WORLD POWER OR DOWNFALL
In discussing the duties which fall to the German nation from its
history and its general as well as particular endowments, we attempted
to prove that a consolidation and expansion of our position among the
Great Powers of Europe, and an extension of our colonial possessions,
must be the basis of our future development.
The political questions thus raised intimately concern all international
relations, and should be thoroughly weighed. We must not aim at the
impossible. A reckless policy would be foreign to our national character
and our high aims and duties. But we must aspire to the possible, even
at the risk of war. This policy we have seen to be both our right and
our duty. The longer we look at things with folded hands, the harder it
will be to make up the start which the other Powers have gained on us.
"The man of sense will by the forelock clutch
Whatever lies within his power,
Stick fast to it, and neither shirk,
Nor from his enterprise be thrust,
But, having once begun to work,
Go working on because he must."
_Faust_
(translated by Sir Theodore Martin).
The sphere in which we can realize our ambition is circumscribed by the
hostile intentions of the other World Powers, by the existing
territorial conditions, and by the armed force which is at the back of
both. Our policy must necessarily be determined by the consideration of
these conditions. We must accurately, and without bias or timidity,
examine the circumstances which turn the scale when the forces which
concern us are weighed one against the other.
These considerations fall partly within the military, but belong mainly
to the political sphere, in so far as the political grouping of the
States allows a survey of the military resources of the parties. We must
try to realize this grouping. The shifting aims of the politics of the
day need not be our standard; they are often coloured by considerations
of present expediency, and offer no firm basis for forming an opinion.
We must rather endeavour to recognize the political views and intentions
of the individual States, which are based on the nature of things, and
therefore will continually make their importance felt. The broad lines
of policy are ultimately laid down by the permanent interests of a
country, although they may often be mistaken from short-sightedness or
timidity, and although policy sometimes takes a course which does not
seem warranted from the standpoint of lasting national benefits. Policy
is not an exact science, following necessary laws, but is made by men
who impress on it the stamp of their strength or their weakness, and
often divert it from the path of true national interests. Such
digressions must not be ignored. The statesman who seizes his
opportunity will often profit by these political fluctuations. But the
student who considers matters from the standpoint of history must keep
his eyes mainly fixed on those interests which seem permanent. We must
therefore try to make the international situation in this latter sense
clear, so far as it concerns Germany's power and ambitions.
We see the European Great Powers divided into two great camps.
On the one side Germany, Austria, and Italy have concluded a defensive
alliance, whose sole object is to guard against hostile aggression. In
this alliance the two first-named States form the solid, probably
unbreakable, core, since by the nature of things they are intimately
connected. The geographical conditions force this result. The two States
combined form a compact series of territories from the Adriatic to the
North Sea and the Baltic. Their close union is due also to historical
national and political conditions. Austrians have fought shoulder to
shoulder with Prussians and Germans of the Empire on a hundred
battlefields; Germans are the backbone of the Austrian dominions, the
bond of union that holds together the different nationalities of the
Empire. Austria, more than Germany, must guard against the inroads of
Slavism, since numerous Slavonic races are comprised in her territories.
There has been no conflict of interests between the two States since the
struggle for the supremacy in Germany was decided. The maritime and
commercial interests of the one point to the south and south-east, those
of the other to the north. Any feebleness in the one must react
detrimentally on the political relations of the other. A quarrel between
Germany and Austria would leave both States at the mercy of
overwhelmingly powerful enemies. The possibility of each maintaining its
political position depends on their standing by each other. It may be
assumed that the relations uniting the two States will be permanent so
long as Germans and Magyars are the leading nationalities in the
Danubian monarchy. It was one of the master-strokes of Bismarck's policy
to have recognized the community of Austro-German interests even during
the war of 1866, and boldly to have concluded a peace which rendered
such an alliance possible.
The weakness of the Austrian Empire lies in the strong admixture of
Slavonic elements, which are hostile to the German population, and show
many signs of Pan-Slavism. It is not at present, however, strong enough
to influence the political position of the Empire.
Italy, also, is bound to the Triple Alliance by her true interests. The
antagonism to Austria, which has run through Italian history, will
diminish when the needs of expansion in other spheres, and of creating a
natural channel for the increasing population, are fully recognized by
Italy. Neither condition is impossible. Irredentism will then lose its
political significance, for the position, which belongs to Italy from
her geographical situation and her past history, and will promote her
true interests if attained, cannot be won in a war with Austria. It is
the position of a leading political and commercial Mediterranean Power.
That is the natural heritage which she can claim. Neither Germany nor
Austria is a rival in this claim, but France, since she has taken up a
permanent position on the coast of North Africa, and especially in
Tunis, has appropriated a country which would have been the most natural
colony for Italy, and has, in point of fact, been largely colonized by
Italians. It would, in my opinion, have been politically right for us,
even at the risk of a war with France, to protest against this
annexation, and to preserve the territory of Carthage for Italy. We
should have considerably strengthened Italy's position on the
Mediterranean, and created a cause of contention between Italy and
France that would have added to the security of the Triple Alliance.
The weakness of this alliance consists in its purely defensive
character. It offers a certain security against hostile aggression, but
does not consider the necessary development of events, and does not
guarantee to any of its members help in the prosecution of its essential
interests. It is based on a _status quo_, which was fully justified in
its day, but has been left far behind by the march of political events.
Prince Bismarck, in his "Thoughts and Reminiscences," pointed out that
this alliance would not always correspond to the requirements of the
future. Since Italy found the Triple Alliance did not aid her
Mediterranean policy, she tried to effect a pacific agreement with
England and France, and accordingly retired from the Triple Alliance.
The results of this policy are manifest to-day. Italy, under an
undisguised arrangement with England and France, but in direct
opposition to the interests of the Triple Alliance, attacked Turkey, in
order to conquer, in Tripoli, the required colonial territory. This
undertaking brought her to the brink of a war with Austria, which, as
the supreme Power in the Balkan Peninsula, can never tolerate the
encroachment of Italy into those regions.
The Triple Alliance, which in itself represents a natural league, has
suffered a rude shock. The ultimate reason for this result is found in
the fact that the parties concerned with a narrow, short-sighted policy
look only to their immediate private interests, and pay no regard to
the vital needs of the members of the league. The alliance will not
regain its original strength until, under the protection of the allied
armies, each of the three States can satisfy its political needs. We
must therefore be solicitous to promote Austria's position in the
Balkans, and Italy's interests on the Mediterranean. Only then can we
calculate on finding in our allies assistance towards realizing our own
political endeavours. Since, however, it is against all our interests to
strengthen Italy at the cost of Turkey, which is, as we shall see, an
essential member of the Triple Alliance, we must repair the errors of
the past, and in the next great war win back Tunis for Italy. Only then
will Bismarck's great conception of the Triple Alliance reveal its real
meaning. But the Triple Alliance, so long as it only aims at negative
results, and leaves it to the individual allies to pursue their vital
interests exclusively by their own resources, will be smitten with
sterility. On the surface, Italy's Mediterranean interests do not
concern us closely. But their real importance for us is shown by the
consideration that the withdrawal of Italy from the Triple Alliance, or,
indeed, its secession to an Anglo-Franco-Russian _entente,_ would
probably be the signal for a great European war against us and Austria.
Such a development would gravely prejudice the lasting interests of
Italy, for she would forfeit her political independence by so doing, and
incur the risk of sinking to a sort of vassal state of France. Such a
contingency is not unthinkable, for, in judging the policy of Italy, we
must not disregard her relations with England as well as with France.
England is clearly a hindrance in the way of Italy's justifiable efforts
to win a prominent position in the Mediterranean. She possesses in
Gibraltar, Malta, Cyprus, Egypt, and Aden a chain of strong bases, which
secure the sea-route to India, and she has an unqualified interest in
commanding this great road through the Mediterranean. England's
Mediterranean fleet is correspondingly strong and would--especially in
combination with the French Mediterranean squadron--seriously menace the
coasts of Italy, should that country be entangled in a war against
England _and_ France. Italy is therefore obviously concerned in avoiding
such a war, as long as the balance of maritime power is unchanged. She
is thus in an extremely difficult double position; herself a member of
the Triple Alliance, she is in a situation which compels her to make
overtures to the opponents of that alliance, so long as her own allies
can afford no trustworthy assistance to her policy of development. It is
our interest to reconcile Italy and Turkey so far as we can.
France and Russia have united in opposition to the Central European
Triple Alliance. France's European policy is overshadowed by the idea of
_revanche_. For that she makes the most painful sacrifices; for that she
has forgotten the hundred years' enmity against England and the
humiliation of Fashoda. She wishes first to take vengeance for the
defeats of 1870-71, which wounded her national pride to the quick; she
wishes to raise her political prestige by a victory over Germany, and,
if possible, to regain that former supremacy on the continent of Europe
which she so long and brilliantly maintained; she wishes, if fortune
smiles on her arms, to reconquer Alsace and Lorraine. But she feels too
weak for an attack on Germany. Her whole foreign policy, in spite of all
protestations of peace, follows the single aim of gaining allies for
this attack. Her alliance with Russia, her _entente_ with England, are
inspired with this spirit; her present intimate relations with this
latter nation are traceable to the fact that the French policy hoped,
and with good reason, for more active help from England's hostility to
Germany than from Russia.
The colonial policy of France pursues primarily the object of acquiring
a material, and, if possible, military superiority over Germany. The
establishment of a native African army, the contemplated introduction of
a modified system of conscription in Algeria, and the political
annexation of Morocco, which offers excellent raw material for soldiers,
so clearly exhibit this intention, that there can be no possible
illusion as to its extent and meaning.
Since France has succeeded in bringing her military strength to
approximately the same level as Germany, since she has acquired in her
North African Empire the possibility of considerably increasing that
strength, since she has completely outstripped Germany in the sphere of
colonial policy, and has not only kept up, but also revived, the French
sympathies of Alsace and Lorraine, the conclusion is obvious: France
will not abandon the paths of an anti-German policy, but will do her
best to excite hostility against us, and to thwart German interests in
every quarter of the globe. When she came to an understanding with the
Italians, that she should be given a free hand in Morocco if she allowed
them to occupy Tripoli, a wedge was driven into the Triple Alliance
which threatens to split it. It may be regarded as highly improbable
that she will maintain honourably and with no _arrière-pensée_ the
obligations undertaken in the interests of German commerce in Morocco.
The suppression of these interests was, in fact, a marked feature of the
French Morocco policy, which was conspicuously anti-German. The French
policy was so successful that we shall have to reckon more than ever on
the hostility of France in the future. It must be regarded as a quite
unthinkable proposition that an agreement between France and Germany can
be negotiated before the question between them has been once more
decided by arms. Such an agreement is the less likely now that France
sides with England, to whose interest it is to repress Germany but
strengthen France. Another picture meets our eyes if we turn to the
East, where the giant Russian Empire towers above all others.
The Empire of the Czar, in consequence of its defeat in Manchuria, and
of the revolution which was precipitated by the disastrous war, is
following apparently a policy of recuperation. It has tried to come to
an understanding with Japan in the Far East, and with England in Central
Asia; in the Balkans its policy aims at the maintenance of the _status
quo_. So far it does not seem to have entertained any idea of war with
Germany. The Potsdam agreement, whose importance cannot be
overestimated, shows that we need not anticipate at present any
aggressive policy on Russia's part. The ministry of Kokowzew seems
likely to wish to continue this policy of recuperation, and has the more
reason for doing so, as the murder of Stolypin with its accompanying
events showed, as it were by a flash of lightning, a dreadful picture of
internal disorder and revolutionary intrigue. It is improbable,
therefore, that Russia would now be inclined to make armed intervention
in favour of France. The Russo-French alliance is not, indeed, swept
away, and there is no doubt that Russia would, if the necessity arose,
meet her obligations; but the tension has been temporarily relaxed, and
an improvement in the Russo-German relations has been effected, although
this state of things was sufficiently well paid for by the concessions
of Germany in North Persia.
It is quite obvious that this policy of marking time, which Russia is
adopting for the moment, can only be transitory. The requirements of the
mighty Empire irresistibly compel an expansion towards the sea, whether
in the Far East, where it hopes to gain ice-free harbours, or in the
direction of the Mediterranean, where the Crescent still glitters on the
dome of St. Sophia. After a successful war, Russia would hardly hesitate
to seize the mouth of the Vistula, at the possession of which she has
long aimed, and thus to strengthen appreciably her position in the
Baltic.
Supremacy in the Balkan Peninsula, free entrance into the Mediterranean,
and a strong position on the Baltic, are the goals to which the European
policy of Russia has naturally long been directed. She feels herself,
also, the leading power of the Slavonic races, and has for many years
been busy in encouraging and extending the spread of this element into
Central Europe.
Pan-Slavism is still hard at work.
It is hard to foresee how soon Russia will come out from her retirement
and again tread the natural paths of her international policy. Her
present political attitude depends considerably on the person of the
present Emperor, who believes in the need of leaning upon a strong
monarchical State, such as Germany is, and also on the character of the
internal development of the mighty Empire. The whole body of the nation
is so tainted with revolutionary and moral infection, and the peasantry
is plunged in such economic disorder, that it is difficult to see from
what elements a vivifying force may spring up capable of restoring a
healthy condition. Even the agrarian policy of the present Government
has not produced any favourable results, and has so far disappointed
expectations. The possibility thus has always existed that, under the
stress of internal affairs, the foreign policy may be reversed and an
attempt made to surmount the difficulties at home by successes abroad.
Time and events will decide whether these successes will be sought in
the Far East or in the West. On the one side Japan, and possibly China,
must be encountered; on the other, Germany, Austria, and, possibly,
Turkey.
Doubtless these conditions must exercise a decisive influence on the
Franco-Russian Alliance. The interests of the two allies are not
identical. While France aims solely at crushing Germany by an aggressive
war, Russia from the first has more defensive schemes in view. She
wished to secure herself against any interference by the Powers of
Central Europe in the execution of her political plans in the South and
East, and at the same time, at the price of an alliance, to raise, on
advantageous terms in France, the loans which were so much needed.
Russia at present has no inducement to seek an aggressive war with
Germany or to take part in one. Of course, every further increase of the
German power militates against the Russian interests. We shall therefore
always find her on the side of those who try to cross our political paths.
England has recently associated herself with the Franco-Russian
Alliance. She has made an arrangement in Asia with Russia by which the
spheres of influence of the two parties are delimited, while with France
she has come to terms in the clear intention of suppressing Germany
under all circumstances, if necessary by force of arms.
The actually existing conflict of Russian and English interests in the
heart of Asia can obviously not be terminated by such agreements. So,
also, no natural community of interests exists between England and
France. A strong French fleet may be as great a menace to England as to
any other Power. For the present, however, we may reckon on an
Anglo--French _entente_. This union is cemented by the common hostility
to Germany. No other reason for the political combination of the two
States is forthcoming. There is not even a credible pretext, which might
mask the real objects.
This policy of England is, on superficial examination, not very
comprehensible. Of course, German industries and trade have lately made
astounding progress, and the German navy is growing to a strength which
commands respect. We are certainly a hindrance to the plans which
England is prosecuting in Asiatic Turkey and Central Africa. This may
well be distasteful to the English from economic as well as political
and military aspects. But, on the other hand, the American competition
in the domain of commercial politics is far keener than the German. The
American navy is at the present moment stronger than the German, and
will henceforth maintain this precedence. Even the French are on the
point of building a formidable fleet, and their colonial Empire, so far
as territory is concerned, is immensely superior to ours. Yet, in spite
of all these considerations, the hostility of the English is primarily
directed against us. It is necessary to adopt the English standpoint in
order to understand the line of thought which guides the English
politicians. I believe that the solution of the problem is to be found
in the wide ramifications of English interests in every part of the
world.
Since England committed the unpardonable blunder, from her point of
view, of not supporting the Southern States in the American War of
Secession, a rival to England's world-wide Empire has appeared on the
other side of the Atlantic in the form of the United States of North
America, which are a grave menace to England's fortunes. The keenest
competition conceivable now exists between the two countries. The
annexation of the Philippines by America, and England's treaty with
Japan, have accentuated the conflict of interests between the two
nations. The trade and industries of America can no longer be checked,
and the absolutely inexhaustible and ever-growing resources of the Union
are so prodigious that a naval war with America, in view of the vast
distances and wide extent of the enemies' coasts, would prove a very
bold, and certainly very difficult, undertaking. England accordingly has
always diplomatically conceded the claims of America, as quite recently
in the negotiations about fortifying the Panama Canal; the object
clearly is to avoid any collision with the United States, from fearing
the consequences of such collision. The American competition in trade
and industries, and the growth of the American navy, are tolerated as
inevitable, and the community of race is borne in mind. In this sense,
according to the English point of view, must be understood the treaty by
which a Court of Arbitration between the two countries was established.
England wishes, in any case, to avert the danger of a war with America.
The natural opposition of the two rival States may, however, in the
further development of things, be so accentuated that England will be
forced to assert her position by arms, or at least to maintain an
undisputed naval supremacy, in order to emphasize her diplomatic action.
The relations of the two countries to Canada may easily become strained
to a dangerous point, and the temporary failure of the Arbitration
Treaty casts a strong light on the fact that the American people does not
consider that the present political relations of the two nations are
permanent.
There is another danger which concerns England more closely and directly
threatens her vitality. This is due to the nationalist movement in India
and Egypt, to the growing power of Islam, to the agitation for
independence in the great colonies, as well as to the supremacy of the
Low-German element in South Africa.
Turkey is the only State which might seriously threaten the English
position in Egypt by land. This contingency gives to the national
movement in Egypt an importance which it would not otherwise possess; it
clearly shows that England intensely fears every Pan-Islamitic movement.
She is trying with all the resources of political intrigue to undermine
the growing power of Turkey, which she officially pretends to support,
and is endeavouring to create in Arabia a new religious centre in
opposition to the Caliphate.
The same views are partially responsible for the policy in India, where
some seventy millions of Moslems live under the English rule. England,
so far, in accordance with the principle of _divide et impera_, has
attempted to play off the Mohammedan against the Hindu population. But
now that a pronounced revolutionary and nationalist tendency shows
itself among these latter, the danger is imminent that Pan-Islamism,
thoroughly roused, should unite with the revolutionary elements of
Bengal. The co-operation of these elements might create a very grave
danger, capable of shaking the foundations of England's high position in
the world.
While so many dangers, in the future at least, threaten both at home and
abroad, English imperialism has failed to link the vast Empire together,
either for purposes of commerce or defence, more closely than hitherto.
Mr. Chamberlain's dream of the British Imperial Customs Union has
definitely been abandoned. No attempt was made at the Imperial
Conference in 1911 to go back to it. "A centrifugal policy predominated.
.... When the question of imperial defence came up, the policy was
rejected which wished to assure to Great Britain the help of the oversea
dominions in every imaginable eventuality." The great self-ruled
colonies represent allies, who will stand by England in the hour of
need, but "allies with the reservation that they are not to be employed
wrongfully for objects which they cannot ascertain or do not
approve." [A] There are clear indications that the policy of the
dominions, though not yet planning a separation from England, is
contemplating the future prospect of doing so. Canada, South Africa, and
Australia are developing, as mentioned in Chapter IV., into independent
nations and States, and will, when their time comes, claim formal
independence.
[Footnote A: Th. Schiemann in the _Kreuzzeitung_ of July 5, 1911.]
All these circumstances constitute a grave menace to the stability of
England's Empire, and these dangers largely influence England's attitude
towards Germany.
England may have to tolerate the rivalry of North America in her
imperial and commercial ambitions, but the competition of Germany must
be stopped. If England is forced to fight America, the German fleet must
not be in a position to help the Americans. Therefore it must be
destroyed.
A similar line of thought is suggested by the eventuality of a great
English colonial war, which would engage England's fleets in far distant
parts of the world. England knows the German needs and capabilities of
expansion, and may well fear that a German Empire with a strong fleet
might use such an opportunity for obtaining that increase of territory
which England grudges. We may thus explain the apparent indifference of
England to the French schemes of aggrandizement. France's capability of
expansion is exhausted from insufficient increase of population. She can
no longer be dangerous to England as a nation, and would soon fall
victim to English lust of Empire, if only Germany were conquered.
The wish to get rid of the dangers presumably threatening from the
German quarter is all the more real since geographical conditions offer
a prospect of crippling the German overseas commerce without any
excessive efforts. The comparative weakness of the German fleet,
contrasted with the vast superiority of the English navy, allows a
correspondingly easy victory to be anticipated, especially if the French
fleet co-operates. The possibility, therefore, of quickly and completely
getting rid of one rival, in order to have a free hand for all other
contingencies, looms very near and undoubtedly presents a practicable
means of placing the naval power of England on a firm footing for years
to come, of annihilating German commerce and of checking the importance
of German interests in Africa and Northern Asia.
The hostility to Germany is also sufficiently evident in other matters.
It has always been England's object to maintain a certain balance of
power between the continental nations of Europe, and to prevent any one
of them attaining a pronounced supremacy. While these States crippled
and hindered each other from playing any active part on the world's
stage, England acquired an opportunity of following out her own purposes
undisturbed, and of founding that world Empire which she now holds. This
policy she still continues, for so long as the Powers of Europe tie each
other's hands, her own supremacy is uncontested. It follows directly
from this that England's aim must be to repress Germany, but strengthen
France; for Germany at the present moment is the only European State
which threatens to win a commanding position; but France is her born
rival, and cannot keep on level terms with her stronger neighbour on the
East, unless she adds to her forces and is helped by her allies. Thus
the hostility to Germany, from this aspect also, is based on England's
most important interests, and we must treat it as axiomatic and
self-evident.
The argument is often adduced that England by a war with Germany would
chiefly injure herself, since she would lose the German market, which is
the best purchaser of her industrial products, and would be deprived of
the very considerable German import trade. I fear that from the English
point of view these conditions would be an additional incentive to war.
England would hope to acquire, in place of the lost German market, a
large part of those markets which had been supplied by Germany before
the war, and the want of German imports would be a great stimulus, and
to some extent a great benefit, to English industries.
After all, it is from the English aspect of the question quite
comprehensible that the English Government strains every nerve to check
the growing power of Germany, and that a passionate desire prevails in
large circles of the English nation to destroy the German fleet which is
building, and attack the objectionable neighbour.
English policy might, however, strike out a different line, and attempt
to come to terms with Germany instead of fighting. This would be the
most desirable course for us. A Triple Alliance--Germany, England, and
America--has been suggested.[B] But for such a union with Germany to be
possible, England must have resolved to give a free course to German
development side by side with her own, to allow the enlargement of our
colonial power, and to offer no political hindrances to our commercial
and industrial competition. She must, therefore, have renounced her
traditional policy, and contemplate an entirely new grouping of the
Great Powers in the world.
[Footnote B: "The United States and the War Cloud in Europe," by Th.
Schiemann, _McClure's Magazine_, June, 1910.]
It cannot be assumed that English pride and self-interest will consent
to that. The continuous agitation against Germany, under the tacit
approval of the Government, which is kept up not only by the majority of
the Press, but by a strong party in the country, the latest statements
of English politicians, the military preparations in the North Sea, and
the feverish acceleration of naval construction, are unmistakable
indications that England intends to persist in her anti-German policy.
The uncompromising hostility of England and her efforts to hinder every
expansion of Germany's power were openly shown in the very recent
Morocco question. Those who think themselves capable of impressing on
the world the stamp of their spirit, do not resign the headship without
a struggle, when they think victory is in their grasp.
A pacific agreement with England is, after all, 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, prompted by the exigencies of the moment, cannot alter
the real basis of affairs. When the Unionists, with their greater fixity
of purpose, replace the Liberals at the helm, we must be prepared for a
vigorous assertion of power by the island Empire.
On the other hand, America, which indisputably plays a decisive part in
English policy, is a land of limitless possibilities. While, on the one
side, she insists on the Monroe doctrine, on the other she stretches out
her own arms towards Asia and Africa, in order to find bases for her
fleets. The United States aim at the economic and, where possible, the
political command of the American continent, and at the naval supremacy
in the Pacific. Their interests, both economic and political,
notwithstanding all commercial and other treaties, clash emphatically
with those of Japan and England. No arbitration treaties could alter this.
No similar opposition to Germany, based on the nature of things, has at
present arisen from the ambitions of the two nations; certainly not in
the sphere of politics. So far as can be seen, an understanding with
Germany ought to further the interests of America. It is unlikely that
the Americans would welcome any considerable addition to the power of
England. But such would be the case if Great Britain succeeded in
inflicting a political and military defeat on Germany.
For a time it seemed as if the Anglo-American negotiations about
Arbitration Courts would definitely end in an alliance against Germany.
There has, at any rate, been a great and widespread agitation against us
in the United States. The Americans of German and Irish stock resolutely
opposed it, and it is reasonable to assume that the anti-German movement
in the United States was a passing phase, with no real foundation in the
nature of things. In the field of commerce there is, no doubt, keen
competition between the two countries, especially in South America;
there is, however, no reason to assume that this will lead to political
complications.
Japan has, for the time being, a direct political interest for us only
in her influence on the affairs of Russia, America, England, and China.
In the Far East, since Japan has formed an alliance with England, and
seems recently to have effected an arrangement with Russia, we have to
count more on Japanese hostility than Japanese friendship. Her attitude
to China may prove exceptionally important to our colonial possessions
in East Asia. If the two nations joined hands--a hardly probable
eventuality at present--it would become difficult for us to maintain an
independent position between them. The political rivalry between
the two nations of yellow race must therefore be kept alive. If they are
antagonistic, they will both probably look for help against each other
in their relations with Europe, and thus enable the European Powers to
retain their possessions in Asia.
While the aspiring Great Powers of the Far East cannot at present
directly influence our policy, Turkey--the predominant Power of the Near
East--is of paramount importance to us. She is our natural ally; it is
emphatically our interest to keep in close touch with her. The wisest
course would have been to have made her earlier a member of the Triple
Alliance, and so to have prevented the Turco-Italian War, which
threatens to change the whole political situation, to our disadvantage.
Turkey would gain in two ways: she assures her position both against
Russia and against England--the two States, that is, with whose
hostility we have to reckon. Turkey, also, is the only Power which can
threaten England's position in Egypt, and thus menace the short
sea-route and the land communications to India. We ought to spare no
sacrifices to secure this country as an ally for the eventuality of a
war with England or Russia. Turkey's interests are ours. It is also to
the obvious advantage of Italy that Turkey maintain her commanding
position on the Bosphorus and at the Dardanelles, that this important
key should not be transferred to the keeping of foreigners, and belong
to Russia or England.
If Russia gained the access to the Mediterranean, to which she has so
long aspired, she would soon become a prominent Power in its eastern
basin, and thus greatly damage the Italian projects in those waters.
Since the English interests, also, would be prejudiced by such a
development, the English fleet in the Mediterranean would certainly be
strengthened. Between England, France, and Russia it would be quite
impossible for Italy to attain an independent or commanding position,
while the opposition of Russia and Turkey leaves the field open to her.
From this view of the question, therefore, it is advisable to end the
Turco-Italian conflict, and to try and satisfy the justifiable wishes of
Italy at the cost of France, after the next war, it may be.
Spain alone of the remaining European Powers has any independent
importance. She has developed a certain antagonism to France by her
Morocco policy, and may, therefore, become eventually a factor in German
policy. The petty States, on the contrary, form no independent centres
of gravity, but may, in event of war, prove to possess a by no means
negligible importance: the small Balkan States for Austria and Turkey;
Denmark, Holland, Belgium, and Switzerland, and eventually Sweden, for
Germany.
Switzerland and Belgium count as neutral. The former was declared
neutral at the Congress of Vienna on November 20, 1815, under the
collective guarantee [C] of the signatory Powers; Belgium, in the
Treaties of London of November 15,1831, and of April 19,1839, on the
part of the five Great Powers, the Netherlands, and Belgium itself.
[Footnote C: By a collective guarantee is understood the _duty_ of the
contracting Powers to take steps to protect this neutrality when all
agree that it is menaced. Each individual Power has the _right_ to
interfere if it considers the neutrality menaced.]
If we look at these conditions as a whole, it appears that on the
continent of Europe the power of the Central European Triple Alliance
and that of the States united against it by alliance and agreement
balance each other, provided that Italy belongs to the league. If we
take into calculation the imponderabilia, whose weight can only be
guessed at, the scale is inclined slightly in favour of the Triple
Alliance. On the other hand, England indisputably rules the sea. In
consequence of her crushing naval superiority when allied with France,
and of the geographical conditions, she may cause the greatest damage to
Germany by cutting off her maritime trade. There is also a not
inconsiderable army available for a continental war. When all
considerations are taken into account, our opponents have a political
superiority not to be underestimated. If France succeeds in
strengthening her army by large colonial levies and a strong English
landing-force, this superiority would be asserted on land also. If Italy
really withdraws from the Triple Alliance, very distinctly superior
forces will be united against Germany and Austria.
Under these conditions the position of Germany is extraordinarily
difficult. We not only require for the full material development of our
nation, on a scale corresponding to its intellectual importance, an
extended political basis, but, as explained in the previous chapter, we
are compelled to obtain space for our increasing population and markets
for our growing industries. But at every step which we take in this
direction England will resolutely oppose us. English policy may not yet
have made the definite decision to attack us; but it doubtless wishes,
by all and every means, even the most extreme, to hinder every further
expansion of German international influence and of German maritime
power. The recognized political aims of England and the attitude of the
English Government leave no doubt on this point. But if we were involved
in a struggle with England, we can be quite sure that France would not
neglect the opportunity of attacking our flank. Italy, with her
extensive coast-line, even if still a member of the Triple Alliance,
will have to devote large forces to the defence of the coast to keep off
the attacks of the Anglo-French Mediterranean Fleet, and would thus be
only able to employ weaker forces against France. Austria would be
paralyzed by Russia; against the latter we should have to leave forces
in the East. We should thus have to fight out the struggle against
France and England practically alone with a part of our army, perhaps
with some support from Italy. It is in this double menace by sea and on
the mainland of Europe that the grave danger to our political position
lies, since all freedom of action is taken from us and all expansion
barred.
Since the struggle is, as appears on a thorough investigation of the
international question, necessary and inevitable, we must fight it out,
cost what it may. Indeed, we are carrying it on at the present moment,
though not with drawn swords, and only by peaceful means so far. On the
one hand it is being waged by the competition in trade, industries and
warlike preparations; on the other hand, by diplomatic methods with
which the rival States are fighting each other in every region where
their interests clash.
With these methods it has been possible to maintain peace hitherto, but
not without considerable loss of power and prestige. This apparently
peaceful state of things must not deceive us; we are facing a hidden,
but none the less formidable, crisis--perhaps the most momentous crisis
in the history of the German nation.
We have fought in the last great wars for our national union and our
position among the Powers of _Europe_; we now must decide whether we
wish to develop into and maintain a _World Empire_, and procure for
German spirit and German ideas that fit recognition which has been
hitherto withheld from them.
Have we the energy to aspire to that great goal? Are we prepared to make
the sacrifices which such an effort will doubtless cost us? or are we
willing to recoil before the hostile forces, and sink step by step lower
in our economic, political, and national importance? That is what is
involved in our decision.
"To be, or not to be," is the question which is put to us to-day,
disguised, indeed, by the apparent equilibrium of the opposing interests
and forces, by the deceitful shifts of diplomacy, and the official
peace-aspirations of all the States; but by the logic of history
inexorably demanding an answer, if we look with clear gaze beyond the
narrow horizon of the day and the mere surface of things into the region
of realities.
There is no standing still in the world's history. All is growth and
development. It is obviously impossible to keep things in the _status
quo_, as diplomacy has so often attempted. No true statesman will ever
seriously count on such a possibility; he will only make the outward and
temporary maintenance of existing conditions a duty when he wishes to
gain time and deceive an opponent, or when he cannot see what is the
trend of events. He will use such diplomatic means only as inferior
tools; in reality he will only reckon with actual forces and with the
powers of a continuous development.
We must make it quite clear to ourselves that there can be no standing
still, no being satisfied for us, but only progress or retrogression,
and that it is tantamount to retrogression when we are contented with
our present place among the nations of Europe, while all our rivals are
straining with desperate energy, even at the cost of our rights, to
extend their power. The process of our decay would set in gradually and
advance slowly so long as the struggle against us was waged with
peaceful weapons; the living generation would, perhaps, be able to
continue to exist in peace and comfort. But should a war be forced upon
us by stronger enemies under conditions unfavourable to us, then, if our
arms met with disaster, our political downfall would not be delayed, and
we should rapidly sink down. The future of German nationality would be
sacrificed, an independent German civilization would not long exist, and
the blessings for which German blood has flowed in streams--spiritual
and moral liberty, and the profound and lofty aspirations of German
thought--would for long ages be lost to mankind.
If, as is right, we do not wish to assume the responsibility for such a
catastrophe, we must have the courage to strive with every means to
attain that increase of power which we are entitled to claim, even at
the risk of a war with numerically superior foes.
Under present conditions it is out of the question to attempt this by
acquiring territory in Europe. The region in the East, where German
colonists once settled, is lost to us, and could only be recovered from
Russia by a long and victorious war, and would then be a perpetual
incitement to renewed wars. So, again, the reannexation of the former
South Prussia, which was united to Prussia on the second partition of
Poland, would be a serious undertaking, on account of the Polish
population.
Under these circumstances we must clearly try to strengthen our
political power in other ways.
In the first place, our political position would be considerably
consolidated if we could finally get rid of the standing danger that
France will attack us on a favourable occasion, so soon as we find
ourselves involved in complications elsewhere. In one way or another _we
must square our account with France_ if we wish for a free hand in our
international policy. This is the first and foremost condition of a
sound German policy, and since the hostility of France once for all
cannot be removed by peaceful overtures, the matter must be settled by
force of arms. France must be so completely crushed that she can never
again come across our path.
Further, we must contrive every means of strengthening the political
power of our allies. We have already followed such a policy in the case
of Austria when we declared our readiness to protect, if necessary with
armed intervention, the final annexation of Bosnia and Herzegovina by
our ally on the Danube. Our policy towards Italy must follow the same
lines, especially if in any Franco-German war an opportunity should be
presented of doing her a really valuable service. It is equally good
policy in every way to support Turkey, whose importance for Germany and
the Triple Alliance has already been discussed.
Our political duties, therefore, are complicated, and during the
Turco-Italian War all that we can do at first is to use our influence as
mediators, and to prevent a transference of hostilities to the Balkan
Peninsula. It cannot be decided at this moment whether further
intervention will be necessary. Finally, as regards our own position in
Europe, we can only effect an extension of our own political influence,
in my opinion, by awakening in our weaker neighbours, through the
integrity and firmness of our policy, the conviction that their
independence and their interests are bound up with Germany, and are best
secured under the protection of the German arms. This conviction might
eventually lead to an enlargement of the Triple Alliance into a Central
European Federation. Our military strength in Central Europe would by
this means be considerably increased, and the extraordinarily
unfavourable geographical configuration of our dominions would be
essentially improved in case of war. Such a federation would be the
expression of a natural community of interests, which is founded on the
geographical and natural conditions, and would insure the durability of
the political community based on it.
We must employ other means also for the widening of our colonial
territory, so that it may be able to receive the overflow of our
population. Very recent events have shown that, under certain
circumstances, it is possible to obtain districts in Equatorial Africa
by pacific negotiations. A financial or political crash in Portugal
might give us the opportunity to take possession of a portion of the
Portuguese colonies. We may assume that some understanding exists
between England and Germany which contemplates a division of the
Portuguese colonial possessions, but has never become _publici juris_.
It cannot, indeed, be certain that England, if the contingency arrives,
would be prepared honestly to carry out such a treaty, if it actually
exists. She might find ways and means to invalidate it. It has even been
often said, although disputed in other quarters, that Great Britain,
after coming to an agreement with Germany about the partition of the
Portuguese colonies, had, by a special convention, guaranteed Portugal
the possession of _all_ her colonies.
Other possible schemes may be imagined, by which some extension of our
African territory would be possible. These need not be discussed here
more particularly. If necessary, they must be obtained as the result of
a successful European war. In all these possible acquisitions of
territory the point must be strictly borne in mind that we require
countries which are climatically suited to German settlers. Now, there
are even in Central Africa large regions which are adapted to the
settlement of German farmers and stock-breeders, and part of our
overflow population might be diverted to those parts. But, generally
speaking, we can only obtain in tropical colonies markets for our
industrial products and wide stretches of cultivated ground for the
growth of the raw materials which our industries require. This
represents in itself a considerable advantage, but does not release us
from the obligation to acquire land for actual colonization.
A part of our surplus population, indeed--so far as present conditions
point--will always be driven to seek a livelihood outside the borders of
the German Empire. Measures must be taken to the extent at least of
providing that the German element is not split up in the world, but
remains united in compact blocks, and thus forms, even in foreign
countries, political centres of gravity in our favour, markets for our
exports, and centres for the diffusion of German culture.
An intensive colonial policy is for us especially an absolute necessity.
It has often been asserted that a "policy of the open door" can replace
the want of colonies of our own, and must constitute our programme for
the future, just because we do not possess sufficient colonies. This
notion is only justified in a certain sense. In the first place, such a
policy does not offer the possibility of finding homes for the overflow
population in a territory of our own; next, it does not guarantee the
certainty of an open and unrestricted trade competition. It secures to
all trading nations equal tariffs, but this does not imply by any means
competition under equal conditions. On the contrary, the political power
which is exercised in such a country is the determining factor in the
economic relations. The principle of the open door prevails
everywhere--in Egypt, Manchuria, in the Congo State, in Morocco--and
everywhere the politically dominant Power controls the commerce: in
Manchuria Japan, in Egypt England, in the Congo State Belgium, and in
Morocco France. The reason is plain. All State concessions fall
naturally to that State which is practically dominant; its products are
bought by all the consumers who are any way dependent on the power of
the State, quite apart from the fact that by reduced tariffs and similar
advantages for the favoured wares the concession of the open door can be
evaded in various ways. A "policy of the open door" must at best be
regarded as a makeshift, and as a complement of a vigorous colonial
policy. The essential point is for a country to have colonies or its own
and a predominant political influence in the spheres where its markets
lie. Our German world policy must be guided by these considerations.
The execution of such political schemes would certainly clash with many
old-fashioned notions and vested rights of the traditional European
policy. In the first place, the principle of the balance of power in
Europe, which has, since the Congress of Vienna, led an almost
sacrosanct but entirely unjustifiable existence, must be entirely
disregarded.
The idea of a balance of power was gradually developed from the feeling
that States do not exist to thwart each other, but to work together for
the advancement of culture. Christianity, which leads man beyond the
limits of the State to a world citizenship of the noblest kind, and lays
the foundation of all international law, has exercised a wide influence
in this respect. Practical interests, too, have strengthened the theory
of balance of power. When it was understood that the State was a power,
and that, by its nature, it must strive to extend that power, a certain
guarantee of peace was supposed to exist in the balance of forces. The
conviction was thus gradually established that every State had a close
community of interests with the other States, with which it entered into
political and economic relations, and was bound to establish some sort
of understanding with them. Thus the idea grew up in Europe of a
State-system, which was formed after the fall of Napoleon by the five
Great Powers--England, France, Russia, Austria, and Prussia, which
latter had gained a place in the first rank by force of arms; in 1866
Italy joined it as the sixth Great Power.
"Such a system cannot be supported with an approximate equilibrium among
the nations." "All theory must rest on the basis of practice, and a
real equilibrium--an actual equality of power--is postulated,"[D] This
condition does not exist between the European nations. England by
herself rules the sea, and the 65,000,000 of Germans cannot allow
themselves to sink to the same level of power as the 40,000,000 of
French. An attempt has been made to produce a real equilibrium by
special alliances. One result only has been obtained--the hindrance of
the free development of the nations in general, and of Germany in
particular. This is an unsound condition. A European balance of power
can no longer be termed a condition which corresponds to the existing
state of things; it can only have the disastrous consequences of
rendering the forces of the continental European States mutually
ineffective, and of thus favouring the plans of the political powers
which stand outside that charmed circle. It has always been England's
policy to stir up enmity between the respective continental States, and
to keep them at approximately the same standard of power, in order
herself undisturbed to conquer at once the sovereignty of the seas and
the sovereignty of the world.
[Footnote D: Treitschke.]
We must put aside all such notions of equilibrium. In its present
distorted form it is opposed to our weightiest interests. The idea of a
State system which has common interests in civilization must not, of
course, be abandoned; but it must be expanded on a new and more just
basis. It is now not a question of a European State system, but of one
embracing all the States in the world, in which the equilibrium is
established on real factors of power. We must endeavour to obtain in
this system our merited position at the head of a federation of Central
European States, and thus reduce the imaginary European equilibrium, in
one way or the other, to its true value, and correspondingly to increase
our own power.
A further question, suggested by the present political position, is
whether all the political treaties which were concluded at the beginning
of the last century under quite other conditions--in fact, under a
different conception of what constitutes a State--can, or ought to be,
permanently observed. When Belgium was proclaimed neutral, no one
contemplated that she would lay claim to a large and valuable region of
Africa. It may well be asked whether the acquisition of such territory
is not _ipso facto_ a breach of neutrality, for a State from
which--theoretically at least--all danger of war has been removed, has
no right to enter into political competition with the other States. This
argument is the more justifiable because it may safely be assumed that,
in event of a war of Germany against France and England, the two last
mentioned States would try to unite their forces in Belgium. Lastly, the
neutrality of the Congo State [E] must be termed more than problematic,
since Belgium claims the right to cede or sell it to a non-neutral
country. The conception of permanent neutrality is entirely contrary to
the essential nature of the State, which can only attain its highest
moral aims in competition with other States. Its complete development
presupposes such competition.
[Footnote E: The Congo State was proclaimed neutral, but without
guarantees, by Acts of February 26, 1885.]
Again, the principle that no State can ever interfere in the internal
affairs of another State is repugnant to the highest rights of the
State. This principle is, of course, very variously interpreted, and
powerful States have never refrained from a higher-handed interference
in the internal affairs of smaller ones. We daily witness instances of
such conduct. Indeed, England quite lately attempted to interfere in the
private affairs of Germany, not formally or by diplomatic methods, but
none the less in point of fact, on the subject of our naval
preparations. It is, however, accepted as a principle of international
intercourse that between the States of one and the same political system
a strict non-interference in home affairs should be observed. The
unqualified recognition of this principle and its application to
political intercourse under all conditions involves serious
difficulties. It is the doctrine of the Liberals, which was first
preached in France in 1830, and of which the English Ministry of Lord
Palmerston availed themselves for their own purpose. Equally false is
the doctrine of unrestricted intervention, as promulgated by the States
of the Holy Alliance at Troppau in 1820. No fixed principles for
international politics can be laid down.
After all, the relation of States to each other is that of individuals;
and as the individual can decline the interference of others in his
affairs, so naturally, the same right belongs to the State. Above the
individual, however, stands the authority of the State, which regulates
the relations of the citizens to each other. But no one stands above the
State, which regulates the relations of the citizens to each other. But
no one stands above the State; it is sovereign and must itself decide
whether the internal conditions or measures of another state menace its
own existence or interests. In no case, therefore, may a sovereign State
renounce the right of interfering in the affairs of other States, should
circumstances demand. Cases may occur at any time, when the party
disputes or the preparations of the neighboring country becomes a threat
to the existence of a State. "It can only be asserted that every State
acts at its own risk when it interferes in the internal affairs of
another State, and that experience shows how very dangerous such an
interference may become." On the other hand, it must be remembered that
the dangers which may arise from non-intervention are occasionally still
graver, and that the whole discussion turns, not on an international
right, but simply and solely on power and expediency.
I have gone closely into these questions of international policy
because, under conditions which are not remote, they may greatly
influence the realization of our necessary political aspirations, and
may give rise to hostile complications. Then it becomes essential that
we do not allow ourselves to be cramped in our freedom of action by
considerations, devoid of any inherent political necessity, which only
depend on political expediency, and are not binding on us. We must
remain conscious in all such eventualities that we cannot, under any
circumstances, avoid fighting for our position in the world, and that
the all-important point is, not to postpone that war as long as
possible, but to bring it on under the most favourable conditions
possible. "No man," so wrote Frederick the Great to Pitt on July 3,
1761, "if he has a grain of sense, will leave his enemies leisure to
make all preparations in order to destroy him; he will rather take
advantage of his start to put himself in a favourable position."
If we wish to act in this spirit of prompt and effective policy which
guided the great heroes of our past, we must learn to concentrate our
forces, and not to dissipate them in centrifugal efforts.
The political and national development of the German people has always,
so far back as German history extends, been hampered and hindered by the
hereditary defects of its character--that is, by the particularism of
the individual races and States, the theoretic dogmatism of the parties,
the incapacity to sacrifice personal interests for great national
objects from want of patriotism and of political common sense, often,
also, by the pettiness of the prevailing ideas. Even to-day it is
painful to see how the forces of the German nation, which are so
restricted and confined in their activities abroad, are wasted in
fruitless quarrels among themselves.
Our primary and most obvious moral and political duty is to overcome
these hereditary failings, and to lay a secure foundation for a healthy,
consistent development of our power.
It must not be denied that the variety of forms of intellectual and
social life arising from the like variety of the German nationality and
political system offers valuable advantages. It presents countless
centres for the advancement of science, art, technical skill, and a high
spiritual and material way of life in a steadily increasing development.
But we must resist the converse of these conditions, the transference of
this richness in variety and contrasts into the domain of politics.
Above all must we endeavour to confirm and consolidate the institutions
which are calculated to counteract and concentrate the centrifugal
forces of the German nature--the common system of defence of our country
by land and sea, in which all party feeling is merged, and a strong
national empire.
No people is so little qualified as the German to direct its own
destinies, whether in a parliamentarian or republican constitution; to
no people is the customary liberal pattern so inappropriate as to us. A
glance at the Reichstag will show how completely this conviction, which
is forced on us by a study of German history, holds good to-day.
The German people has always been incapable of great acts for the common
interest except under the irresistible pressure of external conditions,
as in the rising of 1813, or under the leadership of powerful
personalities, who knew how to arouse the enthusiasm of the masses, to
stir the German spirit to its depths, to vivify the idea of nationality,
and force conflicting aspirations into concentration and union.
We must therefore take care that such men are assured the possibility of
acting with a confident and free hand in order to accomplish great ends
through and for our people.
Within these limits, it is in harmony with the national German character
to allow personality to have a free course for the fullest development
of all individual forces and capacities, of all spiritual, scientific,
and artistic aims. "Every extension of the activities of the State is
beneficial and wise, if it arouses, promotes, and purifies the
independence of free and reasoning men; it is evil when it kills and
stunts the independence of free men." [F] This independence of the
individual, within the limits marked out by the interests of the State,
forms the necessary complement of the wide expansion of the central
power, and assures an ample scope to a liberal development of all our
social conditions.
[Footnote F: Treitschke, "Politik," i., Section 2.]
We must rouse in our people the unanimous wish for power in this sense,
together with the determination to sacrifice on the altar of patriotism,
not only life and property, but also private views and preferences in
the interests of the common welfare. Then alone shall we discharge our
great duties of the future, grow into a World Power, and stamp a great
part of humanity with the impress of the German spirit. If, on the
contrary, we persist in that dissipation of energy which now marks our
political life, there is imminent fear that in the great contest of the
nations, which we must inevitably face, we shall be dishonourably
beaten; that days of disaster await us in the future, and that once
again, as in the days of our former degradation, the poet's lament will
be heard:
"O Germany, thy oaks still stand,
But thou art fallen, glorious land!"
KÖRNER.