Formal Methods Teaching Third

International Workshop and Tutorial

FMTea 2019 Held as Part of the Third
World Congress on Formal Methods FM
2019 Porto Portugal October 7 2019
Proceedings Brijesh Dongol
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://textbookfull.com/product/formal-methods-teaching-third-international-workshop
-and-tutorial-fmtea-2019-held-as-part-of-the-third-world-congress-on-formal-methods-
fm-2019-porto-portugal-october-7-2019-proceedings-brijesh-dongol/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

Formal Methods The Next 30 Years Third World Congress

FM 2019 Porto Portugal October 7 11 2019 Proceedings
Maurice H. Ter Beek

https://textbookfull.com/product/formal-methods-the-
next-30-years-third-world-congress-fm-2019-porto-portugal-
october-7-11-2019-proceedings-maurice-h-ter-beek/

Formal Methods FM 2019 International Workshops Porto

Portugal October 7 11 2019 Revised Selected Papers Part
II 1st Edition Emil Sekerinski

https://textbookfull.com/product/formal-methods-
fm-2019-international-workshops-porto-portugal-
october-7-11-2019-revised-selected-papers-part-ii-1st-edition-
emil-sekerinski/

Mathematics of Program Construction 13th International

Conference MPC 2019 Porto Portugal October 7 9 2019
Proceedings Graham Hutton

https://textbookfull.com/product/mathematics-of-program-
construction-13th-international-conference-mpc-2019-porto-
portugal-october-7-9-2019-proceedings-graham-hutton/

Services SERVICES 2019 15th World Congress Held as Part

of the Services Conference Federation SCF 2019 San
Diego CA USA June 25 30 2019 Proceedings Yunni Xia

https://textbookfull.com/product/services-services-2019-15th-
world-congress-held-as-part-of-the-services-conference-
federation-scf-2019-san-diego-ca-usa-june-25-30-2019-proceedings-
Verification and Evaluation of Computer and
Communication Systems 13th International Conference
VECoS 2019 Porto Portugal October 9 2019 Proceedings
Pierre Ganty
https://textbookfull.com/product/verification-and-evaluation-of-
computer-and-communication-systems-13th-international-conference-
vecos-2019-porto-portugal-october-9-2019-proceedings-pierre-
ganty/

Cross Cultural Design Methods Tools and User Experience

11th International Conference CCD 2019 Held as Part of
the 21st HCI International Conference HCII 2019 Orlando
FL USA July 26 31 2019 Proceedings Part I Pei-Luen
Patrick Rau
https://textbookfull.com/product/cross-cultural-design-methods-
tools-and-user-experience-11th-international-conference-
ccd-2019-held-as-part-of-the-21st-hci-international-conference-
hcii-2019-orlando-fl-usa-july-26-31-2019-proceeding/

Universal Access in Human Computer Interaction Theory

Methods and Tools 13th International Conference UAHCI
2019 Held as Part of the 21st HCI International
Conference HCII 2019 Orlando FL USA July 26 31 2019
Proceedings Part I Margherita Antona
https://textbookfull.com/product/universal-access-in-human-
computer-interaction-theory-methods-and-tools-13th-international-
conference-uahci-2019-held-as-part-of-the-21st-hci-international-
conference-hcii-2019-orlando-fl-usa-july-26/

Leveraging Applications of Formal Methods, Verification

and Validation: Engineering Principles: 9th
International Symposium on Leveraging Applications of
Formal Methods, ISoLA 2020, Rhodes, Greece, October
20–30, 2020, Proceedings, Part II Tiziana Margaria
https://textbookfull.com/product/leveraging-applications-of-
formal-methods-verification-and-validation-engineering-
principles-9th-international-symposium-on-leveraging-
applications-of-formal-methods-isola-2020-rhodes-greece-oc/

Unifying Theories of Programming 7th International

Symposium UTP 2019 Dedicated to Tony Hoare on the
Occasion of His 85th Birthday Porto Portugal October 8
2019 Proceedings Pedro Ribeiro
https://textbookfull.com/product/unifying-theories-of-
programming-7th-international-symposium-utp-2019-dedicated-to-
tony-hoare-on-the-occasion-of-his-85th-birthday-porto-portugal-
 Brijesh Dongol
Luigia Petre
Graeme Smith (Eds.)
LNCS 11758

Formal Methods
Teaching
Third International Workshop and Tutorial, FMTea 2019
Held as Part of the Third World Congress on Formal Methods, FM 2019
Porto, Portugal, October 7, 2019, Proceedings
Lecture Notes in Computer Science 11758

Founding Editors
Gerhard Goos
Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Karlsruhe, Germany
Juris Hartmanis
Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, USA

Editorial Board Members

Elisa Bertino
Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, USA
Wen Gao
Peking University, Beijing, China
Bernhard Steffen
TU Dortmund University, Dortmund, Germany
Gerhard Woeginger
RWTH Aachen, Aachen, Germany
Moti Yung
Columbia University, New York, NY, USA
More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/7407
Brijesh Dongol Luigia Petre
• •

Graeme Smith (Eds.)

Formal Methods
Teaching
Third International Workshop and Tutorial, FMTea 2019
Held as Part of the Third World Congress on Formal Methods, FM 2019
Porto, Portugal, October 7, 2019
Proceedings

123
Editors
Brijesh Dongol Luigia Petre
University of Surrey Åbo Akademi University
Guildford, UK Turku, Finland
Graeme Smith
The University of Queensland
Brisbane, QLD, Australia

ISSN 0302-9743 ISSN 1611-3349 (electronic)

Lecture Notes in Computer Science
ISBN 978-3-030-32440-7 ISBN 978-3-030-32441-4 (eBook)
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-32441-4
LNCS Sublibrary: SL1 – Theoretical Computer Science and General Issues

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the
material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation,
broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information
storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now
known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication
does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant
protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are
believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors
give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or
omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affiliations.

This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
 Preface

Formal methods provide software engineers with tools and techniques for rigorously
reasoning about the correctness of systems. While formal methods are being
increasingly used in industry, university curricula are not adapting at the same pace.
Some existing formal methods courses interest and challenge students, whereas others
fail to ignite student motivation. We need to find ways to teach formal methods to the
next generation, and doing so will require us to adapt our teaching to 21st-century
students.
FMTea 2019 (Formal Methods Teaching Workshop and Tutorial) was a combined
workshop and tutorial on teaching formal methods held on October 7, 2019, as part
of the Third World Congress on Formal Methods, FM 2019, in Porto, Portugal. The
event was organized by FME’s Teaching Committee whose aim is to support
worldwide improvement in teaching and learning formal methods.
The workshop received 22 regular submissions, 14 of which were selected for
publication after a single blind review in which all papers were reviewed by two
members of the Program Committee or their delegates. Additionally, an invited sub-
mission by Tony Hoare (co-written with Alexandra Mendes and João F. Ferreira) was
similarly reviewed and selected for publication bringing the total number of papers to
15.
To encourage community-building discussions on the topic of teaching formal
methods, we divided the regular presentations into three panels in which authors briefly
introduced their papers and then contributed to a lively discussion of their topic and its
alternatives together with their peers and the audience. The first two panels were on
using state-of-the-art tools for teaching program verification and program development,
respectively, while the third was on novel techniques for effectively teaching formal
methods to future formal methods scientists.
The technical program of FMTea 2019 also included three invited talks:
– a lecture by Carroll Morgan (University of New South Wales and Data61,
Australia) on his approach to, and experiences with, teaching formal methods to
undergraduate students
– a tutorial presentation by Holger Hermanns (Saarland University, Germany) on
award-winning experiences with teaching concurrency theory and concurrent
programming using pseuCo
– a tutorial presentation by Bas Luttik (Eindhoven University of Technology, The
Netherlands) on experiences with online teaching to prepare Bachelor-level students
for learning formal methods
We would like to thank all of our invited speakers for agreeing to present at our
workshop and for the exciting and inspiring ideas they brought to it.
FMTea 2019 would not have been possible without the support of the FM 2019
general chair, José Nuno Oliveira, the workshop and tutorial chairs, Nelma Moreira and
vi Preface

Emil Sekerinski, and the numerous people involved in the local organization of FM
2019. We are grateful for their enthusiasm and dedication. We would also like to thank
the Program Committee and reviewers for their expert opinions on the papers we
received, and of course the authors for sharing their innovative teaching practices.
Finally, we acknowledge EasyChair, which supported us in the submission and
reviewing process, as well as in generating these proceedings and the FMTea 2019
program.

August 2019 Brijesh Dongol

Luigia Petre
Graeme Smith
 Organization

Program Committee
Brijesh Dongol University of Surrey, UK
Catherine Dubois ENSIIE, France
João F. Ferreira INESC TEC & University of Lisbon, Portugal
Rustan Leino Amazon, USA
Alexandra Mendes INESC TEC & Universidade da Beira Interior, Portugal
Luigia Petre Åbo Akademi University, Finland
Leila Ribeiro Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil
Pierluigi San Pietro Politecnico di Milano, Italy
Graeme Smith The University of Queensland, Australia
Kenji Taguchi CAV Technologies Co., Ltd, Japan

Additional Reviewers

Boureanu, Ioana
Invited/Tutorial Lectures
 Is Formal Methods Really Essential?

Carroll Morgan1,2
1
School of Computer Science and Engineering,
University of New South Wales, Australia
2
Data61, Australia

Googling Math is fun. returns close to 300 million hits.

Is that part of “the problem” for maths education? Maybe if one says so emphat-
ically that a topic is fun, it reveals actually that it needs special treatment, that it’s
optional and that students must be enticed to learn it. Of course being a full-blown
mathematician is optional—but it is self-evident that being able to deploy elementary
maths in everyday life is not optional, or at least should not be. Yet many adults cannot
do even simple arithmetic.
Perhaps Formal Methods is similar: by insisting that it’s essential, we might be
losing some of our leverage. Of course not everyone has to be a “neat” (vs. a “scruffy”).
But it is still true that an appreciation of algorithmic rigour should be compulsory for
beginning programmers, together with some idea of how to achieve it in what has
become their everyday life. Yet there are many experienced programmers who have
never heard of invariants.
So maybe there’s a place for elementary formal methods –for FM by stealth– to be
learned at the same time as one’s first-year introduction to programming: not singled
out, not separated (and certainly not labelled “formal” or “elementary”), and without
any extra prerequisites (like logic) beyond what is required for beginners already.
Teach assertions about assignments, conditionals, loops (what they establish) at the
same time, at first encounter, just as we teach already their syntax (how to write them)
and their operational aspects (what they do). And bring to that as much informal
intuition as we can muster: use hand-waving, pictures… and even flowcharts, where it
all started.
Formal Methods? Let’s not call it that: let’s call it Programming.
 PSEUCO.COM

Felix Freiberger1,2 and Holger Hermanns1,3

1
Saarland University, Saarland Informatics Campus, Saarbrücken, Germany
2
Saarbrücken Graduate School of Computer Science,
Saarland Informatics Campus, Saarbrücken, Germany
3
Institute of Intelligent Software, Guangzhou, China

Abstract. This tutorial presents PSEUCO [1], an academic programming language

designed to teach concurrent programming. The language features a heavily
simplified Java-like look and feel. It supports shared-memory as well as
message-passing concurrent programming primitives. The behaviour of
PSEUCO programs is described by a formal semantics mapping on value-passing
CCS or coloured Petri nets [2], and is made executable using compilation to
Java. PSEUCO is not only a language but an interactive experience: PSEUCO.COM
[1] provides access to a web application designed for first hands-on experiences
with CCS and with concurrent programming patterns, supported by a rich and
growing toolset. It provides an environment for students to experiment with and
understand the mechanics of the fundamental building blocks of concurrency
theory and concurrent programming based on a complete model of the program
behaviour. PSEUCO and PSEUCO.COM constitute the centerpiece of an
award-winning lecture series, mandatory for Bachelor students at Saarland
Informatics Campus.

Acknowledgments. This work was partially supported by the ERC Advanced Investigators
Grant 695614 (POWVER) and by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, German
Research Foundation) – project number 389792660 – TRR 248 (see https://perspicuous-
computing.science).

References
1. Biewer, S., Freiberger, F., Held, P.L., Hermanns, H.: Teaching academic concurrency to
amazing students. In: Aceto, L., Bacci, G., Bacci, G., Ingólfsdóttir, A., Legay, A., Mardare, R.
(eds.) Models, Algorithms, Logics and Tools. LNCS, vol. 10460, pp. 170–195. Springer,
Cham (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-63121-9_9
2. Freiberger, F., Hermanns, H.: Concurrent programming from PSEUCO to petri. In: Donatelli, S.,
Haar, S. (eds.) PETRI NETS 2019. LNCS, vol. 11522, pp. 279–297. Springer, Cham (2019).
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-21571-2_16
 Efficient Online Homologation to Prepare
Students for Formal Methods Courses

Bas Luttik

Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands

Abstract. At Eindhoven University of Technology, the majority of students

enrolling in our master programme on Embedded Systems have one or more
deficiencies in prerequisite bachelor-level knowledge and skills. In the past, we
tried to determine such deficiencies on the basis of application data (e.g., a
transcript of their bachelor programme), and students were then required to repair
them by including one or two bachelor courses in their study programme. This
approach was found to be both unreliable and inefficient. To improve, we have
developed an online homologation recommendation tool by which students can
determine to which extent they satisfy the prerequisites of the programme and
fully automatically get a recommendation on how to repair deficiencies. Fur-
thermore, we have developed several online self-study homologation modules.
In my talk, I will discuss my experiences with developing both the
homologation recommendation tool and the online homologation module Logic
and Set Theory, which addresses prerequisites for the mandatory formal methods
course that is part of the Embedded Systems programme. The homologation
module consists of over 50 short videoclips and a week-by-week exercise pro-
gramme. In our experience, the material successfully and efficiently prepares
master-level students for an exam of our bachelor course Logic and Set Theory.
 Contents

Tutorial Lectures

Logic, Algebra, and Geometry at the Foundation of Computer Science . . . . . 3

Tony Hoare, Alexandra Mendes, and João F. Ferreira

Teaching Program Verification

Teaching Deductive Verification Through Frama-C and SPARK

for Non Computer Scientists. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Léo Creuse, Claire Dross, Christophe Garion, Jérôme Hugues,
and Joffrey Huguet

Using Krakatoa for Teaching Formal Verification of Java Programs . . . . . . . 37

Jose Divasón and Ana Romero

Teaching Deductive Verification in Why3 to Undergraduate Students . . . . . . 52

Sandrine Blazy

Teaching Program Development

Teaching Formal Methods to Future Engineers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

Catherine Dubois, Virgile Prevosto, and Guillaume Burel

The Computational Relevance of Formal Logic Through Formal Proofs. . . . . 81

Ariane A. Almeida, Ana Cristina Rocha-Oliveira,
Thiago M. Ferreira Ramos, Flávio L. C. de Moura,
and Mauricio Ayala-Rincón

Teaching Formal Methods: From Software in the Small to Software

in the Large . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
María-del-Mar Gallardo and Laura Panizo

On Teaching Applied Formal Methods in Aerospace Engineering . . . . . . . . . 111

Kristin Yvonne Rozier

Effective Teaching Techniques

Teaching Concurrency with the Disappearing Formal Method. . . . . . . . . . . . 135

Emil Sekerinski

Teaching Discrete Mathematics to Computer Science Students . . . . . . . . . . . 150

Faron Moller and Liam O’Reilly
xvi Contents

Principled and Pragmatic Specification of Programming Languages . . . . . . . . 165

Adrian Johnstone and Elizabeth Scott

Managing Heterogeneity and Bridging the Gap in Teaching

Formal Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181
Pamela Fleischmann, Mitja Kulczynski, Dirk Nowotka,
and Thomas Wilke

Teaching Introductory Formal Methods and Discrete Mathematics to

Software Engineers: Reflections on a Modelling-Focussed Approach . . . . . . . 196
Andrew Simpson

Teaching Formal Methods: Lessons Learnt from Using Event-B . . . . . . . . . . 212

Néstor Cataño

You Already Used Formal Methods but Did Not Know It . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 228
Giampaolo Bella

Author Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 245

Tutorial Lectures
 Logic, Algebra, and Geometry
at the Foundation of Computer Science

Tony Hoare1,2 , Alexandra Mendes3,4 , and João F. Ferreira5(B)

1
Microsoft Research, Cambridge, UK
2
Cambridge University Computing Laboratory, Cambridge, UK
3
HASLab, INESC TEC, Porto, Portugal
4
Department of Informatics, Universidade da Beira Interior, Covilhã, Portugal
5
INESC-ID & Instituto Superior Técnico, University of Lisbon, Lisbon, Portugal
joao@joaoff.com

Abstract. This paper shows by examples how the Theory of Program-

ming can be taught to first-year CS undergraduates. The only prereq-
uisite is their High School acquaintance with algebra, geometry, and
propositional calculus. The main purpose of teaching the subject is to
support practical programming assignments and projects throughout the
degree course. The aims would be to increase the student’s enjoyment of
programming, reduce the workload, and increase the prospect of success.

Keywords: Algebra · Logic · Geometry · Teaching formal methods ·

Unifying theories of programming

1 Introduction
The Theory of Programming lies at the foundation of modern development envi-
ronments for software, now widely used in industry. Computer Science graduates
who understand the rationale of programming tools, and who have experience
of their use, are urgently needed in industry to maintain the current rate of
innovations and improvements in software products installed worldwide.
We put forward the following theses:
1. The fundamental ideas of the Theory of Programming were originally formu-
lated by great philosophers, mathematicians, geometers and logicians, dating
back to antiquity.
2. These ideas can be taught as an aid to practical programming throughout
a degree course in Computer Science. The desirable initial level of Math for
first-year CS students is that of High School courses in Algebra, Geometry
and Propositional Logic.
3. The ideas should form the basis of a student-oriented Integrated Development
Environment (IDE), needed to support students in understanding require-
ments, in designing solutions, in coding programs, in testing them, and in
diagnosing and debugging their errors.
c Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019
B. Dongol et al. (Eds.): FMTea 2019, LNCS 11758, pp. 3–20, 2019.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-32441-4_1
4 T. Hoare et al.

One of the goals of this paper is to contribute to the challenge posed by

Carroll Morgan in [21]:

Invariants, assertions and static reasoning should be as self-evidently

part of the introductory Computer Science curriculum as are types, vari-
ables, control structures and I/O in the students’ very first programming
language.
Can you help to bring that about?

Paper Structure. In this paper we provide examples of material that can be

taught to first-year CS undergraduates. In Sect. 2, we introduce the underlying
concepts of algebra and logic. These are then applied to the execution of com-
puter programs: in Sect. 3 we discuss the familiar topic of sequential composition
and in Sect. 4 we move on to concurrent composition. Section 4 includes material
suitable for a more advanced and elective course in formal methods delivered at
later stage in the syllabus, where we show how two familiar and widely used theo-
ries of programming can be unified. After presenting in Sect. 5 some related work,
we conclude in Sect. 6, where we also briefly suggest directions for future work.

2 Algebra and Logic

This section introduces the underlying concepts of algebra and logic. The first
subsection is entirely elementary, but it proves some essential theorems that will
be used in later sections. The second subsection shows how familiar logical proof
rules can be derived from the algebra. The third subsection introduces spatial
and temporal reasoning about the execution of computer programs.

2.1 Boolean Algebra

Boolean Algebra, which is widely taught at the beginning

of degree courses in Mathematics and in Philosophy, is
doubly relevant in a Computer Science course, both for
Hardware Design and for Program Development.
Boolean Algebra is named for the nineteenth cen-
tury mathematician George Boole (1815–1864). His father
was a shoe-maker in Lincoln, where he attended pri-
mary school. His father died when he was aged 16, and
he became the family breadwinner, working as a school-
master. At age 25 he was running a boarding school in
Lincoln, where he was recognised as a local civic dignitary.
He learnt mathematics from books lent to him by friendly
mathematicians. At the age of 34, he was appointed as
first Professor of Mathematics at the newly founded Queen’s College in Cork.
He published a number of articles in the humanities, and wrote several math-
ematical textbooks. But he is now best known for his logical investigations of
the Laws of Thought [6], which he published in 1854 and where he proposed the
 Logic, Algebra, and Geometry at the Foundation of Computer Science 5

binary algebraic operators not, and, or, and a binary comparison for predicates
as the foundation for a deductive logic of propositions.
Disjunction. Disjunction is denoted as ∨ (read as ‘or’) and satisfies three
axioms: it is associative, commutative, and idempotent. All three axioms are
illustrated in the following proof.

Theorem 1. Disjunction distributes through itself:

(p ∨ q) ∨ r = (p ∨ r) ∨ (q ∨ r)

Proof.
RHS = p ∨ (r ∨ (q ∨ r)) by associativity
= p ∨ ((q ∨ r) ∨ r) by commutativity
= p ∨ (q ∨ (r ∨ r)) by associativity
= p ∨ (q ∨ r) by idempotence
= LHS by associativity

Corollary 1. Rightward distribution (follows by commutativity).

Geometry. Geometry is recognised in Mathematics as an excellent way of gain-

ing intuition about the meaning and the validity of algebraic axioms, proofs,
conjectures, and theorems. The relevant geometric diagrams for Boolean alge-
bra are familiar as Venn diagrams. For example, Fig. 1a illustrates the Venn
diagram for disjunction.

p∨q p≤r

p q p

(a) Disjunction: p or q (b) Comparison: r is weaker than p

Fig. 1. Venn diagrams for disjunction and comparison.

Comparison (denoted as ≤). The most important comparison operator

between terms of Boolean algebra is implication. It is written here as a sim-
ple less-than-or-equal sign (≤). It is defined simply in terms of disjunction:

p ≤ r is defined as r = p ∨ r

The comparison may be read in many ways: that p implies r, or that p is

stronger than r, or that r is weaker than p. The definition is illustrated by a
Venn diagram showing containment of the stronger left side p by the weaker
right side r (see Fig. 1b).
6 T. Hoare et al.

Disjunction Is a Weakening Operator. An operator is defined as weakening

if its result is always weaker than both of its operands. From Theorem 2 and
Corollary 2 below, we conclude that the result of disjunction is always weaker
than both of its operands. The proof of this again uses all three axioms.
Theorem 2. p ≤ p ∨ r
Proof.
p ∨ r = (p ∨ p) ∨ r by idempotence
= p ∨ (p ∨ r) by associativity
The theorem follows by definition of ≤.
Corollary 2. p ≤ r ∨ p (by commutativity)
Henceforth, we omit brackets around associative operators and proofs of the-
orems that follow by commutativity.

2.2 Deductive Logic

The axioms of algebra are restricted to single equations or comparisons between
two algebraic terms. This makes algebraic reasoning quite simple, using only
substitution of equals to deduce a new equation from two equations that have
already been proved. The price of this simplicity is that proofs can get too long
for comfort, and they can be quite difficult to find. To tackle these problems we
need more powerful techniques, which are expressed as rules of logical deduction.
The Aristotelian Syllogism. A syllogism is a form of proof rule that has been
taught for over two thousand years. It consists of two antecedents written above
a line and one consequent written below the line. This says that any proof that
contains both the antecedents can validly be extended by adding the consequent
as its next line. A well-known example of a syllogism is:
All men are animals All animals are mortal
All men are mortal
The use of syllogisms as a tool for reasoning can be dated
back to the work of the ancient Greek philosopher Aristo-
tle [32], who made a remarkable contribution to the his-
tory of human thought. He was the founder, director and
a lecturer at a private academic institution in Athens.
His lecture notes still survive. They deal with both the
sciences and the humanities, and spanned almost the full
range of human intellectual endeavour for the next two
thousand years. The first application of syllogisms was
probably in Biology, of which he is also recognised as the
founding father. They are well adapted to deducing the
consequences of his biological classifications.
A proof rule in algebra rather than biology is given in
the following theorem.
 Logic, Algebra, and Geometry at the Foundation of Computer Science 7

Theorem 3 (Proof by cases).

p≤r q≤r
(p ∨ q) ≤ r
Proof. Assuming the antecedents r = p ∨ r and r = q ∨ r, we prove the conse-
quent:
r =r∨r by idempotence
= (p ∨ r) ∨ (q ∨ r) by substitution for each r
= (p ∨ q) ∨ r by Theorem 1
The conclusion follows by definition of ≤.
In this proof, the assumption of the antecedents of the rule is justified by the
general embargo which forbids use of the rule until the antecedents have already
been proved.
A validated proof rule can also be used backwards to suggest a structure
and strategy for a proof of a desired conjecture which matches the conclusion of
the rule. Then the task of proof can be split into subtasks, one for each of the
antecedents. Success of this strategy requires that each antecedent is in some
way simpler than the conclusion. For example in the rule for proof by cases, the
conclusion has a disjunction p ∨ q where the antecedents only contain a single
operand, either p or q. The backward use is widely adopted in the search for
proofs by computer.
Partial Orders. The well-known properties of an ordering in mathematics are
usually defined by means of proof rules. The rules shown in the proof of Theo-
rem 4 define the concept of a partial order. Each rule is proved by only one of
the three axioms of disjunction. The first line shows how an axiom itself can be
written as the consequent of a proof rule with no antecedents.
Theorem 4. Comparison (≤) is a partial order.
Proof. Comparison is:

reflexive: p≤p (by idempotence)

p≤q q≤r
transitive: (by associativity)
p≤r

p≤q q≤p
antisymmetric: p=q (by commutativity)

Covariance (Monotonicity) of Disjunction. Covariance is the property

of an operator that if either of its operands is strengthened, its result is also
strengthened (or stays the same). Such an operator is said to respect the ordering
of its operands. Covariance justifies the use of the comparison operator ≤ for
substitution of one formula in another, just like the familiar rule of substitution
of equals.
8 T. Hoare et al.

Theorem 5. Disjunction is covariant (monotonic) with respect to ≤, that is:

p≤q
p∨r ≤q∨r
Proof. From the antecedent, transitivity of ≤, and weakening of disjunction, we
have:
p ≤ q ≤ q ∨ r and r ≤ q ∨ r
The consequent follows by the proof rule by cases.
Covariance is also a formal statement of a common principle of engineering
reasoning. Suppose you replace a component in a product by one that has the
same behaviour, but is claimed to be more reliable. The principle says that the
product as a whole will be made more reliable by the replacement; or at least
it will remain equally reliable. If the product is found in use to be less reliable
than it was before the replacement, then the claimed extra reliability of the
component is disproved.

2.3 Spatio-Temporal Logic

A theorem of Boolean algebra is used to state an universal truth, which remains
true everywhere and forever. The ideas of temporal logic were explored by Aris-
totle and his successors, for reasoning about what may be true only during a
certain interval of time (its duration), and in a certain area of space (its extent).
A proposition describes all significant events occurring within its given duration
and within its given extent. However, the logic does not allow any mention of a
numeric measurement of the instant time or the point in space at which an event
occurs. Thus a proposition in the logic can be true of many different regions of
space and time.
Temporal logic was widely explored by philosophers
and theologians in the middle ages. William of Occam
(1287–1347), a Franciscan friar studying philosophy at
Oxford, is considered to be one of the major figures
of medieval thought. Unfortunately he got involved in
church politics. He antagonised the pope in Rome, and
was excommunicated from the Church in 1328. This was
believed to condemn him to an eternity in hell. Fortu-
nately, he was reprieved thirty years later. Occam’s book
on Logic, Summa Logicae (1323) included familiar oper-
ators of Boolean Algebra, augmented by operators that
apply to propositions of spatial and temporal logic [25].
They include sequential composition p then q, written
here with semicolon (p; q), and p while q, written here with a single vertical
bar (p | q).
Geometric Diagrams. The propositions of Occam’s spatio-temporal logic are
best illustrated by two-dimensional geometric diagrams, with one axis repre-
senting time and the other representing space. As shown in Fig. 2a, the region
 Logic, Algebra, and Geometry at the Foundation of Computer Science 9

described by a proposition p is represented by a rectangular box with the name

p written in the top left corner. The box contains a finite set of discrete points,
representing all the events that occurred in the region. The horizontal edges
of the box represent the interval of time within which those events occur. The
vertical edges represent the locations in space where the events occur. Figure 2b
illustrates these two dimensions.
In Cartesian plane geometry, each point lies at the intersection of a vertical
coordinate, shown here in gray, and a horizontal coordinate shown as a black
arrow (Fig. 2b). Each point can therefore be identified by a pairing of a horizontal
coordinate with a vertical coordinate. But the geometry shown here differs from
this in that not all coordinate positions are occupied by a point. This is because
in the description of the real world many or most coordinates are occupied by no
event. Our diagrams are comparable to the output of a multiple pen recorder,
for example the seismograms of geology and the cardiograms. Each horizontal
line is the output of a single pen recording the value given by sensors in different
locations. The events record significant changes in the value of the sensor.
In computer applications, the horizontal lines stand uniquely for a variable
held in the memory of the computer. The events on a line represent assignments
of potentially new values to the variables. The vertical lines are often drawn
in later to explain a group of significant changes made simultaneously in many
variables.
The sequential composition of p and q, denoted as p;q, starts with the start of
p and ends with the end of q. Furthermore, q starts only when p ends. Figure 3a
shows a diagram of the sequential composition of p and q. As before, the box is
named by the term written in the top left corner. Every event in the composition
is inside exactly one of the two operands. The vertical line between p and q is
shared by both of them. It shows that time intervals of the two operands are
immediately adjacent in time. The interval for the result is the set union of the
interval for p and the interval for q .
The boxes with dotted edges at the corners of the p; q contain no events. They
are padding, needed to draw the result of composition
 as a box. To represent
this padding we introduce an algebraic constant , read as ‘skip’.

interval in time
events
extent in space

locations

instants

(a) Region describing p, with points (b) Events occur within an interval in a
representing events. given location in space.

Fig. 2. Propositions as two-dimensional geometric diagrams.

10 T. Hoare et al.

time
time
p|q q
p;q q

space
space
p p

(a) Sequential composition. (b) Concurrent composition.

Fig. 3. Spatio-temporal diagrams for sequential composition and concurrent

composition.

The concurrent composition of p and q, denoted as p | q and read as p while q,

starts with the start of both p and q and ends with the end of both of them. Its
duration is the maximum of their durations. Figure 3b shows a diagram of the
concurrent composition of p and q. Its extent in space is the disjoint union of
the extents of the operands. This means that no location can be shared by the
concurrent components This embargo is the characteristic of O’Hearn’s separa-
tion logic [23,24,30], which protects against the well-known problem of races in
concurrent programs.

3 Sequential Composition
The algebraic axioms for sequential composition are:

– Sequential composition is associative and has the unit
– Sequential composition distributes through disjunction (both leftward and
rightward):
p; (q ∨ q  ) = p; q ∨ p; q  and (q ∨ q  ); p = q; p ∨ q  ; p
Distribution justifies giving sequential composition a stronger precedence than
disjunction. The associativity of sequential composition is evident from its dia-
gram, and so is the unit law.
We now show how the algebraic axioms can be used to prove some rules.
Theorem 6 (Proof rule for sequential composition).
p; q ≤ m m; r ≤ t
p; q; r ≤ t
Proof. Assuming the antecedents (1) m = p; q ∨ m and (2) t = m ; r ∨ t, we
prove the consequent:

t = (p; q ∨ m) ; r ∨ t substitute (1) in (2)

t = p; q; r ∨ (m; r ∨ t) ; distributes through ∨
t = p; q; r ∨ t substitute back by (2)
 Logic, Algebra, and Geometry at the Foundation of Computer Science 11

This proof rule is used for decomposing its consequent into two parts, each
of which has only three operands instead of four. Each antecedent is in this way
simpler than the consequent, whose proof can therefore be constructed by divide
and conquer.
Rules of Consequence. The following corollaries are a consequence of Theorem
6.

Corollary 3.
p≤m m; r ≤ t
p; r ≤ t

Corollary 4.
p; q ≤ m m≤t
p; q ≤ t

Proof.
 Corollary 3: by substitution of q by . Corollary 4: by substitution of r
by .

3.1 Hoare Triples

Consider the proposition p; q ≤ r. It means that if p describes the interval from

the start of r to the start of q, and q describes the interval from the end of p to
the end of r, then r correctly describes the whole of p; q. This is the intended
meaning of the Hoare triple [14]. Therefore, we define:

{p} q {r} = p; q ≤ r
def

This definition allows p and r to be arbitrary programs—a generalisation

of the original formulation of Hoare logic, in which p and r are required to be
assertions.

3.2 Verification Rules for Sequential Composition

By substitution of the definition of triple into the proof rule for sequential com-
position (Theorem 6), we obtain the Hoare rule for sequential composition:

{p} q {m} {m} r {t}

{p} q ; r {t}

From Corollaries 3 and 4, we obtain the Hoare Rules of Consequence:

p≤m {m} r {t} {p} q {m} m≤t

{p} r {t} {p} q {t}
12 T. Hoare et al.

3.3 Milner Transition

Robin Milner defined CCS [19], a theory of programming which is now widely
used in specifying how an implementation should generate a single execution
p
of a given program r. The Milner transition defined here, and denoted r − → q,
states that r can be executed by executing p first, saving q as a continuation for
subsequent execution. (Other executions may begin with an initial step different
from p). But this is exactly the meaning of the same comparison that we used
to define the Hoare triple. We thus define:
p
r−
→ q = p; q ≤ r
def

Thus the two calculi are identical, and all theorems of one can be translated
letter by letter from the corresponding theorem of the other. For example, in
Milner’s notation the rule for sequential composition and its corollaries are
p q
r−
→m m−
→t
p;q
r −−→ t

q p
m≤r m−
→t r−
→m t≤m
q p
r−
→t r−
→t

These corollaries play the role of the structural equivalence, which Milner
introduced into the definition of concurrent programming languages (with ≡
replaced by ≤) [20].

4 Concurrent Composition

Concurrent composition has the same laws as sequential composition. An addi-

tional interchange axiom permits a concurrent program to be executed sequen-
tially by interleaving. The algebraic axioms are:

– Concurrent composition is associative and has unit
– Concurrent composition distributes through disjunction
– Interchange axiom: (p | q); (p | q  ) ≤ (p; p ) | (q; q  )

We omit the commonly cited commutativity law for concurrency since it can be
introduced later, whenever needed. The interchange law gets its name because it
interchanges operators and variables when passing from one side of the compar-
ison to the other. Note how the RHS and LHS differ by interchange of operators
(; interchanged with |) and of operands (p with q).
 Logic, Algebra, and Geometry at the Foundation of Computer Science 13

4.1 Interchange
The two following elementary corollaries of interchange show that a concurrent
composition can be strengthened by sequential execution of its operands in either
order:

p; q  ≤ p | q  by interchange with p =q =
q; p ≤ p | q similarly, with q  = p =
From these two properties and the proof rule by cases, we obtain:
p; q ∨ q; p ≤ p | q
This means that concurrent composition is weaker than the disjunction of these
alternative orderings. We will now show by example that the interchange law
generalises this interleaving to operands containing any number of operators.
We start with what are known as small interchange laws.
Theorem 7 (Small interchange laws).

p; (p | q  ) ≤ (p; p ) | q  q =
q; (p | q  ) ≤ p | (q; q  ) p =
(p | q); q  ≤ p | (q; q  ) p =
(p | q); p ≤ (p; p ) | q q =

Proof. All four are proved from the interchange axiom, by substitution of for
a different variable.
The above six corollaries are called frame laws in separation logic. They
adapt the interchange law to cases with just two or three operands. Successive
application of the frame laws can strengthen any term with two or three operands
to a form not containing any concurrency. The following is an example derivation:
p; q; q  ≤ (p | q); q  ≤ p | (q; q  )

4.2 Basic Principle of Concurrent Programming

We now show how to interleave longer strings. Let x, y, z, w, a, b, c, d be characters
representing single events. Let us omit “;” in strings except for emphasis. Thus:
xyzw = x; y; z; w
The interchange law itself extends this principle to arbitrary terms, with many
concurrent compositions, as the following example shows:

abcd | xyzw is the RHS of interchange

≥ ( a; bcd ) | (xy; zw) associativity (twice)
≥ ( a | xy); ( bcd | zw) interchange
≥ ( a | x; y); ( b; cd | zw) associativity (twice)
≥ ( a | x); y; ( b | zw); cd frame laws (twice)
≥ x a yz b w cd similarly
14 T. Hoare et al.

In the first line of this derivation, the characters of the left operand of con-
currency have been highlighted; and the same characters are highlighted in sub-
sequent lines. This conveys the important intuition that the order of characters
in each sequential substring is preserved throughout. The same applies to the
original right operand. Furthermore, each line splits some of the substrings of
the previous line into two substrings. When all the highlighted substrings are of
length 1, the first corollary can eliminate the concurrency. This shows that any
chain of calculation using the interchange law must terminate.
A basic principle of concurrent programming states that every concurrent
program can be simulated by a sequential program. Without this principle, it
would have been impossible to exploit concurrency in general-purpose libraries
and class declarations. The principle was proved for Turing machines by the
design of a normal sequential Turing machine that could interpret any program
run by multiple machines [27]. Our result is that any concurrent program can
be translated by algebraic transformations for execution by a purely sequential
machine. A direct algebraic proof is much simpler than a proof by interpretation.
The result is also more useful because it can be applied to arbitrary sub-terms
of a term. Thus the explosive increase in length of most reductions to normal
form can generally be avoided.

4.3 Unifying Theories of Concurrency

The basic concurrency rule of separation logic was formulated by Peter O’Hearn
in Hoare Logic. When translated to our algebraic notation it gives the following
proof rule.
Interchange Rule (O’Hearn).

p; q ≤ r p ; q  ≤ r 
(p | p ); (q | q  ) ≤ (r | r )

His frame rule similarly translates to one of the frame laws of Theorem 7.
Just as the sequential rule is derived from the sequential axioms in Sect. 3,
the Interchange Rule is derivable from the Interchange Axiom.

Theorem 8. The Interchange Axiom implies the Interchange Rule.

Proof. Assume the antecedents of the interchange rule:

p; q ≤ r and p ; q  ≤ r 
 Logic, Algebra, and Geometry at the Foundation of Computer Science 15

(p | p ); (q | q  ) ≤ (p; q) | (p ; q  ) Covariance of | twice:

(p; q) | (p ; q  ) ≤ (r | r )
and transitivity of ≤
(p | p ); (q | q  ) ≤ (r | r )

p; q ≤ r p ; q  ≤ r 
Conclusion: the interchange rule
(p | p ); (q | q  ) ≤ (r | r )

Surprisingly, the implication also holds in the reverse direction.

Theorem 9. The Interchange Rule implies the Interchange Axiom.
Proof. We start by assuming the interchange rule. Since it is a general rule, we
can replace consistently all occurrences of each of its variables by anything we
like.
p; q ≤ r p ; q  ≤ r 
(p | p ); (q | q  ) ≤ (r | r ) replace r by p; q
and r by p ; q 

p; q ≤ p; q p  ; q  ≤ p ; q 
(p | p ); (q | q  ) ≤ (p; q | p ; q  ) both antecedents are true
by reflexivity of ≤

Conclusion: (p | p ); (q | q  ) ≤ (p; q) | (p ; q  ) the interchange axiom

Summary . We have extended to concurrency the unification between Hoare

Triples and Milner Transitions that was achieved for sequentiality in Sect. 3.
Theorem 10. The following three rules are logically equivalent.
p; q ≤ r p ; q  ≤ r 
The Interchange Rule
(p | p ); (q | q  ) ≤ (r | r )

{p} q {r} {p } q  {r }

Translated to Hoare Triples
{(p | p )} q | q  {(r | r )}

p p
r−
→q r −→ q 
Translated to Milner transitions
(p|p )
(r | r ) −−−→ (q | q  )
16 T. Hoare et al.

The third rule is just the rule for concurrency in Milner’s CCS, as formulated
in the so-called ‘big-step’ version of operational semantics. It is interpreted as
stating:

To execute a concurrent composition of two sequential operands, split each

operand into two sequential parts. Then start by executing the first part of
both operands concurrently, and conclude by executing the second parts.

The unification of two widely accepted theories of programming is presented

as strong evidence that our algebraic axioms are actually applicable to familiar
programming languages implemented on computers of the present day. Many
interpreters and compilers for programming languages are specified by an oper-
ational semantics expressed as Milner Transitions. Most program analysers and
proof tools for sequential languages follow a verification semantics expressed as
Hoare Triples. Many papers in the Theory of Programming prove the consis-
tency between these two ‘rival’ theories for particular languages. Algebra unifies
the theories, by proofs which could be understood or even discovered (under
guidance) by CS students in their practical programming courses.

5 Related Work

This section surveys evidence for the validity of the three theses listed in the
Introduction.

1. The biographies in this paper of Aristotle, Boole, and Occam are only a small
selection of those who have contributed to the basic ideas of Computer Sci-
ence, long before computers were available to put them into practice. Further
examples are Euclid and Descartes for Geometry, Al-Khawarismi and Leibniz
for Algebra, and Russel and Gödel for Logic. Their biographies may be found
in Wikipedia. More recent pioneers are treated in [8].
2. Considerable experience has been accumulated of the effectiveness of teaching
the Theory of Programming as part of practical degree courses in Computer
Science. For example, in [29], the authors show how teaching concurrency and
verification together can reinforce each other and enable deeper understand-
ing and application. They suggest that concurrency should be taught as early
as possible and they introduce a new workflow methodology that is based on
existing concurrency models (CSP, π-calculus), on the model checker FDR
that generates counter-example traces that show causes of errors, and on
programming languages/libraries (occam-π, Go, JCSP, ProcessJ) that allow
executable systems within these models.
Another interesting example is the experimental course in “(In-)Formal Meth-
ods” [21], where invariants, assertions, and static reasoning are introduced.
The author argues that the ideal place for an informal-methods course is the
second half of first year, because at that point students already understand
that “programming is easy, but programming correctly is very hard”.
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
 CHAPTER III
THE PLAN AND ITS EXECUTION

But between a plan and its execution there is always a space, and
sometimes an abyss. In this case the chief difficulty consisted in the
ways and means, the choice lying between pacific and warlike
expedients. Germany and Austria-Hungary had tried to rearrange the
Balkan balance of power by diplomatic measures, but failed. Shortly
before and during the Bucharest Conference I had authoritatively
announced their intention to have whatever agreement the Balkan
States might come to laid before them for reference and revision.
Congruously with this announcement, after the Conference they
endeavoured to have the Treaty submitted to them. But the other
Powers negatived the demand emphatically. And Servia naturally
would refuse to disgorge. Diplomacy thus proving ineffectual, other
methods were contemplated, and the most promising seemed a
direct conflict with Servia. For the Central European Powers could
not use Turkey as their tool, owing to her financial dependence on
France, the disorganized condition of her army, her naval inferiority
to Greece, and the firm resolve of Roumania to uphold the Treaty, if
needs were by force. The sole remaining issue, then, was to clip the
wings of the little Slav State which had so suddenly waxed great and
would fain soar to dizzier heights at the cost of the Austrian Eagle.
How and when to achieve this feat was the problem which had for
months exercised the ingenuity of the statesmen of Austria-Hungary
and Germany. The wearisome series of negociations on commercial
and railway questions had to be tackled by Vienna and Belgrade,
and it was expected that they would offer the requisite opportunity.
But it turned out on trial that for a serious conflict they offered no
suitable handle. The two military Powers then tackled Bulgaria,
Turkey, and Roumania, who were to form a Balkan League, with the
point turned against Russia. Austria’s wish was to reach this
consummation without risking an open breach with Russia, which,
whatever the upshot, would have subjected her to a painful ordeal.
Here, however, Germany’s statesmen were confronted with no
misgivings as to Russia’s attitude. Austria was fitfully apprehensive.
She was ready to punish Servia and to force her to acquiesce in the
partition of her recently acquired territory, but she was in dread of
drawing in Russia. Germany, whose maxim was to cope with the
Entente Powers, if possible one by one, not with the whole group,
would also have preferred this solution, and believed it most
probable, without, of course, acting on the belief. Her estimate of
Russia’s military plight was, as we saw, very low. Russia’s army was
considered to be still suffering grievously from the effects of the
Japanese campaign. Her military experts were said to be opposed to
war. The Tsar himself was believed to have a horror of a fresh
campaign on political and dynastic grounds.
But there was one little speck of apprehension on this otherwise
cloudless horizon. In November, 1912, when a European war
seemed imminent to many, Russia was in the compromising mood
which tallied with Germany’s expectations. But not all Russia. There
was one exception, but a noteworthy one, which might possibly
upset all calculations. The Tsar having felt his way by eliciting the
opinions of the most experienced men around him, who were almost
unanimously in favour of a compromise, heard one dissentient voice
uplifted. He was advised by the Grand Duke Nikolai Nikolayevitch,
the present Commander-in-Chief of the active army, not to shrink
from a spirited policy solely because war might appear to loom large
at the end of it. Russia could, the Grand Duke held, embark in a
military conflict without any of the risks apprehended by non-military
men. Her army was eager and ready. Its leaders were men of
experience and tested worth, and their strategical ability nowise
inferior to that of their prospective German and Austrian enemies. In
a word, it behoved Russia to pursue that policy which best
harmonizes with her interests, irrespective of the deterrent which war
constitutes for so many.
 That was the judgment of a Grand Duke who has many friends
and some enemies in his own country, but whom friends and
enemies alike regard as an ideal military leader, full of dash,
dauntless, and devoted to his profession with single-mindedness.
Now, this man’s view, the Germans argued, which was set aside just
then, might prevail in a second crisis. In any case, before opening
the campaign against Servia, it would be well to ascertain which way
the wind was blowing. For this purpose a ballon d’essai might with
profit be set flying. Such was the happy thought which was
conceived last spring and promptly carried out.
Teuton methods are instructive, if not edifying. Almost always
they are crooked, clumsy, and as recognizable as the goods marked
“made in Germany” once were. The device adopted on this occasion
formed no exception to the type. A long and carefully worded letter
was sent to the Cologne Gazette by its correspondent in the Russian
capital, a plodding journalist named Ulrich. In this missive he dwelt
on the Russian army, its present defects and future possibilities, on
the exertions which the Tsar’s Government was making to
reorganize it, on the rôle it was destined to play when it became
effective, and on other cognate topics. The conclusion to which it
pointed was: Russia is very disorganized and weak to-day. Soon she
will become redoubtable. Now is the moment for a preventive war.
There will never be a better opportunity. This letter was known to
have been inspired in St. Petersburg by a high official of a foreign
Embassy, who himself had received instructions either from Vienna
or Berlin, or both capitals. At first suspicion fell upon the German
Ambassador, Count Pourtalès, but he had no difficulty in clearing
himself of the charge. The message had been written and published
without his knowledge. Then an ex-German adjutant of the Tsar was
believed to be the inspirer of the missive. But again the public was
on a false scent. I know the author—the real author—of the letter,
and whence his instructions came. But even now that war is being
waged by the Empires involved, I do not feel at liberty to disclose his
name. Nor is it of any consequence.
What happened was what had been prearranged. All the
German newspapers of importance, taking the essay in the Cologne
Gazette as their text, inaugurated a venomous press campaign
against Russia as the marplot of Europe and the enemy of the
German people.
Why, it was asked, should she seek to reorganize her army if she
harboured no aggressive designs against Germany and Austria?
Who menaces her? Torrents of vituperation flowed through the canal
of the German and Austrian press, and for a few days it looked as if
diplomacy itself would be sucked into the vortex. For nearly a
fortnight this concerted attack on Russia was steadily pursued.
One day, before there were any signs of its abating, a telling
article appeared in an evening paper of St. Petersburg, the
Birshevya Vedomosti. And like the production of the Cologne
Gazette it, too, was inspired, but inspired by the Tsar’s gifted War
Minister, Sukhomlinoff. And in this article were enumerated the army
reforms which had been put through by the War Office since the
Manchurian campaign. The peace effective, it was said, had been
increased considerably, the standard of training had been raised, the
fortresses supplied with material of the newest type, the artillery
possessed more effective guns than those of Austria or France, the
air fleet disposed of numerous aerial dreadnoughts, and Russia’s
army was in a position, and likewise in the mood, to assume the
offensive instead of limiting itself to the rôle heretofore assigned to it
by Berlin and Vienna of awaiting the enemy’s onslaught.
Such was the burden of M. Sukhomlinoff’s message. It was
sharply criticized by the Austro-German press, in the light of the
documents to which I have already alluded. Those vaunted reforms,
it was urged, were all imaginary. They stood not for results achieved,
but for defects to be remedied. No such results had been attained as
yet, nor even striven for. They could not be attempted without the
expenditure of large sums set apart for those specific purposes, and
in Berlin and in Vienna we know, as well as in St. Petersburg, that no
large credits were allotted to the army. “We also are aware,” it was
added, “that the War Minister will shortly ask the Duma to vote a
credit for these very reforms, and it is not to our interest to wait
inactive until they are carried out. Within three years they are not
realizable, and before the expiry of this term it behoves us to square
accounts with the Tsardom.”
Soon afterwards the Russian War Minister did ask the Duma for
an extraordinary credit for the defences of the Empire. And he
received it without a dissentient voice among the recognized
parliamentary parties.
Thus the statements of the Birshevya Vedomosti made little
impression either in Berlin or Vienna, where the belief was still
hugged that Russia would have to recoil from war and adjust her
diplomacy to this recognized necessity.
This belief was destined to be further strengthened by the
controversy which raged around Russian finances as soon as the
patriotic Premier and Finance Minister had been relieved of his
duties. M. Kokofftseff had accomplished much as Minister of
Finances and also as Premier. But he was cordially disliked by the
Germans, whose plots and intrigues he had seen through and
baulked. He had never allowed himself to be cajoled by German
flattery or hoodwinked by German wiles. The alliance with France
and the good understanding with Great Britain lay at the foundations
of his policy. And he made no secret of his convictions. On his fall,
which was hailed as a triumph by the Germans, his home critics
analysed his financial policy, and some of them charged him with
niggardliness towards the army. To my knowledge, however, it was
he who arranged for the extraordinary credit to be allotted to the
Russian War Office, which M. Sukhomlinoff received last March.
But the gravest count in the wide indictment against M.
Kokofftseff turned upon his financial operations and their alleged
effect upon Russia’s foreign policy, and her ability to uphold that
policy by force of arms. It was asserted, as I have already said, that
the free reserve of gold which was fondly supposed to be safe in the
Imperial Bank, ready for any national emergency, had been
dissipated for the time being and was immobilized. This enormous
sum had, it was stated, been lent out by the Bank to private financial
institutions throughout the Empire. One milliard and fifty million
roubles! And these institutions in turn had distributed this money
among private individuals, doubtless on good securities, but for
unjustifiably long terms. Now, if a national crisis were to break out
while these terms were still running, all that money would be locked
up, the Tsar’s Government would have at its disposal at most a
miserable pittance of sixteen millions sterling, and the Empire would
be confronted with bankruptcy.
This pessimistic judgment, embroidered with figures and
calculations, was, as we have seen, treasured up in Berlin, Vienna,
and Budapest, where it produced an impression that may be truly
termed decisive. It certainly contributed in a large measure to
change the loose belief into a hard conviction that Russia was
definitely debarred from appearing on the field of battle against
Austria, and, of course, against Germany. This I know. And yet the
allegations in question were partly unfounded, partly exaggerated,
and so little remained when truth had been sifted from fiction that the
weighty conclusions based upon them by Germany and Austria
lacked solid support. Subsequent events have shown this
conclusively. But it was not then realized by either of the two
Governments, whose leading members had pored over the figures
until they knew them by heart. It is my unalterable conviction that if
Germany had been delivered from this naive illusion respecting
Russia, and from certain others bearing upon Great Britain and
Ireland, the war now waging would have been—postponed.
Another miscalculation which played a part in heartening the
Central European Powers had to do with the internal condition of the
Tsardom. And it was accounted incompatible with any strenuous
military endeavour. Nowadays wars are waged not by dynasties, but
by armed nations. The entire nation shoulders its rifle and goes forth
to do battle with the foe. But unless it does so resolutely and
unanimously, the outlook is dismal. Now, can Russia accomplish
this? it was asked. And by way of answering the query the various
elements of the population were passed in review, the non-Russians
coming first.

Are the Finns (it was queried) likely to join hands with the
Orthodox inhabitants who have been encroaching steadily on
 the guaranteed rights of the Grand Duchy? Is it not infinitely
more likely that if the Tsar’s army were hard pressed, these once
loyal subjects would rise up against it? And is it not equally
certain that Sweden, despite her official neutrality, would lose no
chance of aiding and abetting them? Is it to be supposed that the
Poles would act differently? Have they any motive for liking
Russia, still more for sacrificing themselves to succour her? Can
the Little Russians and the people of the Caucasus be credited
with more cordial feelings towards their conquerors than those
which animate the Finns and the Poles? And the Jews? Would
not these be the most dangerous of Russia’s foes, because they
would ally themselves with the domestic as well as the foreign
enemies of the Empire, creating insuperable difficulties on the
railway lines, in the army, in finances?
Coming to the Russians themselves, we find whole sections
of them as badly disposed towards their Government as the
Jews, the Poles, and the Finns. The industrial population is one
seething mass of disaffection. Rebellion is smouldering among
them, and needs only a puff of wind, such as a European war
6
would supply in abundance, to break out into flame. Before
Russia could decide to go to war she would have to station one
army corps in Finland, another in Poland, and a third and fourth
in the interior to keep order among the restless peasants, who
have their own aims and grievances, which would have to be
considered if war broke out. In a word, Russia is bound hand
and foot. She cannot make a warlike move. And if her
diplomatists speak as though she contemplated such a step, it
will be nothing more than bluff.

Moving along this line of reasoning, the statesmen of Berlin and

Vienna reached the comforting conclusion that they had nothing to
fear from the Tsardom. And that was the crucial point that had
needed elucidation. For if the Tsar’s Government remained inactive
while Servia was being punished and Turkey and Bulgaria bribed,
there would be no cause to apprehend a hitch. Certes, no European
Power would risk hostilities to help Servia out of a tight place, or,
indeed, to bring about any change in the map of the Balkans. The
only interference possible must come from the Tsardom, and if that
Empire were indeed paralysed, opposition from the group of three
Powers would be eliminated. And it was clear that Russia was, for
the moment at any rate, paralysed in almost every organ. The Tsar,
the Duma, the army, the War Office, the Finance Ministry, the ethnic
elements of the Empire, held each other in check.
That this was the theory held in Berlin, and with a trifle less
tenacity and conviction in Vienna, I know. I can also aver that the
principal grounds on which it was based were those which I have set
forth. And although it is idle now to speculate on what might have
been under conditions that were not realized, I think one may fairly
hazard the conjecture that if it had been proved to the satisfaction of
the statesmen of Austria that their inferences and the half-truths or
undiluted errors from which they drew them were indeed erroneous,
and that Russia’s forbearance would not stretch as far as the
meditated aggression nor her resources prove as limited as her
enemies’ theories assumed, the ultimatum to Servia would have
been worded by Austria, acting alone and in accordance with
international usage, and the demands it embodied would have been
whittled down to the maximum of what could reasonably have been
exacted.
But Germany was literally too well informed and too little
qualified to determine the bearings of the overwhelming mass of
materials for a judgment which were laid before her. While
immersing herself in so-called facts, she left out of sight the soul of
the nation, with whose holiest possessions she was about to tamper.
Despite her undoubted gifts of observation and analysis,
Prussianized Germany is entirely lacking in the psychological sense.
She deals with the superficial, the obvious. As though a nation’s
history were the resultant of a sequence of lifeless events, of
outward changes! As though the inherited streams of racial impulse,
of national volition, of patriotic, irrepressible energy went for nothing
in the equation! As though the latent forces and tendencies of
centuries would not be brought into far resonant action by the
rousing of slumbering passion, by the fire-flames which the shock of
war must kindle! In all her minute calculations, Prussia’s materialistic
leaders lost sight of the spiritual, of the ideals that haunt a nation’s
soul and infuse into it in moments of stress a superhuman strength
capable of working miracles. The wild enthusiasm dormant in the
Russian race, but ready to start into life and action for the support of
a heroic cause, constitute an algebraical x for the Prussian
calculator, who can measure only coarse energies and brutal forces.
 CHAPTER IV
FORCING THE QUARREL

Prussian logic having thus triumphantly proved that the one

prospective enemy must remain quiescent, drew the obvious
conclusion that the other Powers of the Entente would not move a
finger to baulk Austria of her prey. And this was an all-important
factor in the reckoning of the Teutonic States. Russia’s active
participation in the war would perhaps entail, besides the onrush of
her own countless swarms, the co-operation of France, whereas the
fundamental axiom of Prussia’s war policy was to seek to try issues
with each member of the Entente separately, and for this purpose to
force such a quarrel, now upon one, now upon the other, as would
leave the interests of that member’s allies untouched for the time
being. A further device was to constrain the enemy formally to play
the part of aggressor, so as to provide a convenient bridge for the
allies to withdraw within the sphere of benevolent neutrality. This
latter precaution was not adopted towards Russia, the reason being
the aforesaid conviction that, come what might, Russia’s inactivity
was a foregone conclusion. There are convincing grounds for my
statement that this consideration supplied the motive for the Kaiser’s
amendment to the Austrian ultimatum, limiting the time given to
7
Servia for reflection to forty-eight hours and for according to the
Russians only twelve hours to demobilize.
Austria-Hungary, whose quarrel with Servia was the little well-
spring from which the world-stream of armies took its source,
showed herself some degrees less confident than her Prussian ally.
Her statesmen were swayed by an instinctive forefeeling that some
great element of the Russian problem was still unaccounted for and
might suddenly spring up and upset all calculations. Tabulated
figures and copies of the reports of certain pessimistic Russian
public men carried conviction to their minds, but failed to dispel
irrational fears. This despondent frame of mind was intensified by the
knowledge that if the punitive expedition against Servia were to
culminate in a European war, the Dual Monarchy stood to lose more
than her ally. And if fortune should prove adverse, the Habsburg
Monarchy would, in all probability, go to pieces.
To the members of the Vienna and Budapest Cabinets,
therefore, caution seemed more imperatively demanded than to their
Berlin colleagues. No effort, however, was spared by the German
Ambassador in Vienna, von Tschirschky, to bring vividly home to
Counts Berchtold and Tisza the utter disorganization of the Russian
finances, armies, railways, and administration, and to dissipate their
ineradicable misgivings. But in spite of the Ambassador’s incessant
exertions, there was ever present to the Austro-Hungarian mind a
residue of doubt and disquietude which stood in jarring contrast to
the insolent demands embodied in the amended ultimatum. And
after that document had been presented in Belgrade, and the
desired answer received from the Servian Premier, Pasitch, the
anxiety of Austria’s statesmen threw a still darker cloud over the
vista that opened before them.
If Russia were to remain neutral during the punishment of
Servia, it was plain that France, too, would keep quiet. Her
Government had no concern with the way in which the Balkan
equilibrium was established; it cherished no sympathies with
Bosnian assassins, and it had no spare funds for military ventures.
Still less were the French people desirous of embarking on a
European struggle for aims which could not be made plausible to the
average bourgeois taxpayer. French money had been poured into
Russia in never-ending streams, but that streams of French blood
should follow it was inconceivable to the mind of the people. This line
of reasoning was unanswerable. Given Russia’s neutrality, then
France’s quiescence was unquestionable. But suppose the
premisses turned out to be a mistake? Assuming, as during those
anxious days Austrians sometimes did, that Russia, belying all
calculations, rose up and girded her loins for battle, what then? The
Republic would assuredly throw in its lot with the Tsardom. Of that it
would be rash to doubt. Now, what this would mean to the two
Central military States was the next question which it behoved them
to put clearly and solve fully. And this is how they did it.

France (it was argued) is in the last phase of political

decadence. Comfort, luxury, self-indulgence, and the financial
means to procure these are the goal of her latter-day strivings.
She has no faith, no moral or religious ideals, no lofty
aspirations, no generous ambitions. Her enthusiasms are burnt
out, her thirst for military glory is stilled by historic memories.
She possesses territory enough to absorb whatever energies
she may still have left. Contented to live as she now is, her one
desire is to be undisturbed. Above all else, she loathes the idea
of a war which would bereave her of her material well-being and
force her to put forth strenuous exertions for which she no longer
has the heart. Her population, and therefore the race itself, is
being systematically sacrificed to this love of ease. Peace,
universal peace, is the French ideal to-day, and pacificism the
form in which it is popularized for the man in the street. Look at
the debates on the introduction of the three years’ military
service in the Republic, and compare the reception accorded to
that measure by the nation with the way in which the German
race received, nay, welcomed, the sacrifices imposed by the
recent war-tax. The truth is, France is undergoing a process of
rapid decay. The martial spirit that flashed forth during the
French Revolution and nerved the nation to withstand the world
was the last flicker before extinction. The people of France is
dying of self-indulgence.
And coming to particulars, the public men of the Military
Powers derided the army and the navy. They revelled in
accounts of the long sequence of mishaps that befell French
warships a couple of years ago. They savoured the stories of the
powder that was not only smokeless, but fireless, when it was
needed for the guns, and which exploded quickly enough to hurl
ships and crews into destruction. Yet the most patriotic
statesman of the Republic, M. Delcassé, was then presiding
over the destinies of the Republic’s sea forces. And as for the
army, who, it was asked, has forgotten the exodus of its best
generals and officers on account of the treatment to which their
views on religion subjected them? Here in Germany we have
Catholic generals and officers fighting side by side with
Protestants and Atheists, because one and all we are and feel
ourselves Germans. It is possible that our Government or our
Kaiser may impose a Professor on a University because he is an
Orthodox Lutheran or a good Catholic, as was the case when
the Kaiser sent Professor Spahn to a University chair in order to
conciliate the Centre. But is it conceivable that any man,
however influential or favoured, should receive a command in
the German army or navy on other grounds than his strictly
technical qualifications? Of course not. If we possessed a really
good strategist, he would make his way to the top even if he
were an incarnate demon. We have no political appointments in
either of our services. There the maxim is supreme that the
career is open to talents. For over forty years we have
concentrated all our energies, diplomatic, financial, scientific,
technical, upon the creation of two formidable weapons of
defence and aggression, and have subordinated every other
consideration to that end. What other people in Europe has done
this, nay, attempted it? And we now possess that weapon. There
is not the slightest doubt that if the Republic were foolish enough
to venture all it has and is on the issue of a war with Germany, it
would not stop at this blunder. It would go further, and select for
its army leaders men who are good radicals or republicans, and
who never go to mass, rather than able military men who can
handle millions of soldiers and make their mark in strategy.
“You must surely have read the disclosures about the plight
of the French army recently made by Senator Humbert,”
politicians remarked to me. “They reveal a condition of affairs
which renders France, as we say in German, ‘harmless.’ It would
be a mistake, therefore, to take the Republic too seriously. Such
fighting power as is left in her is but a pithless simulacrum of
what once was hers. You doubt the accuracy of the Senator’s
 allegations? But they are of a piece with everything else we saw
and heard and knew of France long before M. Humbert rose to
complain of the mess his friends and colleagues had made of
the national defences. But if you want a more direct proof, read
the corroborating testimony of the present War Minister, M.
Messimy. That personage must surely know. He took stock of his
department before uttering his opinion. And he endorsed the
judgment of the Senator. No. France among virile nations is what
Maxim Gorky’s ‘beings that once were men’ are among the
social classes. She is to be included among the submerged. And
that is why your Government will shake her off if she is drawn
into war for Russia’s sake. You cannot save a nation against
itself. And France is dying gradually of self-inflicted wounds.
“One of the most valuable assets of a nation which has to
hold its possessions by force of arms is the ease and rapidity
with which it can get its fighting men and material together and
throw them into the enemy’s country. Well, no country can
approach Germany or even Austria in this respect. Our system
of mobilization goes with unparalleled smoothness and velocity.
To use a slang phrase, which is not without picturesqueness, it
works with the swiftness and sureness of greased lightning. Now
of all countries in Europe, Russia herself not excepted, the
French are the most backward in this respect. Forty-four years’
peace have not provided them with leisure enough to make
perceptible progress in this elementary operation of war.”

To my query on what grounds this amazing statement could be

advanced and supported, I was treated to a sort of lecture on the
subject which was then applied to the French railway system in the
following ingenious way:

What mobilization is to a campaign, the railway system of a

country is to mobilization. Almost everything depends upon the
smooth and rapid running of the trains from all parts of the
country to the base, and from there to the front or fronts. Order
and rapidity are essential to success. And in the railway system
of the Republic you look for these qualities in vain. To you who
have travelled much in France the truth of this statement should
be self-evident. Everybody who has used the German and
French railways has had the contrast between them borne in
upon him unpleasantly. Once off the principal lines in France,
you find yourself in a railway sphere a quarter of a century
behind the times. Examine the rolling stock, inspect the
carriages, watch the railway officials at their work, compare the
time-tables with the actual hours of the trains’ departure and
arrival, and you will then be able to form some notion of the
disadvantage under which the French armies would begin a
campaign against this country. They would resemble the warrior
who, having set out for the field of battle, had to go home for the
weapons which he had forgotten.
Military transport in war-time is a much more formidable
enterprise than the conveyance, say, of agricultural produce in
peace. In fact, there is no comparison between them. But if the
easier of the two problems makes impossible demands on the
railway system, one is warranted in concluding that the more
difficult one will prove wholly beyond its capacities. Well, that
demonstration has already been made in the eyes of the world.
The test case occurred in the autumn of the year 1911, and
8
we watched it closely. In Austria-Hungary, Germany,
Switzerland, and Italy the fruit-crops had failed, and the demand
for fruit in those countries was unprecedented. Most of their
supplies had to be drawn from France. On the French railways,
therefore, an unusually heavy strain was put, very much less, of
course, than one would look for during a general mobilization,
but still a telling strain. One difference, however, there was
between the two emergencies: the export of French fruit in
abnormal quantities had been anticipated and prepared for in
advance, whereas the need for mobilization might make itself felt
unawares and without any margin of time for preparative
measures. Well, the French railway administration provided for
the exportation of these enormous quantities of fruit no less than
15,000 wagons. The average distance over which this produce
had to be conveyed was in round numbers six hundred miles.
Some of the trains accomplished the journey much quicker
than others. But the swiftest of them all took twelve or thirteen
days. And these expeditious ones were few. The next in order
required three weeks—three whole weeks for a journey of 600
miles in peace time, and despite a long notification and
elaborate preparations. But some of the trains were four, five,
and even six weeks on the way. One hundred miles a week for
perishable fruit, which rotted at the stations and sidings! Now,
over against this speed-rate of thirty miles a day in normal times,
you have to set the speed of the German and Austrian military
train in war-time. It is thirty miles an hour. And the German
goods trains running to the western borders of the Empire go
from six to eight and a half times more quickly than the French.
With the reasons for this astounding backwardness we are
not, they went on to say, concerned. That is the business of the
Republic, not ours. Speaking summarily, one might fairly ascribe
it to the lack of sufficient numbers of side stations, soundly laid
rails, of engines and rolling stock, and last, but nowise least, to
the Republican system of railway administration. In this branch
of the public service, as in the army and the navy, what is most
peremptorily required is authority, and that in France is lacking.
Everybody wants to command, nobody cares to obey. Not only
an army, but also a railway administration should be organized
on the lines of an absolute monarchy—of a despotic State, if you
like—one man’s will and its manifestations, direct and indirect,
being law, and from that law there should be no facile appeal.
Unless this condition is realized, you cannot reasonably expect
to get from the railway mechanism all the advantages which the
general staff should be able to count on securing from it in war-
time. This is especially true in France, where personal jealousy
or disfavour so often disqualifies talent and pitchforks mediocrity
into the high places of responsibility and trust. In short, France is
politically moribund. From her we have nothing to fear. She will
 certainly not go to war to shield Servia from well-deserved
punishment. And that is precisely the present issue.

On two occasions since then these strictures and the German

anticipations which were built upon them came back to my mind with
painful vividness. During the first couple of weeks after the war, I
heard the Belgians in Liége, Louvain, Brussels, Alost, Ghent, and
Bruges anxiously inquiring, “Where are the French troops that should
be here to succour us? When are they coming? It is only a few
hours’ railway journey to Paris. Why are they not here? Surely they
have had ample time to get to Belgium.” And when I ransacked my
brain for a comforting reply, all I found there was the image of the
German statesman propounding his view of French railways and the
chaotic confusion which would accompany and retard mobilization.
The second time I recalled that conversation on reading the
newspaper accounts of the fall of Namur. The Namur forts were to
have held out for weeks or months, we had been told, because they
were the most powerful in Europe, and also because the triangle
between the Sambre and the Meuse was held by French army corps
in great force. But it turned out that the French troops which were
believed to be there had not yet arrived, owing to difficulties that had
been encountered in the mobilization. These were the difficulties that
had been foretold me, that were confidently counted upon by the
German War Ministry, and of which I warned the French Government
over two years ago.
Those statements were volunteered to me in order that I should
make them known in Great Britain as arguments to be taken into
account when the attitude of our own Government came up for
discussion. As a matter of course, I never brought them forward, my
own conviction having been uttered in season and out of season for
twenty years—that all Germany’s energies, military, naval, financial,
commercial, diplomatic, and journalistic, had been focussed upon
exhaustive preparations for a tremendous struggle to establish
Teutonic supremacy in Europe, that that struggle was unavoidable,
and that the German war-machine was in all respects worthy of the
money, time, and energies that had been spent on creating and
perfecting it, and that no European army could compete with it. Over
and over again I expressed my regret at finding the people of Great
Britain irrationally hopeful and unsuspecting, utterly ignorant of
Germany’s systematic strivings and subversive machinations, yet
unwilling to learn from those who were conversant with these
matters. A considerable section of the French people was equally
trustful and supine. They were the blind of the class that will not see.
They pointed to the honest Chancellor, to the peace-loving Kaiser, to
the fair-minded professors and journalists who had assured the
British people that it had nothing to fear, and to the treaties which
they considered binding. They laughed to scorn the notion that these
instruments would be treated as scraps of paper.
In October, 1911, I wrote:

The truth is, in this country we fail utterly to fathom the

German psyche, just as in the Fatherland they misunderstand
the workings of the national British soul. What is meanwhile
clear enough is that the peace of Europe is at the mercy of well-
armed, restless, ill-balanced Germany; that no section of that
gifted and enterprising people differs sufficiently in its mode of
thought and feeling from any other section to warrant our
regarding it as a check upon rash impulse, vengeful aggression,
or predatory designs; that treaties possess no binding or
deterrent force, and that friendly conduct on the part of Great
Britain or France has no propitiatory effect. Brute force is the
only thing that counts; and henceforth the Peace Powers must
9
store it up at all costs.

Three months later I wrote:

Germany would fain get wealthy colonies without the

sacrifice of money and blood, but she is bent on getting them,
cost what they may. And that is one of the main factors which it
behoves us to bear in mind. Another is that in the pursuit of her
aims she deems all means good. Success is the unique test.
 “You can expect forgiveness for a breach of faith only from a foe
worsted on the battlefield,” says a latter-day German
10
aphorism.

Those statements, forecasts, and warnings were clear and

emphatic. I had been urging them on the attention of the British
nation for twenty years. But the bulk of the British nation refused to
think evil of their German cousins, whom I was believed to be
calumniating.
But I continued to set the facts as I knew them before the public,
and the line of action which our rivals would, and we should, follow
under those difficult conditions I sketched briefly in the following
words:

The spirit in which German statesmen deem it meet and

advantageous to hold intercourse with foreign nations is
apparently as far removed from ours as the moon from the earth.
Not only sentimentality, but more solid motives which can be
much less easily missed, are lacking.... The practical outcome of
this would seem to be that British relations towards Germany
should be marked by cordiality, frankness, and a desire to let
live, bounded by the vital necessity of abstaining from everything
calculated to give umbrage to our intimate friends. And in the
second place, from this line of conduct we should look for no
abiding results, because it cannot touch the heart of the rival
11
nation.

But the faith of the easy-going British people and Government in

Germany’s honour and in the sincerity of her peace professions was
unshaken. They seemed possessed by the demons of credulity and
pacificism. Like the Russian Tsar who on the eve of the Manchurian
campaign exclaimed, “There cannot be war because I am in favour
of peace,” they fancied that because Great Britain was satiated with
territory and only demanded to be left in the undisturbed enjoyment
of what she possessed, therefore Germany, who yearned for
territorial expansion, would suppress her longings, relinquish her
costly plans, and likewise work for peace. That, too, was the belief of
our own Government, with the exception of a few permanent officials
who, having travelled, heard, and seen what was going on, yielded
to the evidence of their senses and bore witness to what they knew.
Accordingly the British Foreign Office set its hand to the work of
establishing peace, animated by a spirit of compromise which, sooth
to say, is rare in these days of national egotism and narrow patriotic
endeavour. Lord Haldane visited Berlin. An exchange of views took
place between that capital and London. Hopes of arriving at an
understanding on all points were entertained and expressed. And I,
as a friend of peace and a citizen of my country, felt bound to second
those endeavours to the best of my limited means. But I took care to
accompany my support with a warning. For I regarded Prussia’s
attitude as a snare. Acquainted with the methods of her diplomacy, I
recognized the trail of the serpent in the movements of the dove.
This is what I wrote:

After a long period of political estrangement Great Britain

and Germany are now circumspectly endeavouring to make
friends again. The effort is painful and success is dubious, but it
is recognized that the present conjuncture is the flood-water of
opportunity. It must be now or not until after distrust has become
enmity, and peaceful rivalry has degenerated into war.... It is felt
that whatever is feasible in the way of healing the wounds which
are still aching must be effected at once. The British Government
and nation not only favour an understanding, but are eager to
see it arranged. They are prepared to make sacrifices for it, on
12
condition that it is no mere semblance of a settlement.

But I made it clear that we could “look for no abiding results”

from any settlement of our differences to which we might come,
because we were dealing with a Government and a nation whose
assurances are worthless, and whose promises are no more than a
scrap of paper. Since then the Imperial Chancellor has borne out