against all this new militant doctrine, is true; but such an undercurrent did not and could not mold the character of the German nation.

Because of the almost unlimited influence of these literary and political "lights," therefore, we shall examine briefly their teachings and attitude toward peace and a "society of nations" as the best means of answering our first question above. Note these quotations:

"They (Governments) usually employ the need of peace as a cloak under which to promote their own political aims. This was the position of affairs at the Hague Congresses, and this is also the meaning of the action of the United States of America, who in recent times have earnestly tried to conclude treaties for the establishment of arbitration.". (von Bernhardi, "Germany and the Next War.")

"Theorists and fanatics imagine that they see in the efforts of President Taft a great step forward in the path to perpetual peace. (Idem. p. 17.)

"This desire for peace has rendered most civilized nations anemic, and marks a decay of spirit and political courage.

. It has always been the weary, spiritless, and exhausted ages that have played with the dream of perpetual peace." -(H. von Treitschke, greatest German historian.)

Frederick the Great, who is very much quoted in recent years in Germany and considered as the greatest of the German rulers, and is idolized as no other among his people, once said: "In matters of state, when a man stops to consider he is a Christian, he is lost."

"War is a biological necessity of the first order.”—(Von Bernhardi.)

"So long as there are men who have human feelings and aspirations, so long as there are nations who strive for an enlarged sphere of activity, so long will conflicting interests come into being, and occasions for making war arise."— (Bernhardi.)

"The extra-social and super-social structure which guides

the eternal development of societies, nations and races, is war."-(Claus Wagner.)

"War is as necessary as the struggle of the elements in nature."—(A. W. Von Schlegel.)

"Between states the only check upon injustice is force, and in morality and civilization each people must play its own part and promote its own ends and ideals. No power exists which can judge between states and make its judgment prevail."-(Bernhardi.)

"Since almost every part of the globe is inhabited, new territory must, as a rule, be obtained at the cost of its possessors—that is to say, by conquest, which thus becomes a law of necessity.—(Ibid.)

"Might is at once the supreme right, and the dispute as to what is right is decided by the arbitrament of war. War gives a biologically just decision, since its decisions rest on the very nature of things."-(Ibid. p. 23.)

"The knowledge therefore, that war depends on biological laws leads to the conclusion that every attempt to exclude it from international relations must be demonstrably untenable."-(Ibid, p. 24.)

"To expand the idea of the State into that of humanity, and thus to entrust apparently higher duties to the individual leads to error, since in a human race conceived as a whole, struggle, the most essential vital principle, would be ruled out. Any action in favor of collective humanity outside the limits of the State and Nationality is impossi ble. Such conceptions belong to the wide domain of Utopias." (From Schleiermacher, quoted by Bernhardi.)

"Wars are terrible, but necessary, for they save the State from social petrefaction and stagnation.”—(Kuno Fischer.) "War is elevating, because the individual disappears before the great conception of the State. . . . . What a perversion of morality to wish to abolish heroism among men!" -(Treitsche. Trietsche is referred to by scores of German writers and speakers as their great historian-philosopher.)

"States which from various considerations are always active in this direction (peace) are sapping the roots of their own strength. The United States of America in June, 1911, championed the ideas of universal peace in order to be able to devote their undisputed attention to moneymaking and the enjoyment of wealth, and to save the three hundred million dollars which they spend on their navy; they thus incur a great danger, the loss of all chance of contest with opponents of their own strength. If they advance farther on this road, they will one day pay dearly for such a policy."—(Bernhardi.)

"This law (the law of Christian love) can claim no significance for the relations of one country to another, since its application to politics would lead to a conflict of duties. . . . Christian morality is personal and social, and in its nature cannot be political."-(Ibid.)

"Proposals are made from time to time-to settle the disputes which arise between the various countries by Arbitration Courts, and to render war impossible. The politician who honestly believes in their practibility must be amazingly short-sighted. . . . Where does the power reside which insures the execution of this judgment when pronounced?"-(Bernhardi.)

"In America, Elihu Root, formerly Secretary of State, declared in 1908 that the High Court of International Justice established by the Second Hague Conference would be able to pronounce definite and binding decisions by virtue of the pressure brought to bear by public opinion. The present leaders of the American peace movement seem to share this idea. A general arbitration treaty between two countries affords no guarantee of permanent peace. . . . If these relations change . . . then every arbtriation treaty will burn like tinder and end in smoke."-(Chancellor von BethmannHollweg, in a speech to the Reichstag, March 30, 1911.)

"The efforts directed toward the abolition of war must not only be termed foolish, but absolutely immoral, and must

be stigmatized as unworthy of the human race.”—(Bernhardi, "Germany and the Next War,” p. 34.)

"By Courts of Arbitration . . . the weak nation has the same right to live as the powerful and vigorous nation. The whole idea represents a presumptuous encroachment on the natural law of development, which can lead only to the most disastrous consequences for humanity generally.”—(Ibid.)

"A people can only hope to take up a firm position in the political world when national character and military tradition act and react upon each," says Bernhardi. "These are the words of Clauswitz, the great philosopher of war, and he is incontestably right”—(Ibid.)

"God will always see to it that wars recur as a drastic remedy for the human race," says Treitschke; and like him, Bernhardi declares, "Our people must learn to see that the maintenance of peace never can or may be the goal of a policy."

"The Great Elector laid the foundations of Prussia's power by successful and deliberately planned wars,” says Bernhardi; and with regard to Frederick the Great the same author, agreeing with Treitschke, declares that "None of the wars which he fought had been forced upon him; none of them did he postpone as long as possible. He had always determined to be the aggressor."

"The appropriate and conscious employment of war as a political means has always led to happy results. The lessons of history thus confirm the view that wars which have been deliberately provoked by far-seeing statesmen have had the happiest results."-(Bernhardi, p. 43.)

"The end-all and be-all of a State is power,—and he who is not man enough to look this truth in the face should not meddle with politics."—(Treitschke.)

Kaiser Wilhelm II repeatedly remarked that his army and navy, and not parliamentary bodies and negotiations with other countries, were his main reliance and the hope of Germany; and when he made the historic statement that “Ger

many's future lies upon the water," he was counting the years until the "inevitable day" that was the toast of many a German drink in high naval, military, and governmental circles. What faith could such characters have in a true "freedom of the seas"?

...

"The State is itself the highest conception in the wider community of man... for there is nothing higher than it in the world's history. . . . The verdict of history will condemn the statesman who was unable to take the responsibility of a bold decision, and sacrifice the hopes of the future to the present need of peace."-(Bernhardi, referring especially to the German reverses in the Moroccan crisis, 19091911.)

"While on the one side she (United States) insists on the Monroe Doctrine, on the other she stretches out her own arms toward 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 political and economic, notwithstanding all commercial and other treaties, clash emphatically with those of Japan and England. No arbitration treaties could alter this. . . . 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. . . . No one stands above the State; it is sovereign. In no case, therefore, may a sovereign State renounce the right of interfering in the affairs of other States."-(Bernhardi.) (How, then, can it enter into a League of Nations, to enforce peace or justice?)

In hinting at the turn of affairs of "the next war," General Bernhardi made the following comment on Germany's justification should she break her treaty and violate Belgian neutrality: "This argument (in favor of breaking the neutrality treaty) is the more justifiable because it may safely be assumed that, in event of a war of Germany (notice he puts Germany first) against France and England, the two