Daniel Jordan is Assistant Professor of Roman Languages and
Literature at Columbia University.
_To the Editor of The New York Times:_
President Eliot is as fair a judge of the present European situation as
can be found anywhere, and is well qualified to explain the almost
unanimous attitude of thoughtful Americans in regard to Germany. Dr.
Dernburg, on the other hand, has been officially sent from Germany to
expound the German official version; both his point of view and his
treatment of facts are essentially un-American.
He says: "Americans object to the extension of territory by force.
Germany has never done that." Apparently he believes that the Poles
asked Prussia to become her subjects. The facts are that they have
fought and begged for autonomy for nearly 150 years, and that at the
present time high German officials are members of the Anti-Polish
League.
Dr. Dernburg, when he comes to Schleswig-Holstein, states that 30,000
Danes south of the Eider River (this is in Holstein) have been absorbed
against their will, "a thing that can never be avoided, and that has
sometimes given Prussia a little trouble." But what about the Danes
north of the Eider River? Schleswig and Holstein are really two
provinces. Holstein is German, but the northern part of Schleswig, north
of Fiensburg, is inhabited by Danes who are longing to join Denmark and
who number about 200,000. Article 5 of the Treaty of Prague, signed on
Aug. 23, 1866, after Sadowa, between Prussia and Austria, states that
the inhabitants of Northern Schleswig shall be given a chance to join
Denmark, "if they should so express the desire by a free vote." Prussia
has not respected this solemn promise any more than former promises
concerning Schleswig. The frequently renewed protests of the annexed
Danes have remained unanswered. The best proof that Prussia's title to
Danish Schleswig was not considered as very substantial is that in
October, 1878, Prussia finally obtained from Austria the annulment of
Article 5 of the Treaty of Prague, which dealt with the taking of a
plébiscite in Danish Schleswig.
To decide the fate of a province without consulting the inhabitants
seems perfectly natural to German Kultur, but to Americans it is not;
the days of slavery have gone, and wherever slavery still exists it is
time to make a change.
As to Alsace-Lorraine, says Dr. Dernburg, "the facts are known that it
had belonged to Germany until it was taken by Louis XIV., against the
will of the people, and that it was returned to Germany as a matter of
right." Such an argument is mediaeval, and it might just as well be
argued that Germany should now belong to France, because Germany was
once conquered, civilized, and organized by inhabitants of France, led
by their Frankish King. And it is not sure that in 1648 Alsace was not
glad to become French, because Louis XIV., by the Treaty of Westphalia,
then granted perfect religious freedom to the Alsatians, who unlike
their neighbors, lived ever since without fear of religious
persecutions. Lorraine itself was not annexed by Louis XIV., nor by
force, as it was peacefully united to France at the death of Stanislas,
father of the Queen of France, Marie-Lesinzka. As for the inhabitants of
Metz, they were considered long ago as French. Metz was annexed to
France in 1552, with the full consent of the then allies of the French
King, Henri II., the German Princes, who recognized by the Treaty of
Cateau-Cambresis, (1559,) that Metz, Toul, and Verdun were French
cities, and could not be considered as a part of the German
Confederation. So there were at one time German Princes who accepted
the dogma of the consent of the governed!
Attacking the record of England in order to defend the record of
Germany, as Dr. Dernburg does, is no justification for the necessary
German aggression of today. Even granting that the English record is
poor, which is a matter open to discussion, two wrongs would not make
things right.
Dr. Dernburg also compares the policy of aggrandizement of Germany in
Schleswig, Alsace, &c., with that of other countries in Morocco,
Tripoli, &c. Even school children know that two things which are
entirely unlike must not be compared. Northern Africa had too long been
a den of pirates and brigands, and Latin Europe has rendered an immense
service to the world in establishing order there. Algeria has been
conquered in the same way as Morocco is now being conquered, and her
natives enjoy more genuine liberty than they ever did before; they are
even willing to fight as volunteers for the country they consider now as
their own. Neither Danish Schleswig nor Alsace-Lorraine, which were as
civilized as any other European country when they were last annexed, can
be compared to Morocco any more than to the Philippines. So this
comparison made by Dr. Dernburg also falls to pieces.
The case of the German point of view is not entirely without hope. In
THE TIMES of Oct. 5 Dr. Dernburg approves the annexation of Holstein
because the Germans of Holstein wanted to belong to Germany. This is a
sound conclusion, and Dr. Dernburg will doubtless acknowledge
later--better late than never--that the Alsatians and the Danish of
Schleswig should have had their say, just like the Germans of Holstein.
It cannot be possible that to him the wish of the inhabitants of a
province is the voice of God when it suits Germany and the voice of the
devil when it suits somebody else.