[Transcriber's Notes
Underscores are used for italic markup; the three words that end this
sentence _are in italics_.
The spelling and hyphenation are as found in the original text.
There is one spelling mistake that deserves mention. Although
“dreadnaught” can be accepted as an older spelling of “dreadnought”,
Henderson's use of it to denote a certain type of battleship is
incorrect. Battleships of this type were called dreadnoughts after
_H.M.S. Dreadnought_, the first example of this type of ship.
There is only one footnote: it has been left inline, that is,
immediately after its flag.]
GERMANY’S FIGHTING MACHINE
[Illustration: Kaiser Wilhelm II]
GERMANY’S
FIGHTING MACHINE
_Her Army, Her Navy, Her Air-ships, and
Why She Arrayed Them Against the
Allied Powers of Europe_
BY
ERNEST F. HENDERSON
_Author of_
SHORT HISTORY OF GERMANY
HISTORY OF GERMANY IN THE MIDDLE AGES
BLÜCHER, ETC., ETC.
WITH MANY ILLUSTRATIONS
INDIANAPOLIS
THE BOBBS-MERRILL COMPANY
PUBLISHERS
COPYRIGHT 1914
THE BOBBS-MERRILL COMPANY
CHARLES FRANCIS PRESS, NEW YORK
GERMANY’S FIGHTING MACHINE
GERMANY’S FIGHTING MACHINE
PART I
THE WAR
But a few weeks ago the author of this little book was in Germany
studying the land and its institutions and full of admiration for its
achievements in every field. Two days after he had taken ship for
America Germany was practically at war with France and Russia. England
soon joined in the conflict, and the splendid Hamburg liner on which
the author was a passenger was a hunted thing on the ocean, owing her
safety at last to a friendly fog. The great shipping company, with its
nearly two hundred vessels, was out of the running as a commercial
enterprise, a symbol of the paralyzed industries of the whole country.
To the ordinary observer the conflict came like a bolt from the blue,
but to the historian and to the man who reads the foreign newspapers it
was not unexpected. The historians recognized that it was the appointed
time for a war between the great nations. The Franco-Prussian War took
place forty-three years ago. When, since the days of the grandsons
of Charlemagne, have the chief powers kept out of war for so long a
time? In the ninth and tenth centuries the question of Lorraine was
as troublesome as it has been in the nineteenth and twentieth; in the
eleventh and twelfth an expedition against Italy was in the day’s work
of almost every German emperor; and England and Sicily were conquered
by the Normans; in 1215 took place the first general international
battle; in 1250 the final expeditions against the Emperor Frederick
II; in 1272 the Sicilian wars of the house of Anjou. The Guelphs
and Ghibellines carry us on to the Hundred Years’ War; the Hapsburg
struggles against Italy and the Turks bring us down to the invasion of
Italy by Charles VIII of France, to the campaigns of Maximilian, to the
Field of the Cloth of Gold, to the religious wars of Charles V. Close
on the heels of the latter struggles came not only the French religious
wars but the invasion of England by Philip II’s great armada. The
Thirty Years’ War, Louis XIV’s war of conquest, the Spanish Succession,
the Silesian and the Seven Years’ Wars fill the seventeenth and
eighteenth centuries; the Napoleonic, Crimean and Franco-Prussian Wars
the nineteenth. Yes, it was time for a new struggle.
When a great and extraordinary event takes place it is easy, somewhere
in the world, to point to omens and prophecies that have heralded it.
But in the case of the present war we can see in the German newspapers
how, from month to month of the present year, the struggle was felt to
be more and more imminent and how Russia, the power that eventually
precipitated the catastrophe, was felt to be the center of real
danger. “In well-informed diplomatic circles,” writes the _Magdeburger
Zeitung_ in January, 1914, “the impression can not be concealed that
in Russia at present there prevails a thoroughly hostile attitude to
Germany and Austria-Hungary, and that the agitation in the czar’s realm
is greater even than during the last Balkan crisis. … It looks as
though Russia were preparing to make an extraordinarily great show of
strength against a specific, not far distant date.” And the _Deutsche
Tageszeitung:_ “What is Russia’s purpose in building a mighty fleet
of dreadnaughts for the Baltic? Surely not merely to coerce Sweden.”
Again the Madgeburg paper: “The Russian government, which already owes
French capitalists twelve billions, has received a new loan of two
billions five hundred millions, of which five million are yearly to be
issued in Paris. This whole gigantic sum is exclusively to be spent
for building strategic railways along the German-Russian boundary. …
France compelled Russia to do this. The French general staff thinks
that Russia, because of her clumsiness in mobilizing, but especially
for lack of tracks leading to the German frontier, will not be able, in
a new war with Germany, to bring help to France in time. Russia has now
fulfilled France’s wishes in this regard. Thus does the Franco-Russian
alliance, which of late seemed to be falling into oblivion, celebrate
its resurrection.”
In February the _Hallesche Zeitung_ writes: “To keep friendship with
Russia is one of the chief aims of our foreign policy, but it is
sometimes made very hard for us indeed. … They keep the peace because
it is to the advantage of the czar’s empire to do so; but they are
to be had for every combination directed against Germany.” And the
_Dresdener Nachrichten:_ “The Russian-German relations leave very much
to be desired at the moment. The Russian government fails to show the
least approachableness in foreign questions and Russian society and
the press are in an extremely anti-German mood. Evidences of the same
thing are to be seen in their attitude to Austria. … The Russian policy
lets itself be taken more and more in tow by the French desires, and
has nothing but polite speeches left for Germany.” The _Weser Zeitung_
finds the explanation of the hostility in Germany’s efforts to help the
Turks reorganize their army, and declares, “Here we have touched
one of the weakest spots in Russia’s world-policy, her endeavor to
get to the Mediterranean.” The _Fränkische Kurier_ thinks that Russia
intends to form a protectorate over the Balkan states as a military
weapon against Austria and her allies: “The soul of this endeavor is
the Russian diplomacy and the Servian minister-president, Pasitsch.”
The _Dresdener Anzeiger_ observes that the influence of the Pan-Slavist
party over the Russian government is steadily growing and that the
extraordinary activity in military matters ill suits the constant peace
assurances: “The measures are pointed against Austria-Hungary.”
[Illustration: The Crown Prince and Crown Princess]
[Illustration: Prince Henry of Prussia, the Emperor’s Brother]
On March second an article in the _Kölnische Zeitung_ aroused great
excitement all over Germany. It declared that Russia was not yet in a
position to supplement political threats by military action, however
much France might “rattle with the Russian saber.” But in three years
all the enormous preparations would be completed, and already “it is
openly said even in official military periodicals, that Russia is
arming for war against Germany.” There is no immediate danger, the
article continued, but the legend of the historical German-Russian
friendship had better be thrown to the dogs.
The papers took different attitudes toward this article, but there
were not wanting those who considered the warnings of the _Kölnische
Zeitung_ justified. General Keim, in the _Tag_, declares that the
German-Russian boundary is one huge camp, that the underlying thought
of the whole armament is an offensive war against Germany, that France
had proceeded in the same way just before 1870 and that the recent
visit to St. Petersburg of President Poincaré and his chief of staff
Joffre had not been merely a pleasure jaunt. Had not a French general,
only last summer, declared in a treatise published anonymously that
the tension between Russia and Austria was ground for a European war
“perhaps in the near future”? And had not this French officer even
gone so far as to spread the legend that in case of war Germany would
disregard the neutrality of Belgium and Luxemburg in order to be able
to envelop the French left wing?
Several of the March newspapers bring the Russian hostility into
connection with the commercial treaty that has only about two years
more to run. Russia, by making a bold front, can gain from Germany
better terms than she has had in the past. “Russia, with her military
preparations,” writes the _Pester Lloyd_, “wishes to put Austria
and Germany under military pressure in order to achieve diplomatic
successes and harm her neighbors economically.” The idea that
France is behind it all crops out repeatedly. The _Neue Preussische
Zeitung_ speaks of the pressure “ever stronger, that the French
need for revenge is exercising on the Russian ally and debtor.” The
_Hannöverische Courier_ accuses the French press of having first caused
the agitation of public opinion in Russia, on which it afterward
comments as so remarkable. As far back as March 10th, 1913, the
_Kölnische Zeitung_ had written: “Never was our relation to our western
neighbor so strained as to-day, never has the idea of vengeance shown
itself so openly and never has it been made so evident that in France
the Russian alliance, the English friendship, are claimed only for the
purpose of reconquering Alsace-Lorraine. In whatever corner of the
world the flame starts up it is quite certain that we shall have to
cross swords with France. When that will be, no one can tell.”
The Russian military preparations cause the German papers much concern
in the month of April also. The _Vossische Zeitung_ considers them a
gigantic bluff, and declares that they have been worth millions to the
Russian government. “For only because France thinks that in Russia she
possesses an ally ready for war has she heaped billions and billions
on her in the form of loans. … That the latest French loans to Russia
were accompanied by instructions seriously to take up the anti-Austrian
and anti-German preparations no one doubts. Just as little is it
doubted that Pan-Slavism is not pleased with the latest changes in the
Balkans or that the freedom of the Dardanelles and the seizure of
Constantinople still present themselves as the goal of Russian policy.
Hatred of the Germans is increasing. … One thing is certain: Russia is
arming to a gigantic extent. She wishes to throw a heavy weight into
the scale of the national quarrels. Germany and Austria have every
reason to be on their guard.” The _Allgemeine Zeitung_, of Chemnitz,
writes that “The goals of French and Russian policy are unattainable
without world-shattering callings-to-account,” and the _Weser Zeitung_,
after speaking of Pan-Slavism as threatening the existence of the
Austrian-Hungarian monarchy, finally exclaims, “It neither can nor
should be concealed that if—which God forbid!—this direction gain
the upper hand in Russian politics it would mean the very war-danger
against which we sought and found refuge in the Triple Alliance.”
[Illustration: The Unworldly Kaiserin as the Protectress of the
Fatherless]
[Illustration: Princess Victoria Louise, the Emperor’s Only Daughter]
The newspapers of May have a somewhat calmer tone than those of March
and April. “There is, to be sure,” writes the _Tag_, “danger for peace
in the possibility that the anti-German tendency in Russia may prove so
strong that the government will not be able to check it. Another danger
lies in the relations of Russia and Austria. … Although there is much
talk to the effect that we shall once more be compelled to fight for
our national existence, it is not absolutely necessary that such a
war shall come.” On the other hand, Admiral Breusing, in the _Tägliche
Rundschau_ of May the seventh, writes: “The striving of the Slavic and
Mongolian races to extend their power and possessions will surely lead
to an encounter with the German race.” The _Rheinisch-Westphälische
Zeitung_ declares of France that “public sentiment in military and
political circles has long gone over from the defensive to the
offensive. Apparently the aim is to create a situation where Germany
will have to choose between receding or attacking.” The _Dresdener
Anzeiger_, too, thinks that the “relations between Germany and France
give the key to the grouping of the European powers,” and the _Berliner
Tageblatt_ says, “The future and salvation of Europe and its culture
lies solely in a German-French-English rapprochement; that alone will
guarantee the world-peace.” Toward the end of the month the _Dresdener
Anzeiger_ writes: “The German-Russian relations have latterly taken a
remarkable change for the worse. Certainly the nationalistic elements
in Russia are once more conspicuously active. … Should the whole mass
of the Russian people once become conscious of its nationality the
world will see the most mighty movement both as regards extent and
elemental intensity. … For Russia, Pan-Slavism is the idea of the
Russian leadership over all Slavs.”
Already in May, more than two months before there is a sign that the
conflict is at hand, doubts begin to be expressed whether Italy’s
alliance would be of any value in case of war. The Berlin _Neueste
Nachrichten_ has to acknowledge that as far as Austria is concerned the
alliance is “more a matter of the intellect than of the heart;” while
the _Rheinisch-Westphälische Zeitung_ reports on May twelve that “in
more than ten years such a senseless agitation against Austria has not
been seen in Italy. … The Italian government is by no means master of
the difficult situation in which it is placed by the demonstrations
of protest against Austria-Hungary. … _Were war to break out to-day
the easily excited Italian people would compel any government of
theirs, however friendly to the Triple Alliance, to declare against
Austria-Hungary._”
The nearer we approach to the crisis the more serious is the situation
regarded by the better newspapers. The _Neue Preussische Zeitung_ in
June tells of the surprising spirit of sacrifice there is in France and
of the quiet efforts that are being made to strengthen the army: “If
the revenge cries have almost ceased that does not in the least mean
that the idea has been given up; on the contrary, they already reckon
on the war as on a sure thing.” Of the Russian military preparations,
the Vienna _Neue Freie Presse_ writes on June twelve: “About two
months ago it became known that Russia had set aside two hundred
sixteen million _kronen_ (a _krone_ is about a franc) for military
exercises and especially for a ‘mobilization.’ The great amount of
this sum will be realized when one remembers that Austria spends about
ten millions for all of its military exercises put together. Under the
harmless title of ‘trial-mobilization’ and the still more harmless
one of ‘exercises for the reserves’ Russia, then, for a period of six
weeks, is placing its giant army practically on a war-footing. Think
of 1,800,000 men holding military exercises at a time when Austria has
200,000, Germany from 300,000 to 400,000 trained men at her immediate
disposal! Whether it be intentional or not this implies so imminent a
threat that the neighbors will need the greatest ‘cold-bloodedness’
to allow these ‘military exercises’ to pass without friction. _These
exercises signify the most colossal endangering of the peace that was
ever attempted under the form of a periodically recurring measure of
organization_, and it would not be surprising if all those who long for
a peaceful turn of political affairs were to be completely embittered….
_To add to this dark aspect comes the relatively enormous credit
demanded by the Servian military administration_—123,000,000. It is as
much in proportion as though Austria were to demand a billion and a
half. Since 1908 Servia has been arming uninterruptedly, and now again
spends this sum on military purposes the tendency of which practically
amounts to a direct threatening of her neighbors.” The _Hallesche
Zeitung_ on the twenty-third of June discusses the various alliances:
“Originally the Russian-French alliance was a military convention,
in the last few months there has been added a naval agreement. It is
desired to enter with united forces into the great decisive struggle
for the division of the world. Russia wants elbow-room as far as the
North Atlantic Ocean and the Southern Baltic, besides free entry into
the Mediterranean.”
I have quoted all these newspaper extracts because they seem to me
absolutely indicative of the sentiment that prevailed in Germany just
before the war broke out, whether that sentiment be based on correct
impressions or not. We have the Russian side of it in an article
written by Professor Maxim Kowaleski, for the _Frankfurter Zeitung_:
“In Russia people believe that Germany and Austria are arming against
Russia, in Germany and Austria they take for granted that the opposite
is the case.”
[Illustration]
[Illustration: General von Heeringen]
[Illustration: General von Eichhorn]
[Illustration: General von Bülow]
[Illustration: General von Prittwitz]
To the unprejudiced observer it looks very much as though Servia,
thinking her hour had come and feeling sure of Russia’s support,
had instigated the murder of the heir to the Austrian throne with
the deliberate intention of starting a great conflagration. The
preliminary inquiry into the matter, which was carried on very
deliberately by Austria, with no sensational charges or accusations,
revealed a great plot reaching to the very steps of the Servian
throne. Around that throne, as the world well knows, were the men who
had deliberately murdered their own previous king and queen and who
had been rewarded with high positions for their share in that dark
transaction. It was proved to Austria’s satisfaction—and she had so
much to lose by a war of aggression that no ulterior motive could
have influenced her—that the royal Servian arsenal had provided the
weapons of death and that a high official in the army had been directly
concerned. Servia’s attitude during the preliminary investigation had
been provocative. Then Austria hurled her ultimatum.
It was an unheard-of ultimatum—that much an Austrian friend
acknowledged to me at the time. But, he added, the whole situation
was equally unheard of. In Germany, except in the ranks of the social
democrats, who glory in having no national sentiments, Austria’s act
met with the most complete approval. Truth to tell, no one had expected
such firmness and decision. The seriousness of the matter was not for
a moment overlooked. In my own immediate neighborhood and, I imagine,
from end to end of Germany, the first impulse on hearing the news
was to sing national hymns. One heard them throughout that whole
night—especially the solemn “_Gott erhalte Franz den Kaiser_” and
“_Deutschland, Deutschland über alles_.” There was a resigned feeling,
too, a feeling that Servia had been such a menace since 1908 that the
time had come when something must be done. My Austrian friend believed
that the powers would sympathize with his country’s desire to chastise
a band of assassins; that the Russian czar especially would never take
sides with regicides; that England would see fair play.
To blame the German emperor for what followed is the attitude of the
uninformed. Germany has foreseen the struggle, as our extracts from
the newspapers show, but her one idea has been self-defense. The worst
that can be said of her is that her wonderful prosperity has made her
a little boastful and that she has talked too much about her share
in world politics and her own “place in the sun.” That indeed was
an unfortunate remark of his imperial majesty. In general, however,
he has honestly tried to keep the peace, and that Germany, with her
blooming trade, her model educational system and her splendid fleet and
army should have a larger voice in the affairs of nations was not an
unreasonable aim. Those who accuse her of greed for territory should
look at the history of their own country and see if they are entitled
to throw stones. Nor should they attribute her recent army-increase to
a mere spirit of aggression. So hemmed in is Germany, so exposed are
her frontiers in every direction, that she can not help taking alarm
at the movements of her neighbors. Actually touching her borders are
nations with a total population more than doubling her own, not to
speak of England with her enormous fleet.
England of late has stood for the restriction of armaments provided her
own naval superiority be preserved in the present proportions. Germans
believe, probably falsely, that before making such a proposition
England hastily ordered the laying of the keels of three new
battle-ships which in the ordinary course of events would not have been
begun until later. At any rate England leads in the matter of supplying
other countries with deadly instruments of war and her attitude is not
unlike that of her own rich beer-brewing families to the temperance
question. They preach against the use of alcohol, but go on deriving
their income from it. The largest factory of Whitehead torpedoes is at
Fiume, in Austria; Armstrong and Vickers have branches in Italy and
supply that government with naval guns; while the British Engineers’
Association, with a capital of $350,000,000, is endeavoring to corner
the trade of the world in firearms. England introduced dreadnaughts
and not only builds them for herself but also furnishes them on
demand to Japan and South America. With a cannon factory on the Volga
and an arsenal equipped by Armstrong and Vickers on the Golden Horn,
England has fairly fattened of late on war. By building the first
dreadnaught, indeed, she did herself a poor service. Previously Germany
was out of the running as regards the number of ships; now, where
only dreadnaughts count, she is becoming a good second. Was there not
something more than naïvete in Sir Edward Grey’s serious proposal that
Germany and England should restrict the number of their battle-ships
but always preserve the proportion of ten to six in England’s favor?
We have here, I think, the whole gist of the differences between
the two countries. England has steadily preserved her attitude of
superiority everywhere its basis was disappearing. She has been jealous
of Germany’s commerce, of her colonial progress. These Germans are to
England upstarts who need to be kept in their place and are not to
be allowed to have a word in the larger world-policies. Almost every
Englishman feels that a German is his social inferior. Such assumptions
provoke bumptiousness and self-assertion, which, I do not deny, have
at times been evidenced. Just before this war broke out, indeed, the
feeling of mutual antagonism seemed to be lessening. The English fleet
was welcomed at Kiel, the English trade delegation in Berlin. The
press of both countries had softened and sweetened.
[Illustration: The Kaiser with the Bürgemeister of Aix-la-Chapelle on
the Balcony of the Town Hall]
[Illustration: The Emperor at Maneuvers]
[Illustration: Duke Albert of Württemberg]
[Illustration: Prince Rupprecht of Bavaria]
[Illustration: Grand Duke Frederick II of Baden]
As for England’s present alliance with Russia against Germany, it is
the most monumental act of folly in modern history. Has Britannia been
attacked by sclerosis? At home a maudlin sentiment keeps her from
enforcing obedience to her laws and abroad she allows her real enemies
to pull her about by the nose. It is as though in the middle ages a
Henry or an Edward had joined hands with a Genghis Khan or a Timour the
Tartar. Can England gain anything whatever by humiliating Germany and
furthering Pan-Slavism? A little commercial advantage, possibly, though
America will be correspondingly strengthened and the final result will
be no better. Britannia, wake up! It is less far from the Mediterranean
to the Atlantic than it is from the Black Sea to the Mediterranean.
Gibraltar will soon be as irksome to Pan-Slavism as are now the forts
on the Dardanelles. Your own race is made up mainly of Angles and
Saxons—all your ideals, all your real interests are far closer to
those of the Germans than they are to those of the Russians. The time
may come, and very soon, when you are only too glad to throw yourself
around Germany’s neck and beg her aid in opposing the hordes from the
East. In Russia’s wake are your allies, the Japanese, who now for
the first time have taken a hand in European affairs. Japan has been
likened by a bright American girl to a man who has never been invited
to dinner in certain circles but who at last has invited himself and
simply can not be turned out of the house.
Germany, though drawn into the matter merely by the plain terms of her
alliance with Austria, stands virtually alone, for Italy is faithless
and Austria, as usual, is only half prepared. We may see a recurrence
of those exciting days when for seven years Frederick the Great of
Prussia—of a Prussia less than half the size that it is now—held his
own not only against the great powers of Europe but against the rest
of Germany as well. The help that he had from England was not greater
than may be expected from Austria to-day, and even the English deserted
him at last. Again and again Frederick risked, even as our contemporary
Hohenzollern is likely to do, _le tout pour le tout_. And like
Frederick, I think that William, because of better equipment, better
discipline and better strategy, is likely to prevail even over the many
millions arrayed against him.
England to-day throws the whole blame for the terrible war on Germany,
who was lukewarm, so England declares, in counseling Austria not
to let her strained relations with Servia develop into war; and in
the English press at least there are no words too scathing for the
violation by Germany of Belgium neutrality. The average Englishman, I
am sure, considers that the reason for England joining in the struggle.
Yet what are we to think of Sir Edward Grey’s own words in the
“Correspondence respecting the European Crisis” laid before the Houses
of Parliament and received here from London August twenty-fifth.
_July 31._—The German ambassador asked me to urge the Russian
government to show good-will in the discussions and to suspend their
military preparations. … I informed the German ambassador that, as
regards military preparations, I did not see how Russia could be urged
to suspend them unless some limit were put by Austria to the advance
of her troops into Servia.
_August 1._—I told the German ambassador to-day … if there were a
violation of the neutrality of Belgium by one combatant while the
other respected it it would be extremely difficult to restrain public
feeling in this country. … He asked me whether, if Germany gave a
promise not to violate Belgium neutrality, we would engage to remain
neutral. I replied that I could not say that. … The ambassador pressed
me as to whether I could not formulate conditions on which we would
remain neutral. He even suggested that the integrity of France and her
colonies might be guaranteed. I said that I felt obliged to refuse
definitely any promise to remain neutral on similar terms, and I could
only say that we must keep our hands free.
So England, directly from the first, took sides with Servia in a matter
that concerned only Servia and Austria. She “could not see how Russia
could be urged to suspend preparations” and would not, even for the
sake of Belgium, state the terms on which she would agree to remain
neutral in the new German-Russian mobilization dispute. Why Germany
finally did violate Belgian neutrality is explained by a telegram from
the German foreign office to the German ambassador in London, Prince
Lichnowsky, on August four. … “Please impress upon Sir E. Grey that
German army could not be exposed to French attack across Belgium, which
was planned according to absolutely unimpeachable information. Germany
had consequently to disregard Belgian neutrality, it being for her a
question of life or death to prevent French advance.”
All eyes then are likely for the next few months to be fixed on the
German army and it has seemed worth while to me hastily to collect and
publish all the items concerning the land, naval and aerial forces
that will be of general interest in America. No one will look, I hope,
for much originality in a work of this kind. My information is taken
from Major von Schreibershofen’s excellent book _Das deutsche Heer_,
from Colonel von Bremen’s _Das deutsche Heer nach der Neuordnung von
1913_; from Lieutenant Neumann’s _Luftschiffe_ and his _Flugzeuge_;
from Count Reventlow’s interesting _Deutschland zur See_; Troetsch’s
_Deutschland’s Flotte im Entscheidungskampf_ and Toeche-Mittler:
_Die deutsche Kriegsflotte_. The three last mentioned works, and
also Von Bremen’s, are absolutely new, having been published in 1914;
Schreibershofen’s dates from 1913. The two others have no date but one
can see that they have appeared very recently. The large new works _Das
Jahr 1913_, _Deutschland unter Kaiser Wilhelm II_, and the _Handbuch
der Politik_ have also been of use to me. For the last six months I
have followed very carefully in the _Zeitungs-Archiv_ all the newspaper
extracts bearing on our subject. The war has doubtless interrupted the
publication of the _Archiv_, so that I shall remain “up to date” for
some little time to come.