By John Warbeke.
Professor of Philosophy and Psychology at Mount Holyoke
College.
_A Letter to the Springfield Republican._
_To the Editor of The Springfield Republican:_
The approval of President Wilson for neutrality of language can hardly
be construed into complacency in the face of monstrous evil. If a
judicial attitude of mind be not jeopardized a discussion of the issues
raised by Profs. Eucken and Haeckel ought to help us in the attainment
of impartial judgment. A long acquaintance with both these men makes it
hard for the present writer to give expression to such negative
criticism as he is constrained to do. But his plea can be only this: Not
truth but only passion can separate, and truth is greater even than
friendship.
The charge of "brutal national egoism" is laid at England's door. She is
declared to be the instigator of the present world war. "Upon her alone
falls the monstrous guilt and the judgment of history." Such language
from two benevolent philosophers, one of them a winner of the Nobel
Peace Prize for Idealistic Literature, seems to suggest a lack of
information among the German people, including its most enlightened
exponents, of not only their own published "White Paper" dispatches, but
also of the events of the last two months. It seems hardly possible that
in the case of these two gentlemen a deliberate campaign of vituperation
could have been inaugurated with determination to blind themselves to
facts clearly stated in the reports of both contending parties--
First--That Servia, in reply to ten urgent demands on the part of
Austria, acquiesced in nine and proposed to submit the tenth, as
concerning her national integrity, to The Hague Tribunal. Austria,
nevertheless, declared war, with Germany's self-confessed assurances of
support.
Secondly--Germany was the second to declare war, the mobilization of
Russia being assigned as the reason for this step. The objection of
Germany's initial campaign, as shown by events, was not defense against
the confessedly slowly mobilizing Russians, however, but the humiliation
and subjugation of France. And the means employed to that end included
the treaty-breaking invasion, and more than invasion, of Belgium, who is
suffering because of this step "so necessary for Germany."
Thirdly--England, as is repeatedly demonstrated by the official
documents, of both sides, strained every means to bring about a common
understanding. The appeals of Sir Edward Grey for more time in the
Servian ultimatum and for a council of Ambassadors were met by the
Austrian and German Governments respectively with evasion. And England
was the last of the great powers to enter the conflict, her plea being
the moral obligation of supporting treaties in which she guaranteed the
integrity of a weak neighbor and undertook to defend her ally, France,
when attacked.
The Case of England.
We may justifiably ask, then, What basis is there for the charge that
England's "brutal, national egoism" provoked the world war? The answer
is a two-fold one. Historically, England has exhibited aggression in the
extension of her interests; morally, England supports the Russian
aggressor, who declined "to allow Austria the thoroughgoing punishment
of an ignominious murder," cloaking her real intentions behind the
mantle of a "contemptible sanctimoniousness" and "hypocrisy" concerning
treaty obligations.
The first charge against England is unfortunately true. History records
instances of British aggression in the extension of her interests and
the cases cited (destruction of the Danish fleet and the taking of Dutch
colonies) are good examples. The implication, however, involved in the
statement is that such aggression is not to be found in the history of
Prussia. This is clearly an error.
From the time of the Markgrafen even unto the Agadir incident it has
been characteristic of Prussia to extend her boundaries and interests
under the plea of military necessity. Aggression is the only word to
characterize Frederick's seizure of Silesia and part of Poland. South
and East Prussia were added by the same forcible means (1793-1795). In
the Napoleonic wars Swedish Pomerania fell as the booty of military
necessity. Schleswig-Holstein was filched from Denmark (1866) by the
same "extension of her greatness." Once more it was the plea in
Alsace-Lorraine--"so necessary for Germany."
Nor are we here urging immunity of criticism for ourselves. It is sadly
true that the history of many nominally Christian States, including that
of the United States, and not excluding the Papacy, includes chapters of
aggression. But the point involved, namely, the charge of England's
aggression in the present instance, is clearly an a priori one, based on
a presupposition of monopoly which lacks material support. No evidence
is presented to justify the statement, nor do the facts seem to allow of
any such construction.
The second argument, England's support of Russia's unwillingness to
permit the expiation of an ignominious murder, is a strange and
unfortunate commentary on how even in philosophic minds a preconceived
idea will distort the most unmistakable evidence. For Servia in her
reply to the Austrian demands agreed to have just punishment inflicted
upon the murderers, even going so far as to cause the arrest of those
perhaps unjustly suspected by the Austrian committee and to suggest an
international court. How, then, did Russia stand in the way of the
punishment? Austria declared war, with the self-confessed assurances of
German support, all too obviously for reasons other than the ones
mentioned in the ultimatum to which Servia acquiesced. The charge of
Russian mobilization in view of such a situation suggests the temper of
the man who, when caught in his own bear trap, tries to find his
neighbor at fault. Suppose Germany had remained on the defensive, would
war have been likely? Suppose Germany had not backed up the entirely
unjustifiable military movement of Austria, would the general war have
been probable?
Where Nietzsche Comes In.
It seems more likely when one passes in review the extant data that at
least one and a crucial cause for the present situation is the
"overwhelming power and unbending will to victory in the German people"
when confronted with an opportunity for the "further expansion of their
greatness." That such phrases should be in the mouths of our apologists
for the war is significant. And that the invasion of Belgium "so
necessary for the Germans" is treated by the spokesmen of morality
solely and confessedly from the standpoint of military expediency seems
to indicate the permeation of the Nietzsche superman into the very
stronghold of idealistic philosophy.
It would, of course, be as absurd to suppose Nietzsche a direct cause of
this war as it would be to regard the Serajevo murderers as the sole
cause. Nietzsche was and is an exponent of his time, as well as one
reciprocally fostering such movements as Bernhardi militarism and the
Crown Prince's war book. Perhaps it will not be inappropriate here to
cite from "War and the People of War," in "Also Sprach Zarathustra,"
(Pages 67-68,) the magnum opus of Nietzsche:
You should love peace as a means to new war and brief peace
more than a long one. Do you say, "It is a good cause by which
a war is hallowed"? I say unto you, It is a good war which
hallows every cause. War and courage have done greater things
than the love of one's neighbor. "What, then, is good?" you
ask. To be brave is good. Let young maidens say, "Good is to
be pretty and touching." But you are hateful? Well, so be it,
my brethren! Cast about you a mantle of the sublimely hateful.
And when your soul has become great it will become wanton; in
your greatness there will be malice, I know, and in malice the
proud heart will meet the weakling.
This, we are told, is not to be taken literally--all is symbolism and
has a meaning other than the more direct one. But the fact remains, as
can be testified by the present writer from three years' residence as a
university student in Germany, that the rank and file as well as the
aristocracy--from laborers and small shopkeepers, petty officials, and
students to Judges of the Supreme Court and university professors who
have become "secret councilors" (Geheimrat)--not only in Berlin and Bonn
but in Munich and Heidelberg, all have become ominously full of the
doctrine of the survival of the fittest and the consequent expediency of
power, not only in intellectual rivalry but in Krupps and high
explosives.
The Nietzsche fire may, perhaps, serve a purpose on the hearthstone of
our inmost life if it be to rescue us from complacency and secure
inanity, but in the form of electrically connected lyddite stores and
gasoline bombs it drives those who believe in a supernation to a
literal interpretation of the above widely popular philosophy. And, as
demonstrated at Louvain and Rheims, it goes far to obliterate the
memorials of a past which Nietzsche thought so contemptible a check upon
the prowess of the "blonde Bestie" as he progressed toward--toward the
superman.
It was wide of the mark, therefore, to attribute that which bears the
stamp "made in Germany" to England. Bernhardi and the Crown Prince with
their thousands of officers and the multitudes in the ranks to whom
Nietzsche has become an inspiring motive are not to be construed as
English surely. Nor does the English "culture," so far as the present
writer is informed, contain a superman, unless it be Bernard Shaw!
English people have to import "beyond good and evil" philosophy, and as
historians of thought Profs. Eucken and Haeckel must know that it has
never had a foothold there. Had it been "brutal national egoism, knowing
no rights of others," which motivated Britain, she would not now have
gone to war--in order that she might profit finally by the inevitable
exhaustion of the Continent. And having taken the clear stand she has,
what but good-will and the consciousness of a just cause brought support
and sacrifice from the hands and lives of her grateful peoples all over
the earth? Would brutality have done it? The same question might be
asked concerning France's empire from which she derives chiefly the
consciousness of an extending civilization.
The Claims of German Culture.
A word more should be added concerning the condescending tone generally
of the exponents of German culture and more specifically that of the
distinguished writers of the circular letter. They had up to the present
continued to hope for growth in English literary and scientific
development. Before this dismal egoism got the upper hand the English
people really and truly possessed some noble traits and so forth. As for
Russian culture, supposedly including its science and literature, music,
architecture and the rest, it is all effaced by a single "barbarism"!
The implication of such an attitude and such words is that the Kremlin
or Rheims, Shakespeare and Rembrandt, Michaelangelo, Darwin, Spinoza and
the treasures of Louvain might be easily paralleled or surpassed by
German cathedrals, German sculpture, German paintings, German literature
and so forth. It is not our present purpose to dispute the claim, but
only to remind the Teutons that in France and Belgium they have declared
war, not indeed upon supermen, but upon many gentlemen and some worthy
fruits of their spirits, and that they have destroyed much which
formerly enriched the life of the world.
It is the claim of some objective German writers that a modicum of
modesty would prove the most substantial contribution to Teutonic
civilization. Defeat of German arms might, therefore, prove a blessing
to the self-lauded culture as well as call a halt to the brutal science
of Krupps. As instances of authors mentioned above, a passage from the
lamented Friedrich Paulsen's "System der Ethic" (Page 582) may, justly,
be cited: "Insolence still continues to impress the average German. The
spirit of English scientific intercourse forms a highly pleasing
contrast to the German habit. Take such writers as Mill and Darwin; they
speak to the reader as though he did them a favor by listening to them,
and whenever they enter upon a controversy, they do it in a manner
which expresses respect and a desire for mutual understanding. The
German scholar believes that it will detract from the respect due him if
he does not assume a tone of condescension or overbearing censure.
Examine the first scientific journal you may happen to pick up; even the
smallest anonymous announcement breathes the air of infinite
superiority."
A second passage is quoted from the great work of Wilhelm Scherer,
"Geschichte der Deutschen Litteratur" (Pages 20-21): "Recklessness seems
to be the curse of our spiritual development ... obstinacy in good and
in evil. Beauty we have not often served, nor long at a time." These
are, of course, not the judgments of the present writer.
Conviction does not flow from the argument concerning England's brutal
egoism and reckless immorality under the cloak of sanctimoniousness; nor
is there strength in the appeal for Teuton culture. All has the tone of
special pleading and makes doubly significant a sentence from Nietzsche
when he pleads for an overcoming of our ideals of veracity: "'I have
done this thing,' says my memory, 'I could not have done this thing,'
says my pride and remains inexorable. Finally memory yields." ("Beyond
Good and Evil," Page 94.)