THE SOCIAL AND POLITICAL SIGNIFICANCE OF ARMING FOR WAR
Germany has great national and historical duties of policy and culture
to fulfil, and her path towards further progress is threatened by
formidable enmities. If we realize this, we shall see that it will be
impossible to maintain our present position and secure our future
without an appeal to arms.
Knowing this, as every man must who impartially considers the political
situation, we are called upon to prepare ourselves as well as possible
for this war. The times are passed when a stamp of the foot raised an
army, or when it was sufficient to levy the masses and lead them to
battle. The armaments of the present day must be prepared in peace-time
down to the smallest detail, if they are to be effective in time of
need.
Although this fact is known, the sacrifices which are required for
warlike preparations are no longer so willingly made as the gravity of
the situation demands. Every military proposal is bitterly contested in
the Reichstag, frequently in a very petty spirit, and no one seems to
understand that an unsuccessful war would involve our nation in economic
misery, with which the most burdensome charges for the army (and these
for the most part come back again into the coffers of the country)
cannot for an instant be compared. A victorious war, on the other hand,
brings countless advantages to the conqueror, and, as our last great
wars showed, forms a new departure in economic progress. The fact is
often forgotten that military service and the observance of the national
duty of bearing arms are in themselves a high moral gain for our
people, and improve the strength and capacity for work. Nor can it be
ignored that a nation has other than merely economic duties to
discharge. I propose to discuss the question, what kind and degree of
preparation for war the great historical crisis through which we are
passing demands from us. First, however, it will be profitable to
consider the importance of preparations for war generally, and not so
much from the purely military as from the social and political aspect;
we shall thus strengthen the conviction that we cannot serve the true
interests of the country better than by improving its military
capabilities.
Preparation for war has a double task to discharge. Firstly, it must
maintain and raise the military capabilities of the nation as a national
asset; and, secondly, it must make arrangements for the conduct of the
war and supply the requisite means.
This capability of national defence has a pronounced educative value in
national development.
As in the social competition the persons able to protect themselves hold
the field--the persons, that is, who, well equipped intellectually, do
not shirk the contest, but fight it out with confidence and certainty of
victory--so in the rivalry of nations and States victory rests with the
people able to defend itself, which boldly enters the lists, and is
capable of wielding the sword with success.
Military service not only educates nations in warlike capacity, but it
develops the intellectual and moral qualities generally for the
occupations of peace. It educates a man to the full mastery of his body,
to the exercise and improvement of his muscles; it develops his mental
powers, his self-reliance and readiness of decision; it accustoms him to
order and subordination for a common end; it elevates his self-respect
and courage, and thus his capacity for every kind of work.
It is a quite perverted view that the time devoted to military service
deprives economic life of forces which could have been more
appropriately and more profitably employed elsewhere. These forces are
not withdrawn from economic life, but are trained for economic life.
Military training produces intellectual and moral forces which richly
repay the time spent, and have their real value in subsequent life. It
is therefore the moral duty of the State to train as many of its
countrymen as possible in the use of arms, not only with the prospect of
war, but that they may share in the benefits of military service and
improve their physical and moral capacities of defence. The sums which
the State applies to the military training of the nation are distinctly
an outlay for social purposes; the money so spent serves social and
educative ends, and raises the nation spiritually and morally; it thus
promotes the highest aims of civilization more directly than
achievements of mechanics, industries, trades, and commerce, which
certainly discharge the material duties of culture by improving the
national livelihood and increasing national wealth, but bring with them
a number of dangers, such as craving for pleasure and tendency to
luxury, thus slackening the moral and productive fibres of the nations.
Military service as an educational instrument stands on the same level
as the school, and, as will be shown in a later section, each must
complete and assist the other. But a people which does not willingly
bear the duties and sacrifices entailed by school and military service
renounces its will to live, and sacrifices objects which are noble and
assure the future for the sake of material advantages which are
one-sided and evanescent.
It is the duty, therefore, of every State, conscious of its obligations
towards civilization and society, remorselessly to put an end to all
tendencies inimical to the full development of the power of defence. The
method by which the maintenance and promotion of this defensive power
can be practically carried out admits of great variety. It depends
largely on the conditions of national life, on the geographical and
political circumstances, as well as on past history, and consequently
ranges between very wide extremes.
In the Boer States, as among most uncivilized peoples, the military
training was almost exclusively left to the individual. That was
sufficient to a certain point, since their method of life in itself made
them familiar with carrying arms and with riding, and inured them to
hard bodily exertions. The higher requirements of combination,
subordination, and campaigning, could not be met by such a military
system, and the consequences of this were felt disastrously in the
conduct of the war. In Switzerland and other States an attempt is made
to secure national defence by a system of militia, and to take account
of political possibilities. The great European States maintain standing
armies in which all able-bodied citizens have to pass a longer or
shorter period of military training. England alone keeps up a mercenary
army, and by the side of it a territorial army, whose ranks are filled
by volunteers.
In these various ways different degrees of military efficiency are
obtained, but, generally, experience shows that the more thorough and
intelligent this training in arms, the greater the development of the
requisite military qualities in the units; and the more these qualities
become a second nature, the more complete will be their warlike efficiency.
When criticizing the different military systems, we must remember that
with growing civilization the requisite military capacities are always
changing. The duties expected from the Roman legionary or the soldiers
who fought in line under Frederick the Great were quite different from
those of the rifleman and cavalryman of to-day. Not merely have the
physical functions of military service altered, but the moral qualities
expected from the fighting man are altered. This applies to the
individual soldier as much as to the whole army. The character of
warfare has continually been changing. To fight in the Middle Ages or in
the eighteenth century with comparatively small forces was one thing; it
is quite another to handle the colossal armies of to-day. The
preparations for war, therefore, in the social as well as military
sense, must be quite different in a highly developed modern civilized
State from those in countries, standing on a lower level of
civilization, where ordinary life is full of military elements, and war
is fought under relatively simple conditions.
The crushing superiority of civilized States over people with a less
developed civilization and military system is due to this altered form
of military efficiency. It was thus that Japan succeeded in raising
herself in a brief space to the supremacy in Eastern Asia. She now reaps
in the advancement of her culture what she sowed on the battlefield, and
proves once again the immeasurable importance, in its social and
educational aspects, of military efficiency. Our own country, by
employing its military powers, has attained a degree of culture which it
never could have reached by the methods of peaceful development.
When we regard the change in the nature of military efficiency, we find
ourselves on ground where the social duty of maintaining the physical
and moral power of the nation to defend itself comes into direct contact
with the political duty of preparing for warfare itself.
A great variety of procedure is possible, and actually exists, in regard
to the immediate preparations for war. This is primarily expressed in
the choice of the military system, but it is manifested in various other
ways. We see the individual States--according to their geographical
position, their relations to other States and the military strength of
their neighbours, according to their historic claims and their greater
or less importance in the political system of the world--making their
military preparations with more or less energy, earnestness, and
expenditure. When we consider the complex movements of the life of
civilized nations, the variety of its aims and the multiplicity of its
emotions, we must agree that the growth or decrease of armaments is
everywhere affected by these considerations. War is only a _means_ of
attaining political ends and of supporting moral strength.
Thus, if England attaches most weight to her navy, her insular position
and the wide oversea interests which she must protect thoroughly justify
her policy. If, on the other hand, England develops her land forces only
with the objects of safeguarding the command of her colonies, repelling
a very improbable hostile invasion, and helping an allied Power in a
continental war, the general political situation explains the reason. As
a matter of fact, England can never be involved in a great continental
European war against her will.
So Switzerland, which has been declared neutral by political treaties,
and can therefore only take the field if she is attacked, rightly lays
most stress on the social importance of military service, and tries to
develop a scheme of defence which consists mainly in increasing the
security afforded by her own mountains. The United States of America,
again, are justified in keeping their land forces within very modest
limits, while devoting their energies to the increase of their naval
power. No enemy equal to them in strength can ever spring up on the
continent of America; they need not fear the invasion of any
considerable forces. On the other hand, they are threatened by oversea
conflicts, of epoch-making importance, with the yellow race, which has
acquired formidable strength opposite their western coast, and possibly
with their great trade rival England, which has, indeed, often made
concessions, but may eventually see herself compelled to fight for her
position in the world.
While in some States a restriction of armaments is natural and
justifiable, it is easily understood that France must strain every nerve
to secure her full recognition among the great military nations of
Europe. Her glorious past history has fostered in her great political
pretensions which she will not abandon without a struggle, although they
are no longer justified by the size of her population and her
international importance. France affords a conspicuous example of
self-devotion to ideals and of a noble conception of political and moral
duties.
In the other European States, as in France, external political
conditions and claims, in combination with internal politics, regulate
the method and extent of warlike preparations, and their attitude, which
necessity forces upon them, must be admitted to carry its own
justification.
A State may represent a compact unity, from the point of view of
nationality and civilization; it may have great duties to discharge in
the development of human culture, and may possess the national strength
to safeguard its independence, to protect its own interests, and, under
certain circumstances, to persist in its civilizing mission and
political schemes in defiance of other nations. Another State may be
deficient in the conditions of individual national life and in elements
of culture; it may lack the resources necessary for the defence and
maintenance of its political existence single-handed in the teeth of all
opposition. There is a vast difference between these two cases.
A State like the latter is always more or less dependent on the
friendliness of stronger neighbours, whether it ranks in public law as
fully independent or has been proclaimed neutral by international
conventions. If it is attacked on one side, it must count on support
from the other. Whether it shall continue to exist as a State and under
what conditions must depend on the result of the ensuing war and the
consequent political position--factors that lie wholly outside its own
sphere of power.
This being the case, the question may well be put whether such a State
is politically justified in requiring from its citizens in time of peace
the greatest military efforts and correspondingly large pecuniary
expenditure. It will certainly have to share the contest in which it is
itself, perhaps, the prize, and theoretically will do best to have the
largest possible military force at its disposal. But there is another
aspect of the question which is at least arguable. The fighting power of
such a State may be so small that it counts for nothing in comparison
with the millions of a modern army. On the other hand, where appreciable
military strength exists, it may be best not to organize the army with a
view to decisive campaigning, but to put the social objects of military
preparation into the foreground, and to adopt in actual warfare a
defensive policy calculated to gain time, with a view to the subsequent
interference of the prospective allies with whom the ultimate decision
will rest. Such an army must, if it is to attain its object, represent a
real factor of strength. It must give the probable allies that effective
addition of strength which may insure a superiority over the antagonist.
The ally must then be forced to consider the interests of such secondary
State. The forces of the possible allies will thus exercise a certain
influence on the armament of the State, in combination with the local
conditions, the geographical position, and the natural configuration of
the country.
It is only to be expected that, since such various conditions exist, the
utmost variety should also prevail among the military systems; and such
is, in fact, the case.
In the mountain stronghold of Switzerland, which has to reckon with the
political and military circumstances of Germany, France, and Italy,
preparations for war take a different shape from those of Holland,
situated on the coast and secured by numerous waterways, whose political
independence is chiefly affected by the land forces of Germany and the
navy of England.
The conditions are quite otherwise for a country which relies wholly on
its own power.
The power of the probable antagonists and of the presumable allies will
have a certain importance for it, and its Government will in its plans and
military preparations pay attention to their grouping and attitudes;
but these preparations must never be motived by such considerations
alone. The necessity for a strong military force is permanent and
unqualified; the political permutations and combinations are endless,
and the assistance of possible allies is always an uncertain and
shifting factor, on which no reliance can be reposed.
The military power of an independent State in the true sense must
guarantee the maintenance of a force sufficient to protect the interests
of a great civilized nation and to secure to it the necessary freedom of
development. If from the social standpoint no sacrifice can be
considered too great which promotes the maintenance of national military
efficiency, the increase in these sacrifices due to political conditions
must be willingly and cheerfully borne, in consideration of the object
thereby to be gained. This object--of which each individual must be
conscious--if conceived in the true spirit of statesmanship, comprises
the conditions which are decisive for the political and moral future of
the State as well as for the livelihood of each individual citizen.
A civilization which has a value of its own, and thus forms a vital
factor in the development of mankind, can only flourish where all the
healthy and stimulating capacities of a nation find ample scope in
international competition. This is also an essential condition for the
unhindered and vigorous exercise of individual activities. Where the
natural capacity for growth is permanently checked by external
circumstances, nation and State are stunted and individual growth is set
back.
Increasing political power and the consequent multiplication of
possibilities of action constitute the only healthy soil for the
intellectual and moral strength of a vigorous nation, as is shown by
every phase of history.
The wish for culture must therefore in a healthy nation express itself
first in terms of the wish for political power, and the foremost duty of
statesmanship is to attain, safeguard, and promote this power, by force
of arms in the last resort. Thus the first and most essential duty of
every great civilized people is to prepare for war on a scale
commensurate with its political needs. Even the superiority of the enemy
cannot absolve from the performance of this requirement. On the
contrary, it must stimulate to the utmost military efforts and the most
strenuous political action in order to secure favourable conditions for
the eventuality of a decisive campaign. Mere numbers count for less than
ever in modern fighting, although they always constitute a very
important factor of the total strength. But, within certain limits,
which are laid down by the law of numbers, the true elements of
superiority under the present system of gigantic armies are seen to be
spiritual and moral strength, and larger masses will be beaten by a
small, well-led and self-devoting army. The Russo-Japanese War has
proved this once more.
Granted that the development of military strength is the first duty of
every State, since all else depends upon the possibility to assert
_power_, it does not follow that the State must spend the total of its
personal and financial resources solely on military strength in the
narrower sense of army and navy. That is neither feasible nor
profitable. The military power of a people is not exclusively determined
by these external resources; it consists, rather, in a harmonious
development of physical, spiritual, moral, financial, and military
elements of strength. The highest and most effective military system
cannot be developed except by the co-operation of all these factors. It
needs a broad and well-constructed basis in order to be effective. In
the Manchurian War at the critical moment, when the Japanese attacking
strength seemed spent, the Russian military system broke down, because
its foundation was unstable; the State had fallen into political and
moral ruin, and the very army was tainted with revolutionary ideas.
The social requirement of maintaining military efficiency, and the
political necessity for so doing, determine the nature and degree of
warlike preparations; but it must be remembered that this standard may
be very variously estimated, according to the notion of what the State's
duties are. Thus, in Germany the most violent disputes burst out
whenever the question of the organization of the military forces is
brought up, since widely different opinions prevail about the duties of
the State and of the army.
It is, indeed, impossible so to formulate and fix the political duties
of the State that they cannot be looked at from another standpoint. The
social democrat, to whom agitation is an end in itself, will see the
duty of the State in a quite different light from the political
_dilettante_, who lives from hand to mouth, without making the bearing
of things clear to himself, or from the sober Statesman who looks to the
welfare of the community and keeps his eyes fixed on the distant beacons
on the horizon of the future.
Certain points of view, however, may be laid down, which, based on the
nature of things, check to some degree any arbitrary decision on these
momentous questions, and are well adapted to persuade calm and
experienced thinkers.
First, it must be observed that military power cannot be improvised in
the present political world, even though all the elements for it are
present.
Although the German Empire contains 65,000,000 inhabitants, compared to
40,000,000 of French, this excess in population represents merely so
much dead capital, unless a corresponding majority of recruits are
annually enlisted, and unless in peace-time the necessary machinery is
set up for their organization. The assumption that these masses would be
available for the army in the moment of need is a delusion. It would not
mean a strengthening, but a distinct weakening, of the army, not to say
a danger, if these untrained masses were at a crisis suddenly sent on
active service. Bourbaki's campaign shows what is to be expected from
such measures. Owing to the complexity of all modern affairs, the
continuous advance in technical skill and in the character of warlike
weapons, as also in the increased requirements expected from the
individual, long and minute preparations are necessary to procure the
highest military values. Allusion has already been made to this at the
beginning of this chapter. It takes a year to complete a 30-centimetre
cannon. If it is to be ready for use at a given time, it must have been
ordered long beforehand. Years will pass before the full effect of the
strengthening of the army, which is now being decided on, appears in the
rolls of the Reserve and the Landwehr. The recruit who begins his
service to-day requires a year's training to become a useful soldier.
With the hasty training of substitute reservists and such expedients, we
merely deceive ourselves as to the necessity of serious preparations. We
must not regard the present only, but provide for the future.
The same argument applies to the political conditions. The man who makes
the bulk of the preparations for war dependent on the shifting changes
of the politics of the day, who wishes to slacken off in the work of
arming because no clouds in the political horizon suggest the necessity
of greater efforts, acts contrary to all real statesmanship, and is
sinning against his country.
The moment does not decide; the great political aspirations,
oppositions, and tensions, which are based on the nature of
things--these turn the scale.
When King William at the beginning of the sixties of the last century
undertook the reorganization of the Prussian army, no political tension
existed. The crisis of 1859 had just subsided. But the King had
perceived that the Prussian armament was insufficient to meet the
requirements of the future. After a bitter struggle he extorted from his
people a reorganization of the army, and this laid the foundations
without which the glorious progress of our State would never have begun.
In the same true spirit of statesmanship the Emperor William II. has
powerfully aided and extended the evolution of our fleet, without being
under the stress of any political necessity; he has enjoyed the cheerful
co-operation of his people, since the reform at which he aimed was
universally recognized as an indisputable need of the future, and
accorded with traditional German sentiment.
While the preparation for war must be completed irrespectively of the
political influences of the day, the military power of the probable
opponents marks a limit below which the State cannot sink without
jeopardizing the national safety.
Further, the State is bound to enlist in its service all the discoveries
of modern science, so far as they can be applied to warfare, since all
these methods and engines of war, should they be exclusively in the
hands of the enemy, would secure him a distinct superiority. It is an
obvious necessity to keep the forces which can be put into the field as
up-to-date as possible, and to facilitate their military operations by
every means which science and mechanical skill supply. Further, the army
must be large enough to constitute a school for the whole nation, in
which a thoroughgoing and no mere superficial military efficiency may be
attained.
Finally, the nature of the preparation for war is to some degree
regulated by the political position of the State. If the State has
satisfied its political ambitions and is chiefly concerned with keeping
its place, the military policy will assume a more or less defensive
character. States, on the other hand, which are still desirous of
expansion, or such as are exposed to attacks on different sides, must
adopt a predominantly offensive military system.
Preparations for war in this way follow definite lines, which are
dictated by necessity and circumstances; but it is evident that a wide
scope is still left for varieties of personal opinion, especially where
the discussion includes the positive duties of the State, which may lead
to an energetic foreign policy, and thus possibly to an offensive war,
and where very divergent views exist as to the preparation for war. In
this case the statesman's only resource is to use persuasion, and to so
clearly expound and support his conceptions of the necessary policy that
the majority of the nation accept his view. There are always and
everywhere conditions which have a persuasive character of their own,
and appeal to the intellects and the feelings of the masses.
Every Englishman is convinced of the necessity to maintain the command
of the sea, since he realizes that not only the present powerful
position of the country, but also the possibility of feeding the
population in case of war, depend on it. No sacrifice for the fleet is
too great, and every increase of foreign navies instantly disquiets
public opinion. The whole of France, except a few anti-military circles,
feels the necessity of strengthening the position of the State, which
was shaken by the defeats of 1870-71, through redoubled exertions in the
military sphere, and this object is being pursued with exemplary
unanimity.
Even in neutral Switzerland the feeling that political independence
rests less on international treaties than on the possibility of
self-defence is so strong and widespread that the nation willingly
supports heavy taxation for its military equipment. In Germany, also, it
should be possible to arouse a universal appreciation of the great
duties of the State, if only our politicians, without any diplomatic
evasion, which deceives no one abroad and is harmful to the people at
home, disclosed the true political situation and the necessary objects
of our policy.
To be sure, they must be ready to face a struggle with public opinion,
as King William I. did: for when public opinion does not stand under the
control of a master will or a compelling necessity, it can be led astray
too easily by the most varied influences. This danger is particularly
great in a country so torn asunder internally and externally as Germany.
He who in such a case listens to public opinion runs a danger of
inflicting immense harm on the interests of State and people.
One of the fundamental principles of true statesmanship is that
permanent interests should never be abandoned or prejudiced for the sake
of momentary advantages, such as the lightening of the burdens of the
taxpayer, the temporary maintenance of peace, or suchlike specious
benefits, which, in the course of events, often prove distinct
disadvantages.
The statesman, therefore, led astray neither by popular opinion nor by
the material difficulties which have to be surmounted, nor by the
sacrifices required of his countrymen, must keep these objects carefully
in view. So long as it seems practicable he will try to reconcile the
conflicting interests and bring them into harmony with his own. But
where great fundamental questions await decision, such as the actual
enforcement of universal service or of the requirements on which
readiness for war depends, he must not shrink from strong measures in
order to create the forces which the State needs, or will need, in order
to maintain its vitality.
One of the most essential political duties is to initiate and sanction
preparations for war on a scale commensurate with the existing
conditions; to organize them efficiently is the duty of the military
authorities--a duty which belongs in a sense to the sphere of strategy,
since it supplies the machinery with which commanders have to reckon.
Policy and strategy touch in this sphere. Policy has a strategic duty to
perform, since it sanctions preparations for war and defines their limit.
It would, therefore, be a fatal and foolish act of political weakness to
disregard the military and strategic standpoint, and to make the bulk of
the preparations for war dependent on the financial moans momentarily
available. "No expenditure without security," runs the formula in which
this policy clothes itself. It is justified only when the security is
fixed by the expenditure. In a great civilized State it is the duties
which must be fulfilled--as Treitschke, our great historian and national
politician, tells us--that determine the expenditure, and the great
Finance Minister is not the man who balances the national accounts by
sparing the national forces, while renouncing the politically
indispensable outlay, but he who stimulates all the live forces of the
nation to cheerful activity, and so employs them for national ends that
the State revenue suffices to meet the admitted political demands. He
can only attain this purpose if he works in harmony with the Ministers
for Commerce, Agriculture, Industries, and Colonies, in order to break
down the restrictions which cramp the enterprise and energy of the
individual, to make all dead values remunerative, and to create
favourable conditions for profitable business. A great impulse must
thrill the whole productive and financial circles of the State, if the
duties of the present and the future are to be fulfilled.
Thus the preparation for war, which, under modern conditions, calls for
very considerable expenditure, exercises a marked influence on the
entire social and political life of the people and on the financial
policy of the State.