PACIFISM "AS HE UNDERSTANDS IT” 1

The preceding section, "Bethmann and Michaelis," was already in print when the German Government answered the Pope's peace note on September 19th, 1917. Since this answer was obviously designed to fill the gaps which the former statements of the new Chancellor had left in regard to pacifist problems, I consider it expedient, in order to avoid the charge of one-sided representation, to discuss in a few words this German answer and above all to investigate this question: 'Is there in fact and in truth in this last announcement of the German Government an advance in the sense of a recognition of pacifism? Is it honestly and sincerely intended? Or is it the case that here again it is merely the German will to power and will to victory that is recognisable, for once by way of a change in a pacifist disguise?

We have already had experience of one Chancellor as a pacifist confessor. His confession was dissipated as speedily as it had come into existence. I have elsewhere explained that it was in itself rotten, worthy of no confidence, and belied by the earlier and later action of the confessor. What is the position with regard to the present confession? Is it more credible than the previous one? Is it more consistent than that was with the actions of the confessor? That is the

question which I shall here briefly investigate.

The new Chancellor also concurs in the view that "in the future the material power of arms must be superseded by the moral power of right"; he also is prepared for "definite rules and certain safeguards for the simultaneous and reciprocal limitation of armaments on land and sea and in the air"; he also is willing to decide "international differences of opinion not by the use of armed force but by peaceful methods, especially by arbitration.”

But all these concurring statements are forthwith deprived

'This addition, written at the end of September, 1917, is the last which I can add before the printing of my book is completed. All later events must remain unconsidered and must be reserved for possible separate treatment.

of all value by the clause which is added, disclosing the cloven hoof, that "the Imperial Government will support every proposal which is compatible with the vital interests of the German Empire and people." This restrictive clause is sufficiently familiar to us from the Hague negotiations. We know that the struggle of opinion at The Hague turned round this very clause, which in any given case opened to a State bent on war the possibility of describing any dispute as "affecting its vital interests," and in this way of eluding such decision by arbitration as might be prescribed by international agreement. By this suspicious addition and generally by the frigid reserved tone of its assent, the announcement of the new Chancellor is disadvantageously distinguished from that of his predecessor in November, 1916. The criticism which I have passed on Bethmann the "Pacifist" is therefore applicable in increased measure to Michaelis the "Pacifist." The recent conversion of the German potentates to ideas which they most bitterly opposed in word and deed for twenty years, which in the critical days before the war they partly rejected and partly ignored, by the refusal of which they frustrated any amicable settlement of the conflict-such a sudden conversion will not appear to anyone to be worthy of confidence, even if it had manifested itself without reservations and stipulations.

The possibility is by no means excluded-and certainly it is to be eagerly desired-that this conversion may progress still further, that the course of military events in conjunction with economic pressure may gradually produce a real evolution, without any angularities, in the leading circles of Germany-an evolution in the direction of an enduring peace based on law, without annexations and without violence, on the basis of the nations' right of self-determination. This evolution, resulting from external pressure, will take place all the more quickly, the more it is supported by Revolution, that is to say, by internal pressure.

Whatever the future may, bring in the way of further

development in this direction, will not render invalid a single sentence, a single word of what I have written regarding the present or the past. On the contrary! Should there one day really be an honourable and sincere conversion and repentance in the potentates of Germany, this will merely prove that those of us who bitterly criticised the former attitude of our rulers were on the right path. The success of our criticism will furnish the confirmation of its justice. This holds for the future. The settlement for the past will take place according to a special separate account, which the German people will present to its Rulers and Governments, and it is to be hoped that they will behave as inexorable creditors in exacting the debit balance. The recognition today of the principle that Right takes precedence of Mighteven if it were sincere in its intention-does not relieve the authorities in Germany from the heavy responsibility which they have assumed by denying this principle for so many years. The present-day pacifism of extremity cannot undo the extremity of pacifism which has for generations hindered in Germany those thoughts as to the future which can alone bring healing. The repentant sinner of to-day—even if he should repent sincerely (which I doubt)-confesses himself as the hardened criminal of yesterday. The to-day is to be thankfully accepted, the yesterday is to be ruthlessly branded, punished and expiated.

But we have not yet got so far as that. For the present we are still stuck with both feet in the yesterday. In the German answer to the Pope we see merely a far-off glimmer of better days, which are still veiled by heavy masses of clouds-we see merely groping steps towards a goal which they have not of their own free will set before them, but which has merely been hung out at the gate of the Peace Palace under compulsion, as a bait and as a signboard to invite the passers-by to enter. To-day they acknowledge with their lips the Papal peace programme, but in all their inherited and acquired thoughts and feelings their hearts are whole

worlds removed. I believe that as a German and a Prussian I am a true interpreter of the thoughts and feelings of our rulers and ruling classes, and I adhere to what I have already said elsewhere: In spite of all fair words regarding Right and Might, regarding limitation of armaments, decision of international disputes by arbitration, etc.-in spite of all these sweet, savoury phrases, no Hohenzollern, no Prussian of the old style, no man in the civil and military circles which direct the fate of Prussian Germany, believes in the healing power of pacifist therapeutics; none of these leading men, the Emperor at their head, desires earnestly and sincerely to subject Germany's "sovereign" freedom of action or her military power by land or by sea to any international control or restriction.

This has been the case until to-day, pending later instruction by the power of facts. While the Imperial Government is expressing to the Pope its readiness to lend its support to an organisation of the community of nations based on law with compulsory limitation of armaments, a German Fatherland Party is at the very same moment founded in Germany under the leadership of princes and august gentlemen, with the open and the secret encouragement of the body of generals and the whole official hierarchy, and this body inscribes on its banner the "Hindenburg peace," that is to say, the peace of German power, and assigns to the Papal peace of law the Cinderella rôle which such Utopias have always played in Prussia.

This contrast between the words of the Government and the thoughts and actions of the leading circles of Germany need occasion no surprise. When all is said, the German answer itself, when it is more closely examined under the magnifying glass, reveals the same suspicious contrast; in this document itself, under the flowery covering of world peace, there lurks the poisonous snake of the German peace-the peace "which Germany needs in order to stand secure to all time," by which "air and light will be given to the German oak for its free development." These are the words of

Hindenburg in a letter of thanks to the German people a few weeks after the answer of the German Government to the Papal Note. It is only in appearance that this answer stands on pacifist ground; in reality, when accurately viewed, it is permeated through and through by the militaristic spirit; it is the spirit of Hindenburg which moves on the surface of the German waters.

The German answer suffers from one defect, which robs its pacifist confessions of any value and also shows the document, like so many other of Germany's announcements, to be merely a scrap of paper. This defect lies in the silence which is observed with regard to the immediate practical war-aims of Germany, and in the avoidance of any statement on the question of annexations. The Pope also had put forward as the "fundamental point" in his peace programme the replacement of the material force of arms by the moral force of right together with simultaneous and reciprocal diminution of armaments. He had, however, added:

But these pacific agreements, with the immense advantages they entail, are impossible without the reciprocal restitution of territories now occupied. Consequently on the part of Germany there must be the complete evacuation of Belgium, with a guarantee of her full political, military and economic independence towards all Powers whatsoever; likewise the evacuation of French territory. On the part of the other belligerent parties, there must be a similar restitution of the German colonies.

What does this mean? It means that Right can only be created on the basis of Right, not on the basis of what is unright. He who is prepared to concede to right the power to decide disputes between the nations in future, must first of all establish in the present a state of affairs corresponding to right, and must above all undo the wrong committed by himself. He who purposes erecting the future structure of law on the basis of the present acts of violence has built on sand. In the future there will no longer be any truth in that saying of the Emperor, which once on a time William II wrote in somebody's album in a spirit of youthful exuberance: