of interest to endeavour to find out whether there are any other
solid grounds in the past for Germany's reprobation. Two more
historical incidents are held up as examples of our perfidy. The
first is the bombardment of Copenhagen in 1807, when the British
took forcible possession in time of peace of the Danish fleet. It
must be admitted that the step was an extreme one, and only to be
justified upon the plea of absolute necessity for vital national
reasons. The British Government of the day believed that Napoleon
was about to possess himself of the Danish fleet and would use it
against themselves. Fouché has admitted in his Memoirs that the
right was indeed given by a secret clause in the Treaty of Tilsit.
It was a desperate time, when the strongest measures were
continually being used against us, and it may be urged that similar
measures were necessary in self-defence. Having once embarked upon
the enterprise, and our demand being refused, there was no
alternative but a bombardment of the city with its attendant loss of
civilian life. It is not an exploit of which we need be proud, and
at the best can only be described as a most painful and unfortunate
necessity; but I should be surprised if the Danes, on looking back
to it, judge it more harshly than some more recent experiences which
they have had at the hands of General von Bernhardi's own
fellow-countrymen. That he is himself prepared to launch upon a
similar enterprise in a much larger and more questionable shape is
shown by his declaration that if Holland will not take sides against
England in the next war it should be overrun by the German troops.
General von Bernhardi's next historical charge is the bombardment of
Alexandria in 1882, which he describes as having been affected upon
hypocritical pretences in a season of peace. To those who have a
recollection of that event and can recall the anti-European movement
of Arabi and the massacre which preceded the bombardment, the charge
will appear grotesque. But it is with a patchwork quilt of this sort
that this German publicist endeavours to cover the unreasoning, but
none the less formidable, jealousy and prejudice which inflame him
against this country. The foolish fiction that the British
Government declared war against the Boers in order to gain
possession of their gold mines is again brought forward, though one
would have imagined that even the gutter-Press who exploited it
twelve years ago had abandoned it by now. If General von Bernhardi
can explain how the British Government is the richer for these
mines, or whether a single foreign shareholder has been dispossessed
of his stock in them, he will be the first who has ever given a
solid fact in favour of this ridiculous charge. In a previous
paragraph of his book he declares that it was President Kruger who
made the war and that he was praiseworthy for so doing. Both
statements cannot be true. If it was President Kruger who made the
war, then it was not forced on by Great Britain in order to possess
herself of the goldfields.
So much for the specific allegations against Great Britain. One can
hardly regard them as being so serious as to wipe out the various
claims, racial, religious, and historical, which unite the two
countries. However, we are only concerned with General von
Bernhardi's conclusions, since he declares that his country is
prepared to act upon them. There remain two general grounds upon
which he considers that Germany should make war upon the British
Empire. The first is to act as the champion of the human race in
winning what he calls the freedom of the seas. The second is to
further German expansion as a world-Power, which is cramped by our
opposition.
The first of these reasons is difficult to appreciate. British
maritime power has been used to ensure, not to destroy, the freedom
of the seas. What smallest Power has ever been hindered in her
legitimate business? It is only the pirate, the slaver, and the
gun-runner who can justly utter such a reproach. If the mere fact of
having predominant latent strength upon the water is an encroachment
upon the freedom of the sea, then some nation must always be guilty
of it. After our mild supremacy we may well say to Germany, as
Charles said to James: "No one will assassinate me in order to put
you on the throne." Her mandate is unendorsed by those whom she
claims to represent.
But the second indictment is more formidable. We lie athwart
Germany's world ambitions, even as, geographically, we lie across
her outlets. But when closely looked at, what is it of which we
deprive her, and is its attainment really a matter of such vital
importance? Do we hamper her trade? On the contrary, we exhibit a
generosity which meets with no acknowledgment, and which many of us
have long held to be altogether excessive. Her manufactured goods
are welcomed in without a tax, while ours are held out from Germany
by a 20 per cent. tariff. In India, Egypt, and every colony which
does not directly control its own financial policy, German goods
come in upon the same footing as our own. No successful war can
improve her position in this respect. There is, however, the
question of colonial expansion. General von Bernhardi foresees that
Germany is increasing her population at such a pace that emigration
will be needed soon in order to relieve it. It is a perfectly
natural national ambition that this emigration should be to some
place where the settlers need not lose their flag or nationality.
But if Great Britain were out of the way, where would they find such
a place? Not in Canada, Australia, South Africa, or New Zealand.
These States could not be conquered if the Motherland had ceased to
exist. General von Bernhardi talks of the high lands of Africa, but
already Germany possesses high lands in Africa, and their
colonisation has not been a success. Can any one name one single
place upon the earth's surface suitable for white habitation from
which Germany is excluded by the existence of Great Britain? It is
true that the huge continent of South America is only sparsely
inhabited, its whole population being about equal to that of
Prussia. But that is an affair in which the United States, and not
we, are primarily interested, and one which it is not our interest
either to oppose or to support.
But, however inadequate all these reasons for war may seem to a
Briton, one has still to remember that we have to reckon with the
conclusions exactly as if they were drawn from the most logical
premises. These conclusions appear in such sentences as follows:--
"What we now wish to attain must be fought for and won against
a superior force of hostile interests and Powers."
"Since the struggle is necessary and inevitable, we must fight
it out, cost what it may."
"A pacific agreement with England is a will-o'-the-wisp, which
no serious German statesman would trouble to follow. We must
always keep the possibility of war with England before our
eyes and arrange our political and military plans accordingly.
We need not concern ourselves with any pacific protestations
of English politicians, publicists, and Utopians, which cannot
alter the real basis of affairs."
"The situation in the world generally shows there can only be a
short respite before we once more face the question whether we
will draw the sword for our position in the world, or renounce
such position once for all. We must not in any case wait until
our opponents have completed their arming and decide that the
hour of attack has come."
"Even English attempts at a _rapprochement_ must not blind us
to the real situation. We may at most use them to delay the
necessary and inevitable war until we may fairly imagine we
have some prospect of success."
This last sentence must come home to some of us who have worked in
the past for a better feeling between the two countries. And this is
the man who dares to accuse _us_ of national perfidy.
These extracts are but a few from a long series which show beyond
all manner of doubt that Germany, so far as General von Bernhardi is
an exponent of her intentions, will undoubtedly attack us suddenly
should she see an opportunity. The first intimation of such attack
would, as he indicates, be a torpedo descent upon our Fleet, and a
wireless message to German liners which would bring up their
concealed guns, and turn each of them into a fast cruiser ready to
prey upon our commerce. That is the situation as he depicts it. It
may be that he mistakes it. But for what it is worth, that is his
opinion and advice.
He sketches out the general lines of a war between England and
Germany. If France is involved, she is to be annihilated, as already
described. But suppose the two rivals are left face to face. Holland
and Denmark are to be bound over to the German side under pain of
conquest. The German Fleet is to be held back under the protection
of the land forts. Meanwhile, torpedoes, submarines, and airships
are to be used for the gradual whittling down of the blockading
squadrons. When they have been sufficiently weakened the Fleet is to
sally out and the day has arrived. As to the chances of success, he
is of opinion that in material and _personnel_ the two fleets may be
taken as being equal--when once the numbers have been equalised. In
quality of guns, he considers that the Germans have the advantage.
Of gunnery he does not speak, but he believes that in torpedo work
his countrymen are ahead of any others. In airships, which for
_reconnaissance_, if not for actual fighting power, will be of
supreme importance, he considers also that his country will have a
considerable advantage.
Such, in condensed form, is the general thesis and forecast of this
famous German officer. If it be true, there are evil days coming
both for his country and for ours. One may find some consolation in
the discovery that wherever he attempts to fathom our feelings he
makes the most lamentable blunders. He lays it down as an axiom, for
example, that if we were hard-pressed the Colonies would take the
opportunity of abandoning us. We know, on the other hand, that it is
just such a situation which would bring about the federation of the
Empire. He is under the delusion also that there is deep commercial
and political jealousy of the United States in this country, and
that this might very well culminate in war. We are aware that there
is no such feeling, and that next to holding the trident ourselves
we should wish to see it in the hands of our American cousins. One
thing he says, however, which is supremely true, which all of us
would endorse, and which every German should ponder: it is that the
idea of a war between Germany and ourselves never entered into the
thoughts of any one in this country until the year 1902. Why this
particular year? Had the feeling risen from commercial jealousy
upon the part of Great Britain, it must have shown itself far
earlier than that--as early as the "Made in Germany" enactment. It
appeared in 1902 because that was the close of the Boer War, and
because the bitter hostility shown by the Germans in that war opened
our eyes to the fact that they would do us a mischief if they could.
When the German Navy Act of 1900 gave promise that they would soon
have the means of doing so, the first thoughts of danger arose, and
German policy drove us more and more into the ranks of their
opponents. Here, then, General von Bernhardi is right; but in nearly
every other reference to our feelings and views he is wrong; so that
it is to be hoped that in those matters in which we are unable to
check him, such as the course of German thought and of German action
in the future, he is equally mistaken. But I repeat that he is a man
of standing and reputation, and that we should be mad if we did not
take most serious notice of the opinions which he has laid down.
I have headed this article "Great Britain and the Next War," since
it looks at the arguments and problems which General von Bernhardi
has raised in his _Germany and the Next War_ from the British point
of view. May it prove that the title is an absurdity and the war an
imaginative hypothesis. But I should wish, before I close, to devote
a few pages to my view upon the defensive measures of our country. I
am well aware that I speak with no expert authority, which makes it
the more embarrassing that my opinions do not coincide with those of
any one whom I have encountered in this controversy. Still, it is
better to be a voice, however small, than an echo.
It would simplify the argument if we began by eliminating certain
factors which, in my opinion, simply darken counsel, as they are
continually brought into the front of the question to the exclusion
of the real issues which lie behind them. One of them is the
supposed possibility of an invasion--either on a large scale or in
the form of a raid. The former has been pronounced by our highest
naval authorities of the time as being impossible, and I do not
think any one can read the Wilson Memorandum without being convinced
by its condensed logic. Von Bernhardi, in his chapter upon the
possible methods of injuring Great Britain, though he treats the
whole subject with the greatest frankness, dismisses the idea either
of raid or invasion in a few short sentences. The raid seems to me
the less tenable hypothesis of the two. An invasion would, at least,
play for a final stake, though at a deadly risk. A raid would be a
certain loss of a body of troops, which would necessarily be the
flower of the army; it could hope to bring about no possible
permanent effect upon the war, and it would upset the balance of
military power between Germany and her neighbours. If Germany were
an island, like ourselves, she might risk such a venture. Sandwiched
in between two armed nations as strong as herself, I do not believe
that there is the slightest possibility of it.
But if, as Von Bernhardi says, such plans are visionary, what is the
exact object of a Territorial Army, and, even more, what would be
the object of a National Service Army upon compulsory lines for home
defence? Is it not a waste of money and energy which might be more
profitably employed in some other form? Every one has such an
affection and esteem for Lord Roberts--especially if one has the
honour of his personal acquaintance--that one shrinks from
expressing a view which might be unwelcome to him.[5] And yet he
would be the first to admit that it is one's duty to add one's
opinion to the debate, if that opinion has been conscientiously
formed, and if one honestly believes that it recommends the best
course of action for one's country. So far as his argument for
universal service is based upon national health and physique, I
think he is on ground which no one could attack. But I cannot bring
myself to believe that a case has been made out for the substitution
of an enforced soldier in the place of the volunteer who has always
done so splendidly in the past. Great as is Lord Roberts's
experience, he is talking here of a thing which is outside it, for
he has never seen an enforced British soldier, and has, therefore,
no data by which he can tell how such a man would compare with the
present article. There were enforced British sailors once, and I
have seen figures quoted to show that of 29,000 who were impressed
27,000 escaped from the Fleet by desertion. It is not such men as
these who win our battles.
[5] More now, alas! than ever.--Nov. 26, A. C. D.
The argument for enforced service is based upon the plea that the
Territorial Army is below strength in numbers and deficient in
quality. But if invasion is excluded from our calculations this is
of less importance. The force becomes a nursery for the Army, which
has other reserves to draw upon before it reaches it. Experience has
shown that under warlike excitement in a virile nation like ours,
the ranks soon fill up, and as the force becomes embodied from the
outbreak of hostilities, it would rapidly improve in quality. It is
idle to assert that because Bulgaria can, in a day, flood her troops
into Turkey, therefore we should always stand to arms. The
Turko-Bulgarian frontier is a line of posts--the Anglo-German is a
hundred leagues of salt water.
But am I such an optimist as to say that there is no danger in a
German war? On the contrary, I consider that there is a vast danger,
that it is one which we ignore, and against which we could at a
small cost effect a complete insurance. Let me try to define both
the danger and the remedy. In order to do this we must consider the
two different forms which such a war might take. It might be a
single duel, or it might be with France as our ally. If Germany
attacked Great Britain alone, it may safely be prophesied that the
war would be long, tedious, and possibly inconclusive, but our
_rôle_ would be a comparatively passive one. If she attacked
France, however, that _rôle_ would be much more active, since we
could not let France go down, and to give her effective help we must
land an expeditionary force upon the Continent. This force has to be
supplied with munitions of war and kept up to strength, and so the
whole problem becomes a more complex one.
The element of danger, which is serious in either form of war, but
more serious in the latter, is the existence of new forms of naval
warfare which have never been tested in the hands of competent men,
and which may completely revolutionise the conditions. These new
factors are the submarine and the airship. The latter, save as a
means of acquiring information, does not seem to be formidable--or
not sufficiently formidable to alter the whole conditions of a
campaign. But it is different with the submarines. No blockade, so
far as I can see, can hold these vessels in harbour, and no skill or
bravery can counteract their attack when once they are within
striking distance. One could imagine a state of things when it might
be found impossible for the greater ships on either side to keep the
seas on account of these poisonous craft. No one can say that such a
contingency is impossible. Let us see, then, how it would affect us
if it should come to pass.
In the first place, it would not affect us at all as regards
invasion or raids. If the German submarines can dominate our own
large ships, our submarines can do the same for theirs. We should
still hold the seas with our small craft. Therefore, if Great
Britain alone be at war with Germany, such a naval revolution would
merely affect our commerce and food supply. What exact effect a
swarm of submarines, lying off the mouth of the Channel and the
Irish Sea, would produce upon the victualling of these islands is a
problem which is beyond my conjecture. Other ships besides the
British would be likely to be destroyed, and international
complications would probably follow. I cannot imagine that such a
fleet would entirely, or even to a very large extent, cut off our
supplies. But it is certain that they would have the effect of
considerably raising the price of whatever did reach us. Therefore
we should suffer privation, though not necessarily such privation as
would compel us to make terms. From the beginning of the war, every
home source would naturally be encouraged, and it is possible that
before our external supplies were seriously decreased, our internal
ones might be well on the way to make up the deficiency. Both of the
two great protagonists--Lord Haldane and Lord Roberts--have declared
that if we lost the command of the seas we should have to make
peace. Their reference, however, was to complete naval defeat, and
not to such a condition of stalemate as seems to be the more
possible alternative. As to complete naval defeat, our estimates,
and the grand loyalty of the Overseas Dominions, seem to be amply
adequate to guard against that. It is useless to try to alarm us by
counting in the whole force of the Triple Alliance as our possible
foes, for if they came into the war, the forces of our own allies
would also be available. We need only think of Germany.
A predominance of the submarine would, then, merely involve a period
of hard times in this country, if we were fighting Germany
single-handed. But if we were in alliance with France, it becomes an
infinitely more important matter. I presume that I need not argue
the point that it is our vital interest that France be not
dismembered and sterilised. Such a tragedy would turn the western
half of Europe into a gigantic Germany with a few insignificant
States crouching about her feet. The period of her world dominance
would then indeed have arrived. Therefore, if France be wantonly
attacked, we must strain every nerve to prevent her going down, and
among the measures to that end will be the sending of a British
expeditionary force to cover the left or Belgian wing of the French
defences. Such a force would be conveyed across the Channel in
perhaps a hundred troopships, and would entail a constant service of
transports afterwards to carry its requirements.
Here lies, as it seems to me, the possible material for a great
national disaster. Such a fleet of transports cannot be rushed
suddenly across. Its preparation and port of departure are known. A
single submarine amid such a fleet would be like a fox in a poultry
yard destroying victim after victim. The possibilities are
appalling, for it might be not one submarine, but a squadron. The
terrified transports would scatter over the ocean to find safety in
any port. Their convoy could do little to help them. It would be a
debacle--an inversion of the Spanish Armada.
If the crossing were direct from the eastern ports to Antwerp, the
danger would become greater.[6] It is less if it should be from
Portsmouth to Havre. But this is a transit of seven hours, and the
railways from Havre to the Belgian frontier would be insufficient
for such a force. No doubt the Straits of Dover would be strongly
patrolled by our own torpedo craft, and the crossing would, so far
as possible, be made at night, when submarines have their minimum of
efficiency; but, none the less, it seems to me that the risk would
be a very real and pressing one. What possible patrol could make
sure of heading off a squadron of submarines? I should imagine it to
be as difficult as to bar the Straits to a school of whales.
[6] This, of course, would presuppose that Holland was
involved in the war.--A. C. D.
But supposing such a wholesale tragedy were avoided, and that in
spite of the predominance of submarines the army got safely to
France or to Belgium, how are we to ensure the safe passage of the
long stream of ships which, for many months, would be employed in
carrying the needful supplies? We could not do it. The army might
very well find itself utterly isolated, with its line of
communications completely broken down, at a time when the demand
upon the resources of all Continental countries was so great that
there was no surplus for our use. Such a state of affairs seems to
me to be a perfectly possible one, and to form, with the chance of
a disaster to the transports, the greatest danger to which we should
be exposed in a German war. But these dangers and the food question,
which has already been treated, can all be absolutely provided
against in a manner which is not only effective, but which will be
of equal value in peace and in war. The Channel Tunnel is essential
to Great Britain's safety.
I will not dwell here upon the commercial or financial advantages of
such a tunnel. Where the trade of two great nations concentrates
upon one narrow tube, it is obvious that whatever corporation
controls that tube has a valuable investment, if the costs of
construction have not been prohibitive. These costs have been placed
as low as five million pounds by Mr. Rose Smith, who represents a
practical company engaged in such work. If it were twice, thrice, or
four times that sum it should be an undertaking which should promise
great profits, and for that reason should be constructed by the
nation, or nations, for their common national advantage. It is too
vital a thing for any private company to control.