Activate Javascript or update your browser for the full Digital Library experience.
Previous Page
–
Next Page
OCR
THE FATHERLAND 5
RECENT FICTION BY ARNOLD BENNETT
AND OTHERS
HEN England desired to present her case to the
United States in the Saturday Evening Post. she
appealed not to one of her statesmen but to one of her
writers of fiction. Arnold Bennett’s plea for his country
makes up in sentimental appeals to the spirit of liberty
what it lacks in content. Evidently the German Army,
after having conquered England, will march straight
across the ocean to threaten republican institutions in the
United States. If Mr. Bennett chooses to make this fan-
ciful point, that is his privilege as an imaginative writer.
lVe do not blame him for omitting to state that English
Navalism is a far more immediate danger to the United
States than German Militarism. VVe will not even he
cruel enough to remind him of the military and maritime
operations of England's ally, Japan, in the neighborhood‘
of the Philippine Islands. But when Mr. Arnold Bennett
descends to brazen fraud and prostitutes the hospitable
pages of the'Satnrday Evening Post to circulate a wilful
lie, he transgresses the privilege of fiction. In fact, he
demolishes his own case.
Mr. Bennett makes much of the strategic plans of
“General” von Edelsheim, a “member of the German
General Staff," against the United States. in case of a
war with Germany, and vividly insinuates that the Metro-
politan Building and other historic landmarks of New
York have already been singled out by the Germans to
share the fate of Louvain. If Mr. Bennett, stating the
case for Great Britain, had taken the trouble to borrow
in the British VVar Office or in the library of the British
Museum a copy of the German Army Lists, he Would
have found that no “General” by that name exists in the
Germany Army. If hehad inquired further before mak-
ing his monstrous assertion he would have discovered
that no officer by that name was ever -a member of the
German General Staff." VVe were convinced of this when
we first heard of von Edelsheim, but we hesitated to bury
that gallant “General” forever until we had received in-
Controvertible information from sources of unquestion-
able authenticity. We quote a letter from the Imperial
German Military Attache, Colonel vou Papen, dated
Washington, D. C., October 21, 1914:
“In reply to your inquiry about Mr. A. Bennett's ar-
ticle in the Saturday Evening Post I beg to state: no
‘General’ non Edclshcim has ever existed in the German
Army, nor has an oj7ircr of that name at any time been a
member of the German General Stajf. This can be easily
proved by studying the German Army lists. The author
mentioned by Mr. Bennett, as far as I know, only held
the position of captain in the Prussian Army years ago.
“It seems to me an absurdity to charge the German
General Staff with the responsibility for a publication
which hasialready so often been repudiated not only by
the authorities but by the whole of German’ public
Opinion.”
The much-quoted plan of invasion may actually have
been published by a retired officer. The fact that this
plan was published proves that it is not authentic. The
fact that he is “retired” proves that the author was, to
say the least, not indispensable to the Germany ‘Army.
Mr. Bennett’s article has been published in pamphlet
form. If Mr.rBennett is a man of honor. he will with-
draw the pamphlet from circulation. If he does not, we
shall draw our own conclusion. At any. rate, we have
revealed in what fiimsy fabrics England bolsters up her
case, and with what criminal carelessness for facts she
attempts to poison" public opinion in the United‘ States.
In the current number oflMunscy’s Magazine there is
another case of calculated rnendacity with the sole ob-
ject of misleading public opinion. The responsibility for
the article in question rests not on the editors, but on an
unscrupulous contributor. The author in question states
that “the attitude of Schleswig Holstein itself toward
Germany in her present struggle is perhaps best indicated
by the fact that Prince Albert of Schleswig-Holstein, a
lieutenant-general in the German Army, has resigned his
commission zind has joined the British forces in their
operations against his former chief and suzerain." An
inquiry on the subject brought forth the following reply
from the German Military Attache: “I want to state
that Prince Albertlof Schle.rwig-Holstein is with the
German Army in France and holds a high fvosition in the
second army.” VVe have had no ditiiculty in eliciting this
information. The same source of information was open
to the editor of M mz:ey’s. It is open to any editor who
prefers truth to fiction. ‘
THE PRESS IS WAKING UP.
New York Dailies Getting Tired of Being the
Victims of the London Censor.
I
New York Evening Post: “That there have been gross
misrepresentations and endless lies in the news dispatches no
one can deny; the latest absurdity being the report of Count
von Moltke's retirement as Chief of Staff in favor of a little-
known junior general. The most striking allegation of Brit-
ish duplicity we have seen is what is apparently a deliberate
falsification by the Central News Association of an ofiicial
statement of Gen. von Stein, sent out from Amsterdam.
As reprinted in the Hamburg Fremdenblatt of September 18.
from the London Time: and Daily Telegraph, a statement
of Gen. von Stein’s, reading that the “approach of new'and
strong hostile forces compelled the moving back of one wing.
but the enemy nowhere followed,’ is translated to read ‘but
stronger hostile columns came to the assistance, ‘and the en-
emy won the battle, obliging the German troops to retire.‘
Everything else in von Stein's dispatch was translated with
scrupulous tidelity. On its face, this garbling of official re-
portsis nothing less than an outrage, and a disgrace to, Brit-
ish journalism. About the British censorship, which has
played anything but abroad-minded or generous pan, we
may have something to say later.” '