At the outbreak of the present war he again ill.u.s.trated his spirit of fanatical absolutism, which at times inspires him, by saying to his army:
Remember that the German people are the chosen of G.o.d. On me, as German Emperor, the spirit of G.o.d has descended. I am His weapon; His sword; His Vicegerent. Woe to the disobedient! Death to cowards and unbelievers!
The modern world has had nothing like this since Mahomet and, accepted literally, it claims for the Kaiser the divine attributes attributed to the Caesars. Even the Caesars, in baser and more primitive times, found posing as a divine superman somewhat difficult and disconcerting. Shakespeare subtly suggests this when he makes his Caesar talk like a G.o.d and act with the vacillation of a child.
When the war was precipitated as the natural result of such abhorrent teachings, the world at large knew little either of Treitschke or Bernhardi. Thoughtful men of other nations did know that the successful political immoralities of Frederick the Great had profoundly affected the policies of the Prussian Court to this day.
The German poet, Freiligrath, once said that "Germany is Hamlet," but no a.n.a.logy is less justified. There is nothing in the supersensitive, introspective, and amiable dreamer of Elsinore to suggest the Prussia of to-day, which Bebel has called "_Siegesbetrunken_." (Victory-drunk.)
Since the beginning of the present war, the world has become familiar with these abhorrent teachings and as a result of a general revolt against this recrudescence of Borgiaism attempts have been made by the apologists for Prussia, especially in the United States, to suggest that neither Treitschke nor Bernhardi fairly reflect the political philosophy of official Germany. Treitschke"s influence as an historian and lecturer could not well be denied but attempts have been made to impress America that Bernhardi has no standing to speak for his country and that the importance of his teachings should therefore be minimized.
Apart from the wide popularity of Bernhardi"s writings in Germany, the German Government has never repudiated Bernhardi"s conclusions or disclaimed responsibility therefor. While possibly not an officially authorized spokesman, yet he is as truly a representative thinker in the German military system as Admiral Mahan was in the Navy of the United States. Of the acceptance by Prussia of Bernhardi"s teachings there is one irrefutable proof. It is Belgium. The destruction of that unoffending country is the full harvest of this twentieth-century Machiavelliism.
A few recent utterances from a representative physician, a prominent journalist, and a distinguished retired officer of the German Army may be quoted as showing how completely infatuated a certain cla.s.s of German thinkers has become with the gospel of force for the purpose of attaining world power.
Thus a Dr. Fuchs, in a book on the subject of preparedness for war, says:
Therefore the German claim of the day must be: The family to the front. The State has to follow at first in the school, then in foreign politics. _Education to hate. Education to the estimation of hatred. Organization of hatred. Education to the desire for hatred. Let us abolish unripe and false shame before brutality and fanaticism._ We must not hesitate to announce: To us is given faith, hope, and hatred, _but hatred is the greatest among them_.
Maximilian Harden, one of the most influential German journalists, says:
Let us drop our miserable attempts to excuse Germany"s action. Not against our will and as a nation taken by surprise did we hurl ourselves into this gigantic venture.
_We willed it. We had to will it. We do not stand before the judgment seat of Europe. We acknowledge no such jurisdiction. Our might shall create a new law in Europe._ It is Germany that strikes. When she has conquered new domains for her genius then the priesthoods of all the G.o.ds will praise the G.o.d of War.
Still more striking and morally repellent was the very recent statement by Major-General von Disfurth, in an article contributed by him to the _Hamburger Nachrichten_, which so completely ill.u.s.trates Bernhardiism in its last extreme of avowed brutality that it justifies quotation _in extenso_.
No object whatever is served by taking any notice of the accusations of barbarity leveled against Germany by our foreign critics. _Frankly, we are and must be barbarians, if by these we understand those who wage war relentlessly and to the uttermost degree...._
_We owe no explanations to any one. There is nothing for us to justify and nothing to explain away. Every act of whatever nature committed by our troops for the purpose of discouraging, defeating, and destroying our enemies is a brave act and a good deed, and is fully justified....
Germany stands as the supreme arbiter of her own methods, which in the time of war must be dictated to the world...._
_They call us barbarians. What of it? We scorn them and their abuse. For my part I hope that in this war we have merited the t.i.tle of barbarians._ Let neutral peoples and our enemies cease their empty chatter, which may well be compared to the twitter of birds. Let them cease their talk of the Cathedral at Rheims and of all the churches and all the castles in France which have shared its fate. These things do not interest us. Our troops must achieve victory.
What else matters?
These hysterical vaporings of advanced Junkers no more make a case against the German people than the tailors of Tooley Street had authority to speak for England, but they do represent the spirit of the ruling caste, to which unhappily the German people have committed their destiny. It would not be difficult to quote both the Kaiser and the Crown Prince, who on more than one occasion have manifested their enthusiastic adherence to the gospel of brute force. The world is not likely to forget the Crown Prince"s congratulations to the brutal military martinet of the Zabern incident, and still less the shameful fact that when the Kaiser sent his punitive expedition to China, he who once stood within sight of the Mount of Olives and preached a sermon breathing the spirit of Christian humility, said to his soldiers:
When you encounter the enemy you will defeat him. _No quarter shall be given, no prisoners shall be taken. Let all who fall into your hands be at your mercy. Just as the Huns a thousand years ago under the leadership of Etzel (Attila), gained a reputation in virtue of which they still live in historical tradition, so may the name of Germany become known in such a manner in China that no Chinaman will ever again even dare to look askance at a German._
And this campaign of extermination--worthy of a savage Indian chief--was planned for the most pacific and unaggressive race, the Chinese, for it is sadly true that the one nation which has more than any other been inspired for two thousand years by the spirit of "peace on earth" is the hermit nation, into which until the nineteenth century the light of Christianity never shone.
In a recent article, George Bernard Shaw, the Voltaire of the twentieth century, with the intellectual brilliancy and moral shallowness of the great cynic, attempts to justify Bernhardiism by resort to the unconvincing "_et tu quoque_" argument. He contends that England also has had its "Bernhardis," and refers to a few books which he affects to think bear out his argument. That these books show that there have been advocates of militarism in England is undoubtedly true. The present war ill.u.s.trates that there was need of such literature, for a nation which faced so great a trial as the present, with a standing army that was pitiful in comparison with that of Germany and without any involuntary service law, certainly had need of some literary stimulus to self-preparation. No one quarrels with Bernhardi in his discussions of the problems of war as such. It is only when the soldier ceases to be a strategist and becomes a moralist that the average man with conventional ideas of morality revolts against Bernhardiism. The books to which Mr. Shaw refers can be searched in vain for any pa.s.sages parallel to those which have been quoted from Treitschke, Bernhardi, and other German writers. The brilliant but erratic George Bernard Shaw cannot find in all English literature any such Machiavelliisms as those of Treitschke and Bernhardi.
Shaw"s whole defense of Germany, betrays his characteristic desire to be clever and audacious without regard to nice considerations of truth. Much as we may admire his intellectual badinage under other circ.u.mstances, it may be questioned whether in this supreme tragedy of the world it was fitting for Shaw to daub himself anew with his familiar vermilion and play the intellectual clown.
It was either courage of an extraordinary but unenviable character or else cra.s.s stupidity that led Bernhardi to submit to the civilization of the present day such a debasing gospel, for if his brain had not been hopelessly obfuscated by his Pan-Germanic imperialism, he would have seen that not only would this philosophy do his country infinitely more harm than a whole park of artillery but would inevitably carry his memory down to a wondering posterity, like Machiavelli, detestable but, unlike Machiavelli, ridiculous.
Machiavelli gave to his _Prince_ a literary finish that placed his treatise among the cla.s.sics, while Bernhardi has gained recognition chiefly because his book is a moral anachronism.
One concrete ill.u.s.tration from Bernhardi clearly shows that the sentences above quoted are truly representative of his philosophy, and not unfair excerpts. In explaining that it is the duty of every nation to increase its power and territory without regard for the rights of others, he alludes to the fact that England committed the "_unpardonable blunder_ from her point of view of not supporting the Southern States in the American War of Secession," and thus forever severing in twain the American Republic. In this striking ill.u.s.tration of applied Bernhardiism, there is no suggestion as to the moral side of such intervention. Nothing is said with respect to the moral question of slavery, or of the obligations of England to a friendly Power. Nothing as to how the best hopes of humanity would have been shattered if the American Republic--that "pillar of cloud by day and pillar of fire by night" to struggling humanity--had been brought to cureless ruin. All these considerations are completely disregarded, and all Bernhardi can see in the situation, as it presented itself to England in 1861, was its opportunity, by a cowardly stab in the back, to remove forever from its path a great and growing nation.
Poor Bernhardi! He thought to serve his royal master. He has simply d.a.m.ned him. As Machiavelli, as the eulogist of the Medicis, simply emphasized their moral nudity, so Bernhardi has shown the world the inner significance of this crude revival of Caesarism.
CHAPTER II
THE RECORD IN THE CASE
All morally sane men in this twentieth century are agreed that war abstractly is an evil thing,--perhaps the greatest of all indecencies,--and that while it may be one of the offenses which must come, "woe to that man (or nation) by whom the offense cometh!"
They are of one mind in regarding this present war as a great crime--perhaps the greatest crime--against civilization, and the only questions which invite discussion are:
Which of the two contending groups of Powers is morally responsible?
Was Austria justified in declaring war against Servia?
Was Germany justified in declaring war against Russia and France?
Was Germany justified in declaring war against Belgium?
Was England justified in declaring war against Germany?
Primarily and perhaps exclusively these ethical questions turn upon the issues developed by the communications which pa.s.sed between the various chancelleries of Europe in the last week of July, for it is the amazing feature of this greatest of wars that it was precipitated by the ruling cla.s.ses and, a.s.suming that all the diplomats sincerely desired a peaceful solution of the questions raised by the Austrian ultimatum (which is by no means clear) the war is the result of ineffective diplomacy.
I quite appreciate the distinction between the immediate causes of a war and the anterior or underlying causes. The fundamental cause of the Franco-German War of 1870 was not the incident at Ems nor even the question of the Spanish succession. These were but the precipitating pretexts or, as a lawyer would express it, the "proximate causes." The underlying cause was unquestionably the rivalry between Prussia and France for political supremacy in Europe.
Behind the Austrian ultimatum to Servia were also great questions of State policy, not easily determinable upon any tangible ethical principle, and which involved the hegemony of Europe. Germany"s domination of Europe had been established when by the rattling of its saber it compelled Russia in 1908 to permit Austria to disturb the then existing status in the Balkans by the forcible annexation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and behind the Austrian-Servian question of 1914, arising out of the murder of the Crown Prince of Austria at Serajevo, was the determination of Germany and Austria to rea.s.sert that dominant position by compelling Russia to submit to a further humiliation of a Slav State.
The present problem is to inquire how far Germany and her ally selected a just pretext to test this question of mastery.
The pretext was the work of diplomatists. It was not the case of a nation rising upon some great cause which appealed to popular imagination. The acts of the statesmen in that last fateful week of July, 1914, were not the mere echo of the popular will.
The issues were framed by the statesmen and diplomats of Europe and whatever efforts were made to preserve the peace and whatever obstructive tactics were interposed were not the acts of any of the nations now in arms but those of a small coterie of men who, in the secrecy of their respective cabinets, made their moves and countermoves upon the chessboard of nations.
The future of Europe in that last week of July was in the hands of a small group of men, numbering not over fifty, and what they did was never known to their respective nations in any detail until after the fell Rubicon had been crossed and a world war had been precipitated.
If all of these men had sincerely desired to work for peace, there would not have been any war.
So swiftly did events move that the ma.s.ses of the people had time neither to think nor to act. The suddenness of the crisis marks it as a species of "mid-summer madness," a very "witches" sabbath" of diplomatic demagoguery.
In a peaceful summer, when the nations now struggling to exterminate each other were fraternizing in the holiday centers of Europe, an issue was suddenly precipitated, made the subject of communications between the various chancelleries, and almost in the twinkling of an eye Europe found itself wrapped in a universal flame. The appalling toll of death suggests the inquiry of Hamlet: "Did these bones cost no more the breeding, but to play at loggats with "em?" and if the diplomatic "loggats" of 1914 were ineffectively played, some one must accept the responsibility for such failure.
This sense of responsibility against the dread Day of Accounting has resulted in a disposition beyond past experience to justify the quarrel by placing before the world the diplomatic record.
The English Government commenced shortly after the outbreak of hostilities by publishing the so-called _White Paper_, consisting of a statement by the British Government and 160 diplomatic doc.u.ments as an appendix. This was preceded by Sir Edward Grey"s masterly speech in Parliament. That speech and all his actions in this fateful crisis may rank him in future history with the younger Pitt.
On August 4th, the German Chancellor for the first time explained to the representatives of his nation a.s.sembled in the Reichstag the causes of the war, then already commenced, and there was distributed among the members a statement of the German Foreign Office, accompanied by 27 Exhibits in the form of diplomatic communications, which have been erroneously called the German _White Paper_ and which sets forth Germany"s defense to the world.