billion in excess of the amount required. On November 13, 1872, Thiers was able to declare proudly in his message to the National Assembly that the credit of France stood higher than ever; that she had expended eight billions of money in two years without disturbing business; that she had collected enormous revenues without ruining the taxpayers; that she had balanced her budget; that she had raised nearly two hundred million francs to pay upon the principal of her debt, and that notwithstanding all this the volume of her manufactures and trade had increased more than seven hundred million within a year. Throughout this period, her money remained at par, because the balance of trade was favorable to France.

On the other hand, the five billion francs of war indemnity that we received from France did not benefit Germany as was anticipated. The sudden gold inflation stimulated business abnormally, and in the year 1872 alone five hundred and three new corporations were formed. In May 1873 we had a great panic, followed by several years of acute business depression. Léon Say, in his financial report to the French Chamber of Deputies in 1875, reported with a touch of malicious delight that the business of France had suffered no injury from the war indemnity, while 'other nations are involved in a serious financial crisis the effects of which have been disastrous on many continental exchanges.' Indeed, not a few German economists asserted at the time that France's war indemnity was a gift of the Greeks.

I do not wish to minimize in the slightest France's great achievement in paying in full the five billion francs she owed us by March 5, 1873. But the fact that she was able to do so proves chiefly this: that Germany's demands

were reasonable; and moreover that Germany observed honestly the treaty she had made, and did not, as Poincaré has done, try to extort larger sums subsequently, for the explicit purpose of ruining her recent enemy. Germany did the contrary to this. She encouraged the revival of business in France, in order to make it easier for that country to fulfill her treaty obligations.

Another important point. Let us compare Germany's occupation of France with the French occupation of Germany to-day. Germany's occupation of France lasted thirty months and two weeks, from March 3, 1871, to September 16, 1873. The occupation of the Rhine country under the Versailles Treaty is to last fifteen years, and Poincaré insists that this period of fifteen years has not even yet begun.

In 1871 Germany at first occupied nineteen departments. Four months later she had withdrawn from all but six eastern departments and Belfort. She purposely hastened the withdrawal of her troops to oblige France and to strengthen the authority of the French Government. In contrast with this, France, in open defiance of the Versailles Treaty and of international law, has steadily enlarged her area of occupation, has seized the Ruhr, and has invaded with armed forces other districts in northern and southern Germany.

The German army of occupation in France, after November 1871, consisted of only fifty thousand men. The Franco-Belgian army of occupation in the Rhineland alone, not including the newly occupied territories, numbers one hundred and forty-five thousand men. The German costs of occupation in France, during the thirty months and two weeks her army was on the soil of that country, amounted to 340,737,500 gold francs. Each German soldier cost France 3.31

gold francs a day, because Germany charged France merely for rations and quarters for her men. Compared to this, the French costs of occupation in the Rhineland for the last thirty months and six weeks amount to 6,024,417,157 gold francs, or seventeen and a half times the cost of the German occupation for an equal period. Every French soldier in the Rhine country costs Germany daily 33.83 gold francs, or more than eleven times what a German soldier cost France from 1871 to 1873. Only two months of French occupation in the Rhineland cost 395,048,986 gold francs, or fifty-four million gold francs more than Germany's entire occupation of France after the war of 1870.

But what counts even more against the honor of France in connection with the occupation is the difference between the moral conduct of the occupying troops toward the civilian population. Our evacuation of France before the time set by the Frankfort Treaty was merely the final act of a series of mutual concessions. Shortly before the last German troops left that country, Thiers presented the German commanding officer, General von Manteuffel, with a copy of his History of the Consulate and Empire, with a dedication in which he thanked him for his 'humane

and noble administration of the occupied territories.' Contrast with this the passionate protest of Doctor Grützner, representing the local German authorities, to General Degoutte, after the assassination of our workingmen in Essen. Of course our Prussian officers were no more snow-white angels at that time than they have been later, and the hardships of the occupation were often felt severely enough by French civilians; but the fact remains that François Hanotaux, in his book, Contemporary France, felt called upon to point out that 'the benevolent and conciliatory spirit of concession in Berlin' extended also to the Germans in the occupied departments. Let me quote further in confirmation a German order of the day, dated 1871:

While the war has often compelled us to adopt vigorous measures, peace obligates us to show the utmost possible consideration. We are the victors. Therefore it is our duty to be generous and to spare the sensibilities of the defeated.

In any case, the German army of 1870 stood out in shining contrast to the present army of 'chivalrous' France. It put into practice the sentiment that our General von Clausewitz once expressed: 'My feelings revolt against seeing one man with his foot upon the neck of another.'

THIS book was written by a man of attractive personality, whom no one would accuse of being in Jewish pay. He was a real count - indeed, a Count of the Empire. He owned an ancient castle in Bohemia and also possessed broad acres in Hungary. His name Kalergi, from his mother's side, descends from the most ancient nobility of Croatia. He was educated at the Jesuit College in Kalksburg. He resided as an Austro-Hungarian diplomat in Athens, Rio de Janeiro, Constantinople, Buenos Aires, and Tokyo, and married a Japanese lady in the latter city. He traveled over the whole world. Resigning eventually from the diplomatic service, he devoted his later years to the life of a country gentleman and a student and the present book is a product of these studies.

Count Heinrich Coudenhove knew sixteen languages, including Hungarian, which he had taught to all his children. He was a Conservative, but a fair-minded man, intolerant of injustice. His chief intellectual interests

were public affairs and philosophy, During his last years religion acquired a strong ascendancy over his mind, and he became an enthusiastic admirer of the Trappist Order. To the end of his days he was a devoted Christian and Catholic.

Why then did he write this book, which is a defense of the Jews? He admits in the preface that he was at one

time an anti-Semite both in conviction and practice, partly because he abhorred the usurious extortions of certain Jews. But he had an intellectual passion for getting at the bottom of questions. He says in his book:

Dependent on no one, and blessed with worldly wealth, I felt that I might indulge in the luxury of writing merely in the service of the truth. I looked upon myself as the servant of every unbiased and unprejudiced man seeking the truth.

And his son writes:

What impelled Heinrich Coudenhove openly to oppose anti-Semitism was his intellectual sympathy for truth for its own sake, not personal sympathy or interest. His private library contained almost every book in any language upon the subject of the Jews and anti-Semitism. Yet he had no special sympathy for the Jews, nor were there Jews among his intimate friends. On the other hand, however, his travels and studies had afforded him an opportunity to study the Jew in all parts of the world, and in all pursuits. He was a cosmopolitan, with a wonderfully wide knowledge of men, and his country and uninfluenced by the shibnaturally free from the local prejudices of boleths of ignorant sects and parties.

The author's style and arrangement are logical and lucid. He first discusses the race question, and tries to show that there is no pure Jewish race or Semitic race group. Then he develops the idea that anti-Semitism has always and everywhere been the product

of religious hatred, and that both Jews and Christians have contributed to it. Purely racial prejudice is a comparatively new factor in the movement, because to-day religious differences do not make so powerful an appeal to the masses as formerly. And religious prejudices are even now the ultimate source of this sentiment. Some persons respond more readily to the race appeal, others to the religious appeal.

In combating the dictum that the Jews are an inferior race, who have never created anything valuable to humanity, or added to the real riches of the world, a theory ardently espoused by many anti-Semites, the author points out that Christianity, whose appearance is the supreme fact in the history of Western civilization, is of Jewish origin. The writer's son, who discusses more recent phases of anti-Semitism in a short introduction, cites likewise the leading Jewish philosophers of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries-Bergson, Spengler, Einstein, Freud, and others. Richard Coudenhove also refutes the later claim of anti-Semitism, that the Jews are not only nonproductive, but are a destructive element in society. He points out that anti-Semites of the reactionary school identify the Jews with Bolshevism, while anti-Semites of Socialist sympathies identify them with capitalism.

Returning to the race argument as developed by the elder Coudenhove, Lombroso asserted that modern Jews bear a closer physical resemblance to the Aryans than to the Semites. Ripley points out that the original Semitic tribes must have been strongly dolichocephalous, and that consequently nine tenths of the Jews to-day vary radically from the original skull type. Therefore the so-called purity of the Jewish race is a fable. The word 'Jew' has no ethnological significance. "The

whole controversy, so far as it rests upon race, is based on a groundless myth. It is essentially an empty and irrational dispute, because, from the physical standpoint, there are no such races as those alluded to. There is no such thing as a Semitic nation. A Semitic nation is solely a philological conception. The Semitic-speaking peoples differ radically from each other, and have no anatomical features in common with the Jews, or, in many cases, with each other. There is no pure Semitic type. The Jews are a mixed race. They have few traits in common with the Arabs, who come nearest to being pure Semites of any people. They resemble the Europeans among whom they live much more than they do the Bedouins.'

But the honest reader will ask: 'Do you mean to say there is no difference between a Jew and a Christian?' Certainly there is, but a difference due to historical rather than anatomical causes. The key to the puzzle is found in segregation, which was partly voluntary and partly involuntary. At first the Jews lived apart from other peoples of their own volition; later they were forced to do this whether they so willed or not.

A historical chapter follows, whose tragic narrative evidently impressed the author as painfully as it will the reader. Under the Roman Empire religious fanaticism was the sole cause of many battles, where blood flowed in rivers. Renan says with profound insight: 'What a fanatic most hates is freedom. He much prefers to be persecuted rather than to be tolerated. What he really craves is to be entitled to persecute others.'

Count Coudenhove believes that religious fanaticism is a necessary corollary of the monotheistic doctrine that God must be worshiped only in a particular way. The Jews were uni

versally hated in the ancient world on account of their religion and the fanaticism it begot in them. They never were charged at that time with usury, sharp business practices, or preying upon those of other creeds. They were persecuted solely on account of their faith and their obdurate adherence to it. Anti-Semitism did not exist in Greece and Rome, but instead there was anti-Judaism, directed not against the Hebrew race but against the Hebraic religion.

One of the most interesting facts in the history of Christian anti-Semitism is that the popes have been consistently humane toward Israel. Many of them, like Calixtus, Eugenius, Clement, Alexander, Celestine, and Innocent III, protested against Christians forcing baptism upon the Jews. Alexander II and Alexander III protected the Jews. It is true the popes were not always able to make their protection effective. No evidence exists to show that in their day the Jews were charged with usury. The eighty volumes of writings of the Church Fathers, where all of the crimes of the Jews are enumerated, do not mention either usury or the blood ritual. When Ferdinand the Catholic expelled the Jews from Spain, usury and the blood ritual were not listed among their offenses.

The worst period of Jewish persecution began with the Crusades. From that date their history is one of the most tragic chapters in the records of mankind. The author says: 'Never perhaps in human annals have men shown greater heroism in passively resisting the cruelty of their fellow men than the Jews showed during the great persecution of the fourteenth century. With very few exceptions they scorned the thought of saving their property, families, and life by abjuring their faith.'

account of the great auto-da-fé of 1680, in Madrid, where the King himself kindled the torture fires. Lecky writes:

Surely the heroism of the defenders of every other faith pales to nothing before a martyrdom that has withstood for thirteen centuries all the tortures the wildest fanaticism could invent, that has endured contempt, robbery, the violation of the most sacred ties, the imposition of the most horrible tortures, rather than renounce its faith.

In non-Christian countries the lot of the Jews has been happier. The Arabs were very tolerant toward them. It is well known that during the twelfth and thirteenth centuries Jewish poetry and science bloomed in Moorish Spain, and that prior to this the Jews had won a high place in the learned world by their knowledge of Greek philosophy.

A separate chapter is devoted to the contemporary indictment of Jews. It is true that they eventually adopted the trade of usury, or were forced to adopt it to keep from starving. As to the alleged wealth of the Jews, the author says: 'We never hear of the millions of poor Jews who live in the greatest poverty, of Jewish teamsters, day laborers, and porters. In Hungary Jews work as common laborers for the Ruthenian peasants.' He quotes Count Nicholas Bethlen, who wrote in the Diplomatische Wochenschrift, in 1870, apropos of a campaign against the Jews in Vienna:

If the Vaterland Party ever gains power and carries out its threats, we hope it will send all the Jews expelled from Vienna to Budapest. Their talent and industry have made them an important factor in civilization, and we can use them in our city. Were it not for the Jews in Budapest our glorious capital would be merely a larger Debreczen. Whatever field of public life we scan, we find there Jews laboring industriously, and fighting all the foes of darkness. The more