Speech Delivered in the Reichstag, March 30, 1911.
I have asked to speak in order to make a few brief remarks on the
question of disarmament and arbitration. The Social Democratic
motion proposes that I should take steps to bring about a general
limitation of armaments. As a matter of fact, the idea of
disarmament is being constantly discussed by pacifists in
Parliaments and in Congresses far and wide. Even the first peace
conference at The Hague had to confine itself to expressing the
wish that the Governments should devote themselves to the continued
study of the question.
Germany has responded to this desire, but has been able to find no
suitable formula, and I am not aware that other Governments have
been more successful. The time when wars were made by Cabinets is
past. The feelings which here in Europe may lead to war lie
elsewhere.
They have their roots in antagonisms which must be found in popular
sentiment. Everybody knows how easily this sentiment is influenced
and how, unfortunately, in many cases, it abandons itself
helplessly to irresponsible press agitations. A counterpoise to
all such and similar influences can but be desired. I shall be the
first to welcome it whenever international efforts succeed in
creating such a counterpoise.
But if I am to take practical steps and am to propose mutual
disarmament to the other powers, then general pacific assurances
and adjurations are not enough. With Germany there is no need for
such assurances or adjurations, in view of her constant policy
throughout forty years, which shows that we seek no quarrels in the
world. I should have to submit a fixed, definite programme. Then I
should have to consider in all sobriety whether such a programme
could be drawn up and carried out. Any one who makes uncertain and
vague proposals can easily become a disturber of the peace rather
than a peacemaker.
I shall have to decline to draw up such a formula and submit it to
an international congress.
England's Naval Police.
England is convinced, and has repeatedly declared, in spite of her
desires for the limitation of expenditure on armaments and for the
adjustment of any disputes that may arise by arbitral procedure,
that her fleet must in all circumstances be superior, or at any
rate equal, to any possible combination in the world. England has a
perfect right to strive for such a state of things, and, precisely
because of the position that I take up toward the disarmament
question, I am the last to cast doubts upon it. It is quite another
thing, however, to make such a claim the basis of a convention
which must be recognized by all the other powers in peaceful
agreement. What if counterclaims are raised and the other powers
are not satisfied with the rôles assigned to them?
One only requires to propound these questions in order to see
things would not go well for European dignity at any world congress
which had to decide upon such claims.
And then armies. If, for example, Germany should be required to
reduce her army by 100,000 men, by how many men must the other
powers diminish their armies? Notwithstanding all the pacific
assurances which, thank God, are being given everywhere, every
nation would reply to me at any preliminary inquiry that it claims
that position in the world which corresponds with the sum of its
national power, that the strength of its defensive forces must be
adapted to this claim. At any rate, I would give no other reply for
Germany. I should be touching the honor and national sentiment of
any other people if I expected any other statement from it.
Question of Control.
Every attempt at international disarmament must break down on the
question of control, which is absolutely impracticable. A classic
example of that is afforded by Prussia when overthrown by Napoleon.
Her army was to be limited to 45,000 men, but her patriotism,
notwithstanding the most ruthless application of every means of
control, managed to raise an army four times as large. The question
of disarmament is insoluble so long as men are men and States are
States.
In the course of the debate reference has been made to the recent
utterances of the British Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in
the House of Commons on the disarmament question. The English
Minister gave expression to the idea that a reciprocal exchange of
information concerning the naval construction of both countries
would insure them against surprises, and that thereby both
countries would be convinced that they were not trying mutually to
outstrip each other, while other powers would thereby be kept
informed regarding the relations of Germany and England, and so the
exchange of announcements would, on the whole, serve to promote
peace.
We were all the more able to adhere to this idea as our naval
building programme has always lain open. We have already declared
our readiness to come to an understanding on this point with
England, in the hope that it may bring about a desired appeasement.
World-embracing international arbitration treaties dictated by an
international areopagus I consider just as impossible as general
international disarmament. Germany takes up no hostile position
toward arbitration. In all the new German treaties of commerce
there are arbitration clauses. In the main it was due to Germany's
initiative that an agreement was arrived at at the second Hague
conference for the establishment of an International Prize Court.
Arbitration treaties can certainly contribute in a great measure to
maintain and fortify peaceful relations. But strength must depend
on readiness for war. The dictum still holds good that the weak
becomes the prey of the strong. If a nation can not or will not
spend enough on her defensive forces for her to be able to make her
way in the world, then she falls back into the second rank.
* * * * *