nd passion.

[Footnote 5: From "Everyman" to whose Editor I am indebted for
permission to print my reply.]

CHAPTER V.

OUR RESPONSIBILITY FOR BALKAN WARS.

Mr. Winston Churchill on the "Responsibility" of Diplomacy--What does he
mean?--An easy (and popular) philosophy--Can we neglect past if we would
avoid future errors?--British temper and policy in the Crimean War--What
are its lessons?--Why we fought a war to sustain the "integrity and
independence of the Turkish dominion in Europe"--Supporting the Turk
against his Christian victims--From fear of Russian growth which we are
now aiding--The commentary of events--Shall we back the wrong horse
again?

Here was a war which had broken out in spite of all that rulers and
diplomatists could do to prevent it, a war in which the Press had
had no part, a war which the whole force of the money power had
been subtly and steadfastly directed to prevent, which had come
upon us not through the ignorance or credulity of the people; but,
on the contrary, through their knowledge of their history and their
destiny.... Who is the man who is vain enough to suppose that the
long antagonisms of history and of time can in all circumstances be
adjusted by the smooth and superficial conventions of politicians
and ambassadors?

Thus Mr. Churchill. It is a plea for the inevitability, not merely of
war, but of a people's "destiny."

What precisely does it mean? Does it mean that the European Powers have
in the past been entirely wise and honest, have never intrigued with
the Turk the one against the other, have always kept good faith, have
never been inspired by false political theories and tawdry and shoddy
ideals, have, in short, no responsibility for the abominations that have
gone on in the Balkan peninsula for a century? No one outside a lunatic
asylum would urge it. But, then, that means that diplomacy has _not_
done all it might to prevent this war. Why does Mr. Churchill say it
has?

And does the passage I have quoted mean that we--that English
diplomacy--has had no part in European diplomacy in the past? Have we
not, on the contrary, by universal admission played a predominant role
by backing the wrong horse?

But, then, that is not a popular thing to point out, and Mr. Churchill
is very careful not to point it out in any way that could give
justification to an unpopular view or discredit a popular one. He is,
however