LAND & WATER 
August 23, 1917 
hold the ruins of Westhoek and HiU 48, a^d ^he s^e thing 
happened in the immediate neighbourhood of HiU 64. " is 
here that the small southern projectioq. oft^e Nuns Wood 
(which the British soldiers call Glencorse Wood) has its im- 
portance. It. stands on the shoulder of the highest point. 
In the first sweep of the offensive some of the attackers got as 
far eastward as into Polygon Wood, well over the ridge and 
beginning to go dovsTiwards on the other side. A few seem 
3ven to have reached the racecourse, according totiie descrip- 
tions given by the newspaper correspondents. A violent 
counter-attack tlirew them back to the line of the ridge again ; 
the fight continued, and presumably will continue until the 
next blow is struck, for the possession of the highest points, 
being particularly violent in Glencorse Wood. If the enemy 
loses that southern piUar his scheme of defence is consider- 
ably weakened, and he is doing everything he can to nuintain 
it even at the risk of weakening himself in the centre, and there- 
fore suffering such a blow, for instance, as the second opera- 
tion of the week, which cost him 500 yards of depth to the 
south-east of St. Julien. , , ^ , x. 
For his Northern pillar, the forest of Houthulst, he has 
perhaps less fear. For one thing it is not yet reacl\ed. The 
French are still nearly two miles from its main body, and even 
from the outskirting copses a full mile. When, or if, the next 
blow carries the French up to the forest itself, it is so great 
and formidable an obstacle that the Germans rely clearly .upon 
its standing, while between the forest and the inundated area 
on the north, the gate is narrow and very swampy. 
We see from all this how the enemy's anxiety concentrates 
upon a little lump of high land in the Gheluvelt region, and why 
it has taken the place it hasdn the story of the last few days. 
Westhoek. 
GheUtvelrj^ 
The Pope's Note 
The suggestion for a; consideration of peace which the Pope 
has sent to the belligerent Powers has one dominating interest. 
It may be put in the following question : " Why does a 
certain false view of the war almost invariably appear in any 
neutral statement ? " For that is really the point where 
intellectual curiosity as distinguished from passion is 
aroused. That is the historical interest of the thing. 
The man of the remote future who may be indifferent to 
the issues of this enormous conflict ; some intelligent and well- 
read person among our contemporaries, who is so detached 
as also to be indifferent (if there be one such still remaining) 
would certainly ask that question. 
Why is it that not only in this suggestion for peace which 
has last been circulated from the Vatican to the belligerent 
Powers, but in the simplest conversation with chance travellers 
from neutral countries, in a glance at the few remaining 
newspapers of neutral countries which have not taken sides, 
even in the general statements and offers for peace which 
came earlier from countries once neutral but now dragged 
into the war — why is itithat we find in them all a certain note, 
a certain point of view, which we in the capitals of the modern 
world, I mean in London and in Paris, know perfectly well 
to be false ? 
Before trying to answer that question let me state what 
that note is and then proceed to prove its lack of correspond- 
ence to reality— not a difficult task. After that we may pro- 
perly -approach the answer to the question of how so stupend- 
ous an error has arisen and why it is almost universal at the 
present moment. 
In general terms the tone of which I speak may be said to 
run thus : 
" The Great Powers of Europe are engaged in a terrible 
struggle which is costing physical and spiritual pain after a 
fashion never known before. Each groupof the two Alliances 
believes itself to be in the right. Each says that it is fight- 
ing for its existence. The two claims cancel out one against 
the other and all that remains is a horrible welter of incal- 
culable suffering ground out by opposing forces which are in 
a deadlock, and neither of which will, with any probability 
be able to enforce its will upon the other. There is more than 
this. Neither party can now state clearly what that will is. 
Not only can neither be victorious over its rival, but neither 
is clear upon what the results of victory should be. You have 
then, aftef three years of increasing horror, which now threaten 
to grow into a general desolation of Europe, no issue but the 
obvious one of a mutual admission of error and an agreement 
to cease the carnage. 
" There would obviously be in such a truce points unsolved 
bv a mere cessation of arms. Thus territory originally be- 
longing to one set of belligerents is now occupied by the other. 
Wanton damage has been done by both parties. There are 
clear cases of moral dues owed here and there from one side 
to the other. But these are points of detail which a sober 
examination could settle rightly. The main and right view 
is that the population of very nearly <all civilised Europe 
has got dragged into an awful gladiator's show which threatens 
an increasing weakness or even an extinction of the civilisa- 
tion common to all. Let the misunderstanding be resolved by a 
call to parley, and the details of particular wrongs settled by 
particular arbitration." 
That, I think, is how the matter stands in the minds of 
those who have at various periods in the last two years appealed 
for peace. It is a statement true not only of this last Papal 
suggestion but true also of manj' a note we may remember 
from neutral sources, and especially true of what is least sus- 
pect of bias or afterthought, and therefore most valuable as a 
witness, the chance conversation of neutrals in the smaller 
countries and of the most detached of the writers in their Press. 
It is the point of view (when they are honest) of the little 
cliques up and down the alliance who amaze us by their 
talk of Stockholm conferences and the rest just as the phase 
of victory opens. 
I say that this point of vi;w is very widespread and to be 
discovered almost everywhere in men Mio profess a complete 
detachment from the quarrel. 
That is the first and most obvious point in the phenomenon 
we have to study. 
Now this point of view is false. It does not correspond 
to reality. The proof that it is false is so simple a matter 
that one is almost ashamed to set it down again in a newspaper 
attached to the cause of the Allies. For the truth has been told 
over and over again, and it is as surely as plain as the sun 
in Heaven: 
But because we are discussing this matter and because it 
is never a waste to make things' quite clear, let us tabulate 
the plain historical statements which demolish every contention 
among those I have enumerated. 
(t) All war is just or unjust mainly according to who is 
the aggressor. Who was the aggressor in this campaign ? 
Prussia was the aggressor. Prussia desired the war, prepared 
for the war, and launched the war in the belief that she would 
easily win the war. 
How do we know this ? Upon the following evidence : 
(a) Prussia from three years before the outbreak of the 
war began to take steps in view of a coming campaign. The 
heavy artillery was re-formed ; the pace of munitionment 
was accelerated and numerous dispositions appeared at the 
outbreak of the fighting which had required from two to three 
years for their development. In the interval there was a great 
levy on capital for the purposes of war throughout the German 
Empire. Tlie German (that is the Pnissian) armies were sud- 
denly and dramatically increased by a specicd statute, and in 
many particular cases that could be proved notice was 
privately sent, towards the end of the period, to interested 
parties, of coming hostilities. Financial preparation was 
further discovered after the event to have been made for many 
months upon the market of London, the whole calculated for 
the date on which war broke out. Lastly, a great levy on 
