I unhesitatingly add that I am convinced he was sincere in what he said.
Of that I have no doubt.[4]
It must, in fact, be recognized that in the present state of international
relations, the general suspicion and the imminent danger, it requires more
imagination and faith than most public men possess, and more idealism than
most nations have shown themselves to be capable of, to take any radical
step towards reorganization. The armed peace, as we have so often had to
insist, perpetuates itself by the mistrust which it establishes.
Every move by one Power is taken to be a menace to another, and is
countered by a similar move, which in turn produces a reply. And it is
not easy to say "Who began it?" since the rivalry goes so far back into
the past. What, for instance, is the real truth about the German, French,
and Russian military laws of 1913? Were any or all of them aggressive? Or
were they all defensive? I do not believe it is possible to answer that
question. Looking back from the point of view of 1914, it is natural to
suppose that Germany was already intending war. But that did not seem
evident at the time to a neutral observer, nor even, it would seem, to
the British Foreign Office. Thus the Count de Lalaing, Belgian Minister
in London, writes as follows on February 24, 1913:--
The English Press naturally wants to throw upon Germany the
responsibility for the new tension which results from its proposals,
and which may bring to Europe fresh occasions of unrest. Many journals
consider that the French Government, in declaring itself ready to impose
three years' service, and in nominating M. Delcassé to St. Petersburg,
has adopted the only attitude worthy of the great Republic in presence
of a German provocation. At the Foreign Office I found a more just and
calm appreciation of the position. They see in the reinforcement of
the German armies less a provocation than the admission of a military
situation weakened by events and which it is necessary to strengthen.
The Government of Berlin sees itself obliged to recognize that it cannot
count, as before, on the support of all the forces of its Austrian ally,
since the appearance in South-east Europe of a new Power, that of the
Balkan allies, established on the very flank of the Dual Empire. Far
from being able to count, in case of need, on the full support of the
Government of Vienna, it is probable that Germany will have to support
Vienna herself. In the case of a European war she would have to make
head against her enemies on two frontiers, the Russian and the French,
and diminish perhaps her own forces to aid the Austrian army. In these
conditions they do not find it surprising that the German Empire should
have felt it necessary to increase the number of its Army Corps. They add
at the Foreign Office that the Government of Berlin had frankly explained
to the Cabinet of Paris the precise motives of its action.
Whether this is a complete account of the motives of the German Government
in introducing the law of 1913 cannot be definitely established. But the
motives suggested are adequate by themselves to account for the facts.
On the other hand, a part of the cost of the new law was to be defrayed
by a tax on capital. And those who believe that by this year Germany was
definitely waiting an occasion to make war have a right to dwell upon that
fact. I find, myself, nothing conclusive in these speculations. But what
is certain, and to my mind much more important, is the fact that military
preparations evoke counter-preparations, until at last the strain becomes
unbearable. By 1913 it was already terrific. The Germans knew well that
by January 1917 the French and Russian preparations would have reached
their culminating point. But those preparations were themselves almost
unendurable to the French.
I may recall here the passage already cited from a dispatch of Baron
Guillaume, Belgian Ambassador at Paris, written in June 1914 (p. 34).
He suspected, as we saw, that the hand of Russia had imposed the three
years' service upon France.
What Baron Guillaume thought plausible must not the Germans have thought
plausible? Must it not have confirmed their belief in the "inevitability"
of a war--that belief which, by itself, has been enough to produce war
after war, and, in particular, the war of 1870? Must there not have been
strengthened in their minds that particular current among the many that
were making for war? And must not similar suspicions have been active,
with similar results, on the side of France and Russia? The armaments
engender fear, the fear in turn engenders armaments, and in that vicious
circle turns the policy of Europe, till this or that Power precipitates the
conflict, much as a man hanging in terror over the edge of a cliff ends by
losing his nerve and throwing himself over. That is the real lesson of the
rivalry in armaments. That is certain. The rest remains conjecture.
[Footnote 1: "L'Allemagne avant la guerre," p. 75, and British White Paper,
No. 160.]
[Footnote 2: The account that follows is taken from the "Autobiography" of
Andrew D. White, the chairman of the American delegation. See vol. ii.,
chap. xiv. and following.]
[Footnote 3: Mr. Arthur Lee, late Civil Lord of the Admiralty, at
Eastleigh:--
"If war should unhappily break out under existing conditions the British
Navy would get its blow in first, before the other nation had time even to
read in the papers that war had been declared" (_The Times_, February 4,
1905).
"The British fleet is now prepared strategically for every possible
emergency, for we must assume that all foreign naval Powers are possible
enemies" (_The Times_, February 7, 1905).]
[Footnote 4: Sir Edwin Pears, "Forty Years in Constantinople," p.330.]