cates" the people these men, who for the most miserable selfish interests, from ambition, from lust of gain, from greed of glory and booty, incite millions of hapless men against each other to their mutual slaughter. It is necessary to disband as dangerous to the State and mankind, as guilty of high treason and of treachery towards their country, those organisations which have chosen as their profession the incitement of the nations and the intrigue to war, which puff out every petty incident until it becomes a matter of primary political importance that so they may heap together as much material as possible for the engenderment of conflicts between the nations. The word "war," that fearful horror-bringing word which these criminal cowards constantly have on their lips, while they themselves sit in security in their cosy studiesthe word "war" must, I say, be interdicted in an Eleventh Commandment to read thus: "Thou shalt not abuse the name of war." He must be placed in the pillory as a blasphemer who dares to unite the fearful word with the name of the all-creator and the all-preserver, who dares to name himself "by the Grace of God," and at the same time to commit every day and every hour deeds of shame "by the grace of the devil."

No war is "holy"-unless it be a real true war of defence. Most unholy, however, is this bugbear of a war of defence, as it has now been deceitfully presented for years to the credulous German people.

Holy is peace-true, real peace, which firmly and surely rests on the cohesion of the nations ordered on a basis of law. Such a peace is not a remote Utopian aim, but the immediate objective prescribed by the experiences of this world-war. Cohesion of the nations on a basis of law! He who misjudges or despises this aim, he who has misjudged or frustrated it in the past, is the true disturber of the peace among the nations; as he has brought about the present catastrophe, so he will also be responsible for all further catastrophes. And this point should be borne in mind by those who are responsible as well as those who are irresponsible in Germany, by all those who before the war rejected those ideas of inter

national organisation with derisive laughter, and who even now, after the fearful collapse of the old system, are unable to pull themselves together even to the extent of devoting serious consideration to the underlying ideas of the Hague Conference, or even to take these into account as a factor in their calculations as to the future.

A victory of Germany-of this there can be no doubtwould have immeasurably strengthened these circles and tendencies which have already, apart from this, exercised in Prussian Germany the authoritative influence on the decisions of the Government-those circles to whom the extension of the power of their own country means everything, while the guarantee of peace by international organisation means nothing. Quite recently von Stein, the Prussian Minister for War, gave eloquent expression to the sceptical aversion of these circles from any development of international law in the direction of organised peace. On the second reading of the Army Budget in the Reichstag on May 4th, 1917, the Minister for War stated:

I do not entertain the hope that peace will be followed by the peace of the nations. So long as the interests of States are opposed to each other, there will be war. The prospects of a perpetual peace are at the present moment not exactly brilliant, when two great nations who have hitherto never thought of maintaining armies are in the course of creating them. It is our duty to make ourselves secure even after the war, in order to keep for our descendants what we have gained (Wolff's telegram of May 4th).

These few words speak volumes. The existence of opposing interests between States means for the War Minister a perpetuation of war. This gentleman devotes no thought to the possibility of a friendly settlement of conflicting interests. Even now he advances the old catchword about "perpetual peace" as an argument against pacifist ideas-that catchword which we pacifists for half a century have demonstrated to be an ignorant and unscrupulous misconstruction and falsification of our aims. As if the establishment of an order of law between States connoted a state of law perpet

ually undisturbed; as if the creation of hygienic dispositions connoted perpetual health; as if good schools and educational institutions connoted perpetual virtue and spotlessness! With this thread-bare argument as to perpetuity it is possible to ridicule any human institution and represent it as ineffective. These gentlemen are indeed unteachable. These are the observations of a Prussian Minister for War after nearly three years' duration of war. This is the attitude towards the decisive war-aim of the Entente Powers and above all to that of the most recent and powerful opponent of Germany, the United States, which the military spokesman of the Imperial Government assumes without evoking contradiction in the German Parliament (the Parliamentary report after the above words indicates "expressions of assent" and at the conclusion of the speech, "lively general applause").

With such views in authoritative places it is not only the present war, but also the future latent state of war which will be indefinitely perpetuated. These gentlemen do not believe in a perpetual peace, but they find no difficulty in believing in a perpetual war. So long as such men and such views are not rendered innocuous once and for all, it is impossible to expect any improvement in Germany or any lasting peace in the world. What, however, does Herr von Bethmann say to this speech of his War Minister-Herr von Bethmann who, on November 9th, 1916, made the astonishing confession that after this war "through the whole of humanity a cry would rise for pacific agreements and understandings. ... so strong and so justified, that it could not but lead to a result"? The speech of the War Minister of May 4th, 1917, furnishes the standard indicating the value to be attached to the pacifist confession of the Chancellor (to which later I devote a special chapter).

*

An interesting pendant to the above utterances of the Prussian War Minister von Stein, is the speech with which the French General Dumas welcomed the American General Pershing on the arrival of the latter at Boulogne in the middle of June, 1917:

A new era is opening in the history of the world. The United States of America are combining with the United States of Europe. Together they are going to form the United States of the World, all at one in the effort definitively to slay war, to give us a fruitful, harmonious and durable peace by the society of nations. Welcome in our midst, General, for the blessing of humanity.

The contrast between the retrograde, narrow, militaristic Prussian spirit and the progressive, democratic, pacifist spirit of the French Republic, this deep irreconcilable contrast between two cosmic views, of which the one clings blindly to the past, while the other with clear vision looks into the future, cannot be better illustrated than by these two generals' speeches. The Prussian general in fact is and continues to be merely a general, the French military leader in his fine. speech of welcome shows that he is at the same time a democrat, a republican and a pacifist.

A speech such as the French general delivered in welcoming his American guest, uttered, that is to say, in an official capacity and on an official occasion, would be an utter impossibility in the mouth of a Prussian general. Not even in the most intimate private conversation would or could a Prussian officer of high military rank express himself in this way. He would not do so because such pacifist views would be in complete contradiction to all his opinions, inherited as well as acquired. He could not do so because even if against all expectation he were to entertain such heretical views-he would by giving them expression arouse a storm of indignation among those of his rank and profession, and he would soon find himself swept away by the hurricane. If it should happen-in far off days-that a Prussian general should think and dare to speak like General Dumas, then we in Prussian Germany shall have got "over the hill," then the dawn of better days will shine upon us also, then we shall have peace from our militarists, and the world will at last have peace from us. God grant that such a day may soon appear!

PAN-GERMANY HERE AND EVERYWHERE!

The differences which have recently developed between the ultra-annexationist Press of Pan-Germany and the merely annexationist Press of the Chancellor in no way modify the picture which I have outlined. Despite all these differences, both tendencies entirely agree in the main point which interests us here, that is to say, in the aversion from any effective pacifist organisation of the nations. These are all merely minor differences. The fact that one party may want to annex a few square miles more, the other a few square miles less is a matter of no interest to us who are unconditional opponents of all conquest, who represent a European organisation of law, who oppose every peace that rests on violence. A war of conquest remains a war of conquest; murder and robbery remain murder and robbery, unaffected by the fact that the murderer may take somewhat more or less from his victim.

The victory of German arms would have been a victory of Pan-German ideas. Pan-Germany here and everywhere! That would have been the watchword which on the victorious conclusion of peace would have drowned all the reasonable considerations of men of insight, all the opposition of those with a sense of responsibility; this is the call that would have urged the Government to a suicidal peace, as it has urged it to this suicidal war. The work of intrigue of the PanGermans and the Imperialists is once more, as in the past, being pursued by subterranean methods rather than above ground. By means of sapping, digging and driving galleries the attempt is made to undermine the soil of the future peace and to bring pressure to bear on those in authority—it is a war of mining, not a struggle in open battle. It is only now and then from an explosion that it is possible to observe how the burrowing and the working is going on. Tirpitz! Bethmann! are the battle-cries. The struggle on the question of submarine warfare and the final victory of the Tirpitzians indicate the direction in which the struggle is developing. Further mining explosions, further surprises still await us,