Слике страница

(c) [$162] War as a Necessity. By FRIEDRICH BERNHARDI AND COLMAR VON DER Goltz. It was always timely progress which has led us to victory, and has given us from the outset a certain amount of superiority over our adversaries. Such a superiority we must try to gain all the more in future as well, since it is only too likely that, with the present state of affairs in the world, we may be forced to fight against superior numbers, while, on the other hand, our most vital interest will be at stake. The political situation as it is to-day makes us look upon such a war even as a necessity, on which the future development of our people depends.

(Gen. von Bernhardi, How Germany Makes War.)

These were the results of cosmopolitanism, the love of peace, humanitarian twaddle, and the deteriorated pre-Jena methods of warfare. Then, if ever, did history furnish proof of the fact that a nation which desires happiness must also be powerful and skilled in arms. It must neither renounce its passionate love of the Fatherland nor lose its power to regard war as an earnest, bitter thing, and an historical nécessity. As long as the process of reconstructing states proceeds with the changing seasons, as long as human development does not stand still, so long will there be war. But those who do not wish to be ruined by it must prepare in peace time to endure the stern armed contest with opponents and rivals. To this end we must spare no pains in educating the rising generation in the spirit of bravery, scorn of danger, and bodily vigor; and never again as of old before Jena must we set a higher value upon the art of war than upon the soldiery virtues.

(Gen. von der Goltz, “Jena to Eylau," in Germany's War · Mania, pp. 189-190.)


1. Specific References to the Section.
See $$81-88 above.

Howard, Burt T. The German Empire.
Bülow, Bernhard von. Imperial Germany.
Veblen, T. Imperial Germany.
Wells, H. G. “The Future of Monarchy,” in New Republic, X, pp.

714. (May 19, 1917.)
William II. “God Is With Us,” a manifesto, in New York Times

- Current History, II. 1021-1022. (Sept., 1915.)
Tate, R. F. “The Wealth of William II," ibid, 1167. (Sept., 1915.)
Hazen, C. D. “How the Hohenzollerns and Junkers control,” ibid,

XII. 198-203. (Aug., 1917.)
Francke, K. “Kaiser and His People,” in Atlantic Monthly, vol.

114, pp. 566-570. (Oct., 1914.)
Schoonmaker, E. D. “From Caesar to Kaiser,” in Century, VIII,

pp. 230 seq. (Dec., 1914.) Whitman, S. “Blight of Prussian Autocracy,” in Fortnightly Rev.,

vol. 102 (2), pp. 901-914. (Dec., 1914.) Eca de Guiroz, J. M. “Emperor William,” ibid., vol. 106, pp. 622-628.

(Oct., 1916.) “Politicus.” “Will the German People Revolt?" ibid., vol. 106,

pp. 936-948. (Dec., 1916.)

[ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors]

Leigh, C. “Is He Mad?" in Forum, LVII. 515-526. (May, 1917.)
Anon. “Can the Hohenzollerns Survive?” in New Republic, X,

pp. 359-361. (April 28, 1917.)
Anon. “The Kaiser,” in World's Work, XXVIII. 495-516.
Willert, A. “Democracy vs. Autocracy,” ibid., XXIX. 181-185.

(Dec., 1914.) 'Baerlein, H. “State of Alsace-Lorraine,” in Fortnightly Rev., vol.

101(1), pp. 146-153. (Jan., 1914.) Dewey, S. “Alsace-Lorraine To-day and Yesterday,” in Nation,

pp. 125-127. (Feb. 1, 1917.)

[ocr errors]

2. Imperial Spirit.

(a) Nobility and Court Life.
(b) Land holding Junkers.
(c) Arbitrary power.

3. Vassal Provinces and States.

(a) Alsace-Lorraine.
(b) Prussian Poland.

(c) Bosnia and Herzegovina. 4. Subject Races.

(a) Fins, Poles.
(b) Austrian, Hungarian, Slavs.

5. World Empire.

(a) German desire for Imperial control in other lands. 6. Documents and Extracts on the Section.

(a) [$164] The Sin of National Weakness.

BY PROFESSOR HEINRICH VON TREITSCHKE. Thus we find it necessary to distinguish between public and private morality. The rank of the various duties must necessarily be very different for the state and the individual man. There is a whole series of these duties which are imposed upon the individual which are absolutely out of the question for the state. The state's highest law is that of self-assertion; that is for it the absolute morality. Therefore, one must assert that of all political sins, the worst and most contemptible is weakness; it is the sin against the holy ghost of politics. In private life certain weaknesses of the soul are excusable. But of these there is no question in the state; for the state is might, and if it should belie its very essence there would be no judgment severe enough for it.

It is indeed political idealism which fosters war, whereas materialism rejects it. What a perversion of morality to want to banish heroism from human life. The heroes of a people are the personalities who fill the youthful souls with delight and enthusiasm. Amongst authors, we as boys and youths admire most those who words sound like a flourish of trumpets. He who cannot take pleasure therein is too cowardly to take up arms himself for his fatherland. All appeal to Christianity in this matter is perverted. The Bible states expressly that the man in authority shall wield the sword; it states likewise that: “Greater love hath no man than this that he giveth his life for his friend." Those who preach the nonsense about everlasting peace do not understand the life of the Aryan race; the Aryans are before all brave. They have always been men enough to protect by the sword what they had won by the intellect. ...

To the historian who lives in the realms of the will, it is quite clear that the furtherance of an everlasting peace is fundamentally reactionary. He sees that to banish war from history would be to banish all progress and becoming. It is only the periods of exhaustion, weariness and mental stagnation that have dallied with the dream of everlasting peace.

(Prof. H. von Treitschke, Die Politik, translated in Germany's War Mania, p. 221.)

F. [8165] SERBIAN AND BALKAN QUESTION. 1. Specific References to the Section.

Collier's. Story of the War, I. 217, 362, 524, 536, 650.
Dennis, W. C. “The Diplomatic Correspondence Leading Up to

the War," in Am. Jour. of Int. Law, IX, 402 seq.. (April,

1915 Barker, J. E. “Murder of the Archduke-Causes and Conse.

quences,” in Fortnightly Rev., vol. 102, pp. 224-241. (Aug.,

1914.) Trevelyan, G. M. "Austria-Hungary and Servia,” ibid., vol. 103, pp.

978-986. (June, 1915.) Dillon, E. J. “Albanian Tangle,” ibid, vol. 102, pp. 1-28. July,

1914.) Trevelyan, G. M. “History of Serbia," in Atlantic Monthly, vol.

116, pp. 119-127. (July, 1915.) Woods, H. C. “New Situation in the Balkan Peninsula,” ibid.,

vol. 101, pp. 832-842. (May, 1914.) Headlam, J. W. "The Balkans and Diplomacy,” ibid., vol. 177, pp.

122-134. (Jan., 1916.)
Polyfordes, A. T. “The War in the Balkans,” in N. Y. Times

Current History," I, pp. 1068-1072.
Anon. “Neutrality of Rumania, Serbia, Bulgaria, Greece," ibid.,

II, pp. 925-829. (Aug., 1915.)
Anon. “Bulgaria and the Germanic Powers," ibid., III, p. 463.

(Dec., 1915.)
Tsaroff, R. A. “Bulgaria's Part in the European War,” ibid., V,

p. 70 (and other comments). (Oct., 1916.) Anon. “Where Rumania Stands in the Crisis” (Neutrality), ibid., I,

pp. 1054-1062. (March, 1915.) Jonescu, T. “Honorable Neutrality Impossible,” ibid., V, p. 64

(with declaration of war). (Oct., 1916.) Austrian Red Book on “Rumania's Entrance Into the War," a

summary, ibid., V, p. 533. (Dec., 1916.)
“Politicus.” “Rumania and the Eastern Question,” in Fortnightly

Rev., vol. 106, pp. 549-562. (Oct., 1916.)
Woods, H. C. “Greece and the War,” ibid., vol. 106, pp. 406-416.

(Sept., 1916.)
Anon. “Greece's Watchful Waiting,” in N. Y. Times Current His.

tory, I, pp. 1050-1053. (March, 1915.) “Address of the Greek People Admonishing Their King,ibid., V,

p. 236. (Nov., 1916.) Johnston, C. “Belgium and Greece,ibid., V, p. 635. (Jan., 1917.) Johnston, C. “Balkan States and the Allies,” in No. Am. Rev.,

vol. 202, pp. 404-02. (Sept., 1915.) Trevelyan, G. M. "Austria-Hungary and Servia,ibid., vol. 201,

pp. 860-868. (June, 1915.) Dumba, C. “Why Austria Is At War with Russia,ibid., vol. 200,

pp. 346-352. (Sept., 1914.) Spencer, A. W. “The Balkan Question,” in Am. Polit. Sci. Rev.,

VIII. 563-582. (Nov., 1914.)


79 Harris, W. D. “Southern Slav Question," ibid., IX. 227-251.

(May, 1915.)
Levine, L. “Pan-Slavism and European Politics,” in Pol. Sci.

Quart., XXIX. 664-686. (Dec., 1914.)
Duggar, S. P. “Balkan Diplomacy,” ibid., XXXII, pp. 224-251.

(June, 1917.)
2. Balkan Situation to 1914.

(a) Balkan wars, 1912, 1913.
(b) Serbian ambition for a Slav kingdom.
(c) Murder of the Austrian Archduke (June 25, 1914.)

(d) Rivalry of Austria and Russia in the Balkans. 3. Outbreak of War.

(a) Austrian ultimatum on Serbia (July 23).
(b) Austrian declaration of war on Serbia (July 25).
(c) German declaration on Russia (July 31).

4. Other Powers Into the Struggle.

(a) Germany, France, Great Britain, Belgium, Montenegro.
(b). Japan, Italy, Portugal.
(c) Turkey, Bulgaria, Greece, Rumania.
(d) China, Siam, Latin-American Powers.

(e) Effect of the Alliance and Entente on the war. 5. Documents and Extracts on the Section.

(a) [$166] The Case of Serbia (1914). BY CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER David LLOYD GEORGE. But Belgium was not the only little nation that has been attacked in this war, and I make no excuse for referring to the case of the other little nation—the case of Serbia. The history of Serbia is not unblotted. What history in the category of nations is unblotted? The first nation that is without sin, let her cast a stone at Serbia—a nation trained in a horrible school. But she won her freedom with her tenacious valor, and she has maintained it by the same courage. If any Serbians were mixed up in the assassination of the Grand Duke they ought to be punished. Serbia admits that. The Serbian Government had nothing to do with it. Not even Austria claimed that. The Serbian Prime Minister is one of the most capable and honored men in Europe. Serbia was willing to punish any one of her subjects who had been proved to have any complicity in that assassination. What more could you expect?


What were the Austrian demands? She sympathized with her fellow-countrymen in Bosnia. That was one of her crimes. She must do so no more. Her newspapers were saying nasty things about Austria. They must do so no longer. That is the Austrian spirit. You had it in Zabern. How dare you criticize a Prussian official? And if you laugh, it is a capital offense. The colonel threatened to shoot them if they repeated it. Serbian newspapers must not criticize Austria. I wonder what would have happened had we taken up the same line about German newspapers. Serbia said: “Very well, we will give orders to the newspapers that they must not criticize Austria in future, neither Austria, nor Hungary, nor anything that is theirs.” Laughter.) Who can doubt the valor of Serbia, when she undertook to tackle her newspaper editors? (Laughter.) She promised not to sympathize with Bosnia; promised to write no critical articles about Austria. She would have no public meetings at which anything unkind was said about Austria. That was not enough. She must dismiss from her army officers whom Austria should subsequently name. But these officers had just emerged from a war where they were adding lustre to the Serbian arms—gallant, brave, efficient. (Cheers.) I wonder whether it was their guilt or their efficiency that prompted Austria's action. Serbia was to undertake in advance to dismiss them from the army—the names to be sent in subsequently. Can you name a country in the world that would have stood that? Supposing Austria or Germany had issued an ultimatum of that kind to this country. (Laughter.) “You must dismiss from your army and from your navy all those officers whom we shall subsequently name.” Well, I think I could name them now. Lord Kitchener (cheers) would go. Sir John French (cheers) would be sent about his business. General Smith-Dorrien (cheers) would be no more, and I am sure that Sir John Jellicoe (cheers) would go. (Laughter.) And there is another gallant old warrior who would go-Lord Roberts. (Cheers.)

It was a difficult situation for a small country. Here was a demand made upon her by a great military power who could put five or six men in the field for every one she could; and that power supported by the greatest military power in the world. How did Serbia behave? It is not what happens to you in life that matters; it is the way in which you face it. (Cheers.) And Serbia faced the situation with dignity. (Loud cheers.) She said to Austria: “If any officers of mine have been guilty and are proved to be guilty, I will dismiss them.” Austria said, “That is not good enough for me." It was not guilt she was after, but capacity. (Laughter.)


Then came Russia's turn. Russia has a special regard for Serbia. She has a special interest in Serbia. Russians have shed their blood for Serbian independence many a time. Serbia is a member of her family and she cannot see Serbia maltreated. Austria knew that. Germany knew that, and Germany turned around to Russia and said: “I insist that you shall stand by with your arms folded whilst Austria is strangling your little brother to death." (Laughter.) What answer did the Russian Slav give? He gave the only answer that becomes a man. (Cheers.) He turned to Austria and said: “You lay hands on that little fellow and I will tear your ramshackle empire limb from limb. (Prolonged cheers.) And he is doing it. (Renewed cheers.)

(Stowell, Diplomacy of the War of 1914, I, 586.)

« ПретходнаНастави »