advance
troops against her through Belgium, is, even if such reasoning were
morally admissible, no valid argument; for, only a few days before,
England and France had solemnly pledged themselves in the face of the
whole world to respect Belgium's neutrality.

If, as you believe, England had been planning for years to attack
Germany via Belgium, would she not then have had in readiness an
invading force somewhere near adequate for such an undertaking?
Instead she had the mere bagatelle of 75,000 or 100,000 men, which in
the f