THE HEALING OF NATIONS AND THE HIDDEN SOURCES OF THEIR STRIFE By Edward Carpenter 1915 "_The Tree of Life . . . Whose leaves are for the Healing of the Nations_" CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTORY II. WAR-MADNESS III. THE ROOTS OF THE GREAT WAR IV. THE CASE AGAINST GERMANY V. THE CASE FOR GERMANY VI. THE HEALING OF NATIONS VII. PATRIOTISM AND INTERNATIONALISM VIII. THE PSYCHOLOGY OF WAR AND RECRUITING IX. CONSCRIPTION X. HOW SHALL THE PLAGUE BE STAYED? XI. COMMERCIAL PROSPERITY THE PROSPERITY OF A CLASS XII. COLONIES AND SEAPORTS XIII. WAR AND THE SEX IMPULSE XIV. THE OVER-POPULATION SCARE XV. THE FRIENDLY AND THE FIGHTING INSTINCTS XVI. NEVER AGAIN! XVII. THE TREE OF LIFE APPENDIX-- A New and Better Peace The Change from the Old Germany to the New Classes in Germany for and against the War Political Ignorance Purpose of the War: Max Harden England's Perfidy: Professors Haeckel and Eucken Manifesto of Professor Eucken Nietzsche on Disarmament The Effect of Disarmament The Principle of Nationality: Winston Churchill Conscription Neutralization of the Sea: H. G. Wells The War and Democracy: Arnold Bennett The Future Settlement: G. Lowes Dickinson Brutality of Warfare: H. M. Tomlinson Patriotism: Romain Rolland No Patriotism in Business! Manifesto, Independent Labour Party Responsibility of the whole Capitalist Class Text of Karl Liebknecht's Protest in Reichstag The Russian Danger Letter on Russia by P. Kropotkin On the Future of Europe, by the same Servia: R. W. Seton-Watson The Battlefield: Walt Whitman Chinese Christians on the War: Dr. A. Salter Essential Friendliness of Peoples Reconciliation in Death Christmas at the Front, 1914 Letter from the Trenches by Baron Marschall von Bieberstein I INTRODUCTORY The following Studies and Notes, made during the earlier period of thepresent war and now collected together for publication, do not--as willbe evident to the reader--pretend to any sort of completeness in theirembrace of the subject, or finality in its presentation. Rather they arescattered thoughts suggested by the large and tangled drama which we arewitnessing; and I am sufficiently conscious that their expressioninvolves contradictions as well as repetitions. The truth is that affairs of this kind--like all the _great_ issues ofhuman life, Love, Politics, Religion, and so forth, do not, at theirbest, admit of final dispatch in definite views and phrases. They aretoo vast and complex for that. It is, indeed, quite probable that suchthings cannot be adequately represented or put before the human mind_without_ logical inconsistencies and contradictions. But (perhaps forthat very reason) they are the subjects of the most violent and dogmaticdifferences of opinion. Nothing people quarrel about more bitterly thanPolitics--unless it be Religion: both being subjects of which all thatone can really say for certain is--that nobody understands them. When, as in the present war, a dozen or more nations enter into conflictand hurl at each other accusations of the angriest sort (often quitegenuinely made and yet absolutely irreconcilable one with another), andwhen on the top of that scores and hundreds of writers profess toexplain the resulting situation in a few brief phrases (butunfortunately their explanations are all different), and calmly affixthe blame on "Russia" or "Germany" or "France" or "England"--just as ifthese names represented certain responsible individuals, supposed forthe purposes of the argument to be of very wily and far-schemingdisposition--whereas it is perfectly well known that they reallyrepresent most complex whirlpools of political forces, in which themerest accidents (as whether two members of a Cabinet have quarrelled, or an Ambassador's dinner has disagreed with him) may result in a longand fatal train of consequences--it becomes obvious that all so-called"explanations" (though it may be right that they should be attempted)fall infinitely short, of the reality. [1] Feeling thus the impossibility of dealing at all adequately with thepresent situation, I have preferred to take here and there just anaspect of it for consideration, with a view especially to thedifferences between Germany and England. I have thought that instead ofspending time over recriminations one might be on safer ground bytrying to get at the root-causes of this war (and other wars), thusmaking one's conclusions to some degree independent of a multitude ofdetails and accidents, most of which must for ever remain unknown to us. There are in general four rather well-marked species of wars--Religiouswars, Race wars, wars of Ambition and Conquest, and wars of Acquisitionand Profit--though in any particular case the four species may be moreor less mingled. The religious and the race motives often go together;but in modern times on the whole (and happily) the religious motive isnot so very dominant. Wars of race, of ambition, and of acquisition are, however, still common enough. Yet it is noticeable, as I frequently haveoccasion to remark in the following papers, that it only very rarelyhappens that any of these wars are started or set in motion by themass-peoples themselves. The mass-peoples, at any rate of the moremodern nations, are quiescent, peaceable, and disinclined for strife. Why, then, do wars occur? It is because the urge to war comes, not fromthe masses of a nation but from certain classes within it. In everynation, since the dawn of history, there have been found, beside thetoiling masses, three great main cliques or classes, the Religious, theMilitary, and the Commercial. It was so in far-back ancient India; it isso now. Each of these classes endeavours in its turn--as one mightexpect--to become the ruling class and to run the government of thenation. The governments of the nations thus become class-governments. And it is one or another of these classes that for reasons of its own, alone or in combination with another class, foments war and sets itgoing. In saying this I do not by any means wish to say anything against themere existence of Class, in itself. In a sense that is a perfectlynatural thing. There _are_ different divisions of human activity, and itis quite natural that those individuals whose temperament calls them toa certain activity--literary or religious or mercantile or military orwhat not--should range themselves together in a caste or class; just asthe different functions of the human body range themselves in definiteorgans. And such grouping in classes may be perfectly healthy _providedthe class so created subordinates itself to the welfare of the Nation_. But if the class does _not_ subordinate itself to the general welfare, if it pursues its own ends, usurps governmental power, and dominates thenation for its own uses--if it becomes parasitical, in fact--then it andthe nation inevitably become diseased; as inevitably as the human bodybecomes diseased when its organs, instead of supplying the body's needs, become the tyrants and parasites of the whole system. It is this Class-disease which in the main drags the nations into thehorrors and follies of war. And the horrors and follies of war are theworking out and expulsion on the surface of evils which have long beenfestering within. How many times in the history of "civilization" has abigoted religious clique, or a swollen-headed military clique, or agreedy commercial gang--caring not one jot for the welfare of the peoplecommitted to its charge--dragged them into a senseless and ruinous warfor the satisfaction of its own supposed interests! It is here and inthis direction (which searches deeper than the mere weighing andbalancing of Foreign policies and Diplomacies) that we must look for the"explanation" of the wars of to-day. And even race wars--which at first sight seem to have little to do withthe Class trouble--illustrate the truth of my contention. For theyalmost always arise from the hatred generated in a nation by an alienclass establishing itself in the midst of that nation--establishingitself, maybe, as a governmental or dominant class (generally a militaryor landlord clique) or maybe as a parasitical or competing class (as inthe case of the Jews in Europe and the Japanese in America and soforth). They arise, like all other wars, from the existence of a classwithin the nation which is not really in accord with the people of thatnation, but is pursuing its own interests apart from theirs. In thesecond of the following papers, "The Roots of the Great War, " I havedrawn attention to the influence of the military and commercial classes, especially in Germany, and the way in which their policy, coming intoconflict with a similar policy in the other Western nations, hasinevitably led to the present embroilment. In Eastern Europe similarcauses are at work, but there the race elements--and even thereligious--constitute a more important factor in the problem. By a curious fatality Germany has become the centre of this great warand world-movement, which is undoubtedly destined--as the Germansthemselves think, though in a way quite other than they think--to be ofvast importance, and the beginning of a new era in human evolution. Andthe more one considers Germany's part in the affair, the more one sees, I think, that from the combined influence of her historical antecedentsand her national psychology this fatality was to be expected. In roughlyputting together these antecedent elements and influences, I haveentitled the chapter "The Case _for_ Germany, " because on the principleof _tout comprendre_ the fact of the evolution being inevitableconstitutes her justification. The nations cannot fairly complain of herhaving moved along a line which for a century or more has been slowlyand irresistibly prepared for her. On the other hand, the nations docomplain of the manner and the methods with which at the last she hasprecipitated and conducted the war--as indeed they have shown by sowidely combining against her. However right, from the point of view ofdestiny and necessity, Germany may be, she has apparently from the pointof view of the moment put herself in the wrong. And the chapter dealingwith this phase of the question I have called "The Case _against_Germany. " Whatever further complications and postponements may arise, there willcertainly come a time of recovery and reconstruction on a wide andextended scale over Europe and a large part of the world. To evenoutline this period would be impossible at present; but in the sixthchapter and the last, as well as in the intermediate pieces, I havegiven some suggestions towards this future Healing of the Nations. * * * * * The Evil--huge and monstrous as it is--is not senseless, one may feelsure. Even now here in England one perceives an extraordinary pullingtogether and bracing up of the people, a development of solidarity andmutual helpfulness, a greater seriousness, and a disregarding ofartificialities, which are all to the good. These things are gains, eventhough the way of their manifestation be through much of enmity andignorance. And one may fairly suppose that similar results are traceablein the other nations concerned. Wounds and death may seem senseless andneedless, but those who suffer them do not suffer in vain. All theseshattering experiences, whether in a nation's career or in the career ofan individual, cause one--they force one--to look into the bases of lifeand to get nearer its realities. If, in this case, the experiences ofthe war, and the fire which the nations are passing through, serve todestroy and burn up much of falsity in their respective habits andinstitutions, we shall have to admit that the attendant disasters havenot been all loss--even though at the same time we admit that if we hadhad a grain of sense we might have mended our falsities in far moreeconomical and sensible fashion. If in the following pages--chiefly concerned as they are with Germanyand England--I have seemed to find fault with either party or to affixblame on one or the other, it is not necessary to suppose that oneharbours ill-feeling towards either, or that one fails to recognize thesplendid devotion of both the combatants. Two nations so closely relatedas the Germans and the English cannot really be so hopelessly differentin temperament and character; and a great deal of the supposeddifference is obviously artificial and class-made for the occasion. Still, there _are_ differences; and as we both think we are right, andas we are unable to argue the matter out in a rational way, there seemsto be nothing for it but to fight. War has often been spoken of as a great Game; and Mr. Jerome K. Jeromehas lately written eloquently on that subject. It is a game in which thetwo parties agree, so to speak, to differ. They take sides, and indefault of any more rational method, resort to the arbitrament of force. The stakes are high, and if on the one hand the game calls forth animmense amount of resource, skill, alertness, self-control, endurance, courage, and even tenderness, helpfulness, and fidelity; on the otherhand, it is liable to let loose pretty bad passions of vindictivenessand cruelty, as well as to lead to an awful accumulation of mental andphysical suffering and of actual material loss. To call war "The GreatGame" may have been all very well in the more rudimentary wars of thepast; but to-day, when every horrible invention of science is conjuredup and utilized for the express purpose of blowing human bodies to bitsand strewing battlefields with human remains, and the human spirititself can hardly hold up against such a process of mechanicalslaughter, the term has ceased to be applicable. The affections and theconscience of mankind are too violently outraged by the spectacle; and agreat mass of feeling is forming which one may fairly hope will ere longmake this form of strife impossible among the more modern peoples. Still, even now, as Mr. Jerome himself contends, the term is partlyjustified by a certain fine feeling of which it is descriptive and whichis indeed very noticeable in all ranks. Whether in the Army or Navy, among bluejackets or private soldiers or officers, the feeling iscertainly very much that of a big game--with its own rules of honour anddecency which must be adhered to, and carried on with extraordinaryfortitude, patience, and good-humour. Whether it arises from themechanical nature of the slaughter, or from any other cause, the factremains that among our fighting people to-day--at any rate in theWest--there is very little feeling of _hatred_ towards the "enemy. " Itis difficult, indeed, to hate a foe whom you do not even see. Chivalryis not dead, and at the least cessation of the stress of conflict thetendency to honour opponents, to fraternize with them, to succour thewounded, and so forth, asserts itself again. And chivalry demands thatwhat feelings of this kind we credit to ourselves we should also creditto the other parties in the game. We do cordially credit them to ourFrench and Belgian allies, and if we do not credit them quite socordially to the Germans, that is _partly_ at least because every lapsefrom chivalrous conduct on the part of our opponents is immediatelyfastened upon and made the most of by our Press. Chivalry is by no meansdead in the Teutonic breast, though the sentiment has certainly beenobscured by some modern German teachings. While these present war-producing conditions last, we have to face themcandidly and with as much good sense as we can command (which is for themost part only little!). We have to face them and make the best ofthem--though by no means to encourage them. Perhaps after all even a warlike the present one--monstrous as it is--does not denote so great adeviation of the old Earth from its appointed orbit as we are at firstinclined to think. Under normal conditions the deaths on our planet (andmany of them exceedingly lingering and painful) continue at the rate ofrather more than one every second--say 90, 000 a day. The worst battlescannot touch such a wholesale slaughter as this. Life at its normal bestis full of agonizings and endless toil and sufferings; what matters, what _it is really there for_, is that we should learn to conduct itwith Dignity, Courage, Goodwill--to transmute its dross into gold. Ifwar _has_ to continue yet for a time, there is still plenty of evidenceto show that we can wrest--even from its horrors and insanities--somethings that are "worth while, " and among others the priceless jewel ofhuman love and helpfulness. FOOTNOTES: [1] Some people take great pleasure in analysing White Books and GreyBooks and Orange Books and Yellow Books without end, and proving this orthat from them--as of course out of such a mass of material they caneasily do, according to their fancy. But when one remembers that almostall the documents in these books have been written with a _view_ totheir later publication; and when one remembers also that, howeverincompetent diplomatists as a class may be, no one supposes them to besuch fools as to entrust their _most_ important _ententes_ andunderstandings with each other to printed records--why, one comes to theconclusion that the analysis of all these State papers is not a veryprofitable occupation. II WAR-MADNESS _September_, 1914. How mad, how hopelessly mad, it all seems I With fifteen to twentymillion soldiers already mobilized, and more than half that number inthe fighting lines; with engines of appalling destruction by land andsea, and over the land and under the sea; with Northern France, Belgium, and parts of Germany, Poland, Russia, Servia, and Austria drenched inblood; the nations exhausting their human and material resources insavage conflict--this war, marking the climax, and (let us hope) the_finale_ of our commercial civilization, is the most monstrous the oldEarth has ever seen. And yet, as in a hundred earlier and lesser wars, we hardly know the why and wherefore of it. It is like the sorriestsquabbles of children and schoolboys--utterly senseless and unreasoning. But broken bodies and limbs and broken hearts and an endless river ofblood and suffering are the outcome. III THE ROOTS OF THE GREAT WAR[2] _October_, 1914. In the present chapter I wish especially to dwell on (1) the danger tosociety, mentioned in the Introduction, of class-ascendancy andclass-rule; and (2) the hope for the future in the internationalsolidarity of the workers. Through all the mist of lies and slander created on such an occasion--bywhich each nation after a time succeeds in proving that its own cause isholy while that of its opponent is wicked and devilish; through theappeals to God and Justice, common to both sides; through the shufflingsand windings of diplomats, and the calculated attitudes of politicians, adopted for public approval; through the very real rage and curses ofsoldiers, the desperate tears and agony of women, the murder of babes, and the smoke of burning towns and villages: it is difficult, indeed, toarrive at clear and just conclusions. When the war first broke out no one could give an adequate reason forit. It all seemed absurd, monstrous, impossible. Then arose a Babel ofexplanations. It was that Germany desired to crush France finally; itwas that she was determined to break Great Britain's naval andcommercial supremacy; it was that she must have an outlet on the seathrough Belgium and Holland; that she must force a way to theMediterranean through Servia; that she must carry out her financialschemes in Asia Minor and the Baghdad region. It was her hatred of theSlav and her growing dread of Russia; it was her desire for a ColonialEmpire; it was fear of a revolution at home; it was the outcome of longyears of Pan-Germanist philosophy; it was the result of pure militaryambition and the class-domination of the Junkers. Each and all of thesereasons (and many others) were in turn cited, and magnified into themainspring of the war; and yet even to-day we cannot say which _was_ themain reason, or if we admit them all we cannot say in what exactproportions their influences were combined. Moreover, they all assume that Germany was the aggressor; and we have toremember that this would not be admitted for a moment by a vast numberof the Germans themselves--who cease not to say that the war was simplyforced upon them by the hostile preparations of Russia, by thevengefulness of France, by the jealous foreign policy of England, and bythe obvious threat embodied in the _Entente_ between those threenations; and that if they (the Germans) made preparations for, or evenprecipitated it, that was only out of the sheer necessity ofself-preservation. [3] Thus we are still left without any generally accepted conclusion in thematter. Moreover, we are struck, in considering the list of reasonscited, by a feeling that they are all in their way rather partial andsuperficial--that they do not go to the real root of the subject. Out of them all--and after the first period of confusion and doubt haspassed--our own people at home have settled down into the convictionthat German militarism in general, and Prussian Junkerdom in particular, are to blame, and that for the good of the world as well as for our owngood we are out to fight these powers of evil. Prussianclass-militarism, it is said, under which for so long the good people ofGermany have groaned, has become a thing intolerable. The arrogance, theinsolence, of the Junker officer, his aristocratic pretension, hisbearish manners, have made him a byword, not only in his own country butall over Europe; and his belief in sheer militarism and Jingoimperialism has made him a menace. The Kaiser has only made thingsworse. Vain and flighty to a degree, and, like most vain people, rathershallow, Wilhelm II has supposed himself to be a second and greaterBismarck, destined by Providence to create the said Teutonicworld-empire. It is simply to fight these powers of evil that we areout. Of course, there is a certain amount of truth in this view; at the sametime, it is lamentably insufficient. The fact is that in the vast fluxof destiny which is involved in such a war as the present, and which noargument can really adequately represent, we are fain to snatch at_some_ neat phrase, however superficial, by way of explanation. And weare compelled, moreover, to find a phrase which will put our own effortsin an ideal light--otherwise we cannot go on fighting. No nation canfight confessedly for a mean or base object. Every nation inscribes onits banner _Freedom, Justice, Religion, Culture_ versus _Barbarism_, orsomething of the kind, and in a sense redeems itself in so fighting. Itsaves its soul even though bodily it may be conquered. And this is nothypocrisy, but a psychological necessity, though each nation, of course, accuses the other of hypocrisy. We are fighting "to put down militarism and the dominance of a militaryclass, " says the great B. P. , and one can only hope that when the war isover we shall remember and rivet into shape this great and goodpurpose--not only with regard to foreign militarism, but also withregard to our own. Certainly, whatever other or side views we may takeof the war, we are bound to see in it an illustration of the danger ofmilitary class-rule. You cannot keep a 60-h. P. Daimler motor-car in yourshed for years and years and still deny yourself the pleasure of goingout on the public road with it--even though you know you are not a verycompetent driver; and you cannot continue for half a century perfectingyour military and naval organization without in the end making thetemptation to become a political road-hog almost irresistible. Still, accepting for the moment the popular explanation given above ofGermany's action as to some degree justified, we cannot help seeing howsuperficial and unsatisfactory it is, because it at once raises thequestion, which, indeed, is being asked in all directions, and notsatisfactorily answered: "How does it happen that so peace-loving, sociable, and friendly a people as the great German mass-folk, as wehave hitherto known them, with their long scientific and literarytradition, their love of music and philosophy, their lager beer andtobacco, and their generally democratic habits, should have been ledinto a situation like the present, whether by a clique of Junkers or bya clique of militarist philosophers and politicians?" And the answer tothis is both interesting and important. It resolves itself into two main causes: (1) the rise of the greatGerman commercial class; and (2) the political ignorance of the Germanpeople. It is obvious, I think, that a military aristocracy alone, or even withthe combined support of empire-building philosophers and a jack-bootKaiser, could not have hurried the solid German nation into so strange asituation. In old days, and under an avowedly feudal order of society, such a thing might well have happened. But to-day the source and seat ofpower has passed from crowned heads and barons into another socialstratum. It is the financial and commercial classes in the modern Stateswho have the sway; and unless these classes desire it the militarycliques may plot for war in vain. Since 1870, and the unification ofGermany, the growth of her manufactures and her trade has been enormous;her commercial prosperity has gone up by leaps and bounds; and thisextension of trade, especially of international trade, has led--as ithad already so conspicuously done in England--to the development ofcorresponding ideals and habits of life among the population. Themodest, simple-living, middle-class households of fifty years ago havelargely disappeared, and in their place have sprung up, at any rate inthe larger towns, the very same commercial and parasitical classes, withtheir Philistine luxury and fatuous ideals, which have been sodepressing and distressing a feature of _our_ social life during thesame period. Naturally, the desire of these classes has been for theglorification of Germany, the establishment of an absolutely world-widecommercial supremacy, and the ousting of England from her markets. "Germany, " said Peter Kropotkin[4] a year or two ago, "on entering astriking period of juvenile activity, quickly succeeded in doubling andtrebling her industrial productivity, and soon increasing it tenfold;and now the German middle classes covet new sources of enrichment inthe plains of Poland, in the prairies of Hungary, on the plateaux ofAfrica, and especially around the railway line to Baghdad--in the richvalleys of Asia Minor, which can provide German capitalists with alabouring population ready to be exploited under one of the mostbeautiful skies in the world. It may be so with Egypt some day. Therefore it is ports for exports, and especially military ports, in theAdriatic, the Persian Gulf, on the African coast in Beira, and also inthe Pacific, that these schemers of German colonial trade wish toconquer. Their faithful servant, the German Empire, with its armies andironclads, is at their service for this purpose. " It is this class, then, which by backing both financially and morallythe military class has been chiefly responsible for bringing about thewar. Not that I mean, in saying so, that the commercial folk of Germanyhave directly instigated its outbreak at the present moment and in thepresent circumstances--for many, or most of them, must have seen howdangerous it was likely to prove to their trade. But in respect of thegeneral policy which they have so long pursued they are responsible. Onecannot go on for years (and let England, too, remember this) preachingmilitarism as a means of securing commercial advantage, and then refuseto be answerable for the results to which such a policy may lead. TheJunker classes of Prussia and their Kaiser might be suffering from a badattack of swelled head; vanity and arrogance might be filling them withdreams of world-empire; but there would have been no immediate Europeanwar had not the vast trade-interests of Germany come into conflict, orseemed to come into conflict, with the trade-interests of thesurrounding nations--had not the financial greed of the nation beenstirred, as well as its military vanity. And talking of general trade and finance, one must not forget to includethe enormous powers exercised in the present day by individualcorporations and individual financiers who intrude their operations intothe sphere of politics. We saw _that_ in our own Boer War; and behindthe scenes in Germany to-day similar influences are at work. TheDeutsche Bank, with immense properties all over the world, and some£85, 000, 000 sterling in its hands in deposits alone, initiatedfinancially the Baghdad Railway scheme. Its head, Herr Arthur vonGwinner, the great financier, is a close adviser of the Kaiser. "Therailway is already nearly half built, and it represents a Germaninvestment of between £16, 000, 000 and £18, 000, 000. Let this be thoughtof when people imagine that Germany and Austria went to war with theidea of avenging the murder of an Archduke. . . . All German trade wouldsuffer if the Baghdad Railway scheme were to fail. "[5] Then there isHerr August Thyssen--"King Thyssen"--who owns coalmines, rolling mills, harbours, and docks throughout Germany, iron-ore mines in France, warehouses in Russia, and _entrepôts_ in nearly every country fromBrazil and Argentina to India. [6] He has declared that German interestsin Asia Minor must be safeguarded at all costs. But Russia also haslarge prospective commercial interests in Asia Minor. The moral is clearand needs no enforcing. Such men as these--and many others, theRathenaus, Siemens, Krupps, Ballins, and Heinekens--exercise in Germanyan immense political influence, just as do our financial magnates athome. They represent the peaks and summits of wide-spreading commercialactivities whose bases are rooted among the general public. Yet throughit all it must not be forgotten that they represent in each case (as Ishall explain more clearly presently) the interests of a _class_--thecommercial class--but not of the whole nation. One must, then, modify the first conclusion, that the blame of the warrests with the military class, by adding a second factor, namely, therise and influence of the commercial class. These two classes, actingand reacting on each other, and pushing--though for differentreasons--in the same direction, are answerable, as far as Germany isconcerned, for dragging Europe into this trouble; and they must sharethe blame. If it is true, as already suggested, that Germany's action has only beenthat of the spark that fires the magazine, still her part in the affairaffords such an extraordinarily illuminating text and illustration thatone may be excused for dwelling on it. Here, in her case, we have the divisions of a nation's life set out inwell-marked fashion. We have a military clique headed by a personal andsadly irresponsible ruler; we have a vulgar and much swollen commercialclass; and then, besides these two, we have a huge ant's nest ofprofessors and students, a large population of intelligent andwell-trained factory workers, and a vast residuum of peasants. Thus wehave at least five distinct classes, but of these the last threehave--till thirty or forty years ago--paid little or no attention topolitical matters. The professors and students have had their nosesburied in their departmental science and _fach_ studies; the artisanshave been engrossed with their technical work, and have been onlygradually drifting away from their capitalist employers and into theSocialist camp; and the peasants--as elsewhere over the world, absorbedin their laborious and ever-necessary labours--have accepted their fateand paid but little attention to what was going on over their heads. Yet these three last-mentioned classes, forming the great bulk of thenation, have been swept away, and suddenly at the last, into a hugeembroilment in which to begin with they had no interest or profit. This may seem strange, but the process after all is quite simple, and tostudy it in the case of Germany may throw helpful light on our ownaffairs. However the blame may be apportioned between the Junker andcommercial classes, it is clear that, fired by the Bismarckianprogramme, and greatly overstretching it, they played into each other'shands. The former relied for the financing of its schemes on the supportof the commercials. The latter saw in the militarists a power whichmight increase Germany's trade-supremacy. Vanity and greed are mettogether, patriotism and profits have kissed each other. A Navy Leagueand an Army League and an Air League arose. Professors and teachers weresubsidized in the universities; the children were taught Pan-Germanismin the schools; a new map of Europe was put before them. An enormousliterature grew up on the lines of Treitschke, Houston Chamberlain, andBernhardi, with novels and romances to illustrate side-issues, and thePress playing martial music. The students and intellectuals began to beinfected; the small traders and shopkeepers were moved; and thewar-fever gradually spread through the nation. As to the artisans, theymay, as I have said, have largely belonged to the Socialist party--withits poll of four million votes in the last election--and in the words ofHerr Haase in the Reichstag just before the war, they may have wished tohold themselves apart from "this cursed Imperialist policy"; but whenthe war actually arrived, and the fever, and the threat of Russia, andthe fury of conscription, they perforce had to give way and join in. Howon earth could they do otherwise? And the peasants--even if they escapedthe fever--could not escape the compulsion of authority nor the oldblind tradition of obedience. They do not know, even to-day, why theyare fighting; and they hardly know whom they are fighting, but in theirancient resignation they accept the inevitable and shout "Deutschlandüber Alles" with the rest. And so a whole nation is swept off its feetby a small section of it, and the insolence of a class becomes, as inLouvain and Rheim's, the scandal of the world. [7] And the people bleed; yes, it is always the people who bleed. The trainsarrive at the hospital bases, hundreds, positively hundreds of them, full of wounded. Shattered human forms lie in thousands on straw insidethe trucks and wagons, or sit painfully reclined in the passengercompartments, their faces grimed, their clothes ragged, their toesprotruding from their boots. Some have been stretched on the battlefieldfor forty-eight hours, or even more, tormented by frost at night, covered with flies by day, without so much as a drink of water. Andthose that have not already become a mere lifeless heap of rags havebeen jolted in country carts to some railway-station, and there, or atsuccessive junctions, have been shunted on sidings for endless hours. And now, with their wounds still slowly bleeding or oozing, they arepicked out by tender hands, and the most crying cases are roughly, dressed before consigning to a hospital. And some faces are shattered, hardly recognizable, and some have limbs torn away; and there areinternal wounds unspeakable, and countenances deadly pallid, andmoanings which cannot be stifled, and silences worse than moans. Yes, the agony and bloody sweat of battlefields endured for thedomination or the ambition of a class is appalling. But in many cases, though more dramatic and appealing to the imagination, one may doubt ifit is worse than the year-long and age-long agony of daily life enduredfor the same reason. Maeterlinck, in his eloquent and fiery letter to the _Daily Mail_ ofSeptember 14th, maintained that the whole German nation is equally toblame in this affair--that all classes are equally involved in it, withno _degrees_ of guilt. We may excuse the warmth of personal feelingwhich makes him say this, but we cannot accept the view. We are bound topoint out that it is only by some such analysis as the above, andestimation of the method by which the delusions of one class may becommunicated to the others, that we can guard ourselves, too, fromfalling into similar delusions. I mentioned that besides the growth of the commercial class, a secondgreat cause of the war was the political ignorance of the German people. And this is important. Fifty years ago, and before that, when Germanywas divided up into scores of small States and Duchies, the mass of itspeople had no practical interest in politics. Such politics as existed, as between one Duchy and another, were mere teacup politics. ReadEckermann's _Conversations_, and see how small a part they played inGoethe's mind. That may have been an advantage in one way. The brains ofthe nation went into science, literature, music. And when, after 1870, the unification of Germany came, and the political leadership passedover to Prussia, the same state of affairs for a long time continued;the professors continued their investigations in the matters of thethyroid gland or the rock inscriptions in the Isle of Thera, but theyleft the internal regulation of the State and its foreign policyconfidently in the hands of the Kaiser and the nominees of the greatand rising _bourgeoisie_, and themselves remained unobservant anduninstructed in such matters. It was only when these latter powersdeclared--as in the Emperor's pan-German proclamation of 1896--that aTeutonic world-empire was about to be formed, and that the study of_Welt-politik_ was the duty of every serious German, that the thinkingand reading portion of the population suddenly turned its attention tothis subject. An immense mass of political writings--pamphlets, prophecies, military and economic treatises, romances of Germanconquest, and the like--naturally many of them of the crudest sort, waspoured forth and eagerly accepted by the public, and a veritable Fool'sParadise of German suprernacy arose. It is only in this way, by notingthe long-preceding ignorance of the German citizen in the matter ofpolitics, his absolute former non-interference in public affairs, andthe dazed state of his mind when he suddenly found himself on thesupposed pinnacle of world-power--that we can explain his easyacceptance of such cheap and _ad hoc_ publications as those ofBernhardi and Houston Chamberlain, and the fact that he was so easilyrushed into the false situation of the present war. [8] The absurd_canards_ which at an early date gained currency, in Berlin--as that theUnited States had swallowed Canada, that the Afghans in mass wereinvading; India, that Ireland was plunged in civil war--point in thesame direction; and so do the barbarities of the Teutonic troops in thematters of humanity and art. For though in all war and in the heat ofbattle there are barbarities perpetrated, it argues a strange state ofthe German national psychology that in this case a heartless severityand destruction of the enemy's life and property should have beenpreached beforehand, and quite deliberately, by professors andmilitarists, and accepted, apparently, by the general public. It argues, to say the least, a strange want of perception of the very unfavourableimpression which such a programme must inevitably excite in the mind ofthe world at large. * * * * * It is, no doubt, pleasant in its way for us British to draw this pictureof Germany, and to trace the causes which led the ruling powers there, years ago, to make up their minds for war, because, of course, theprocess in some degree exonerates us. But, as I have already said, Ihave dwelt on Germany, not only because she affords such a goodillustration of what to avoid, but also because she affords so clear anexample of what is going on elsewhere in Europe--in England and Franceand Italy, and among all the modern nations. We cannot blame Germanywithout implicitly also blaming these. What, indeed, shall we say of England? Germany has for years maintainedthat with her own growing population and her growing trade she needs amore extended seaboard in Europe, and coaling stations and colonies inother regions of the globe, but that England, jealous of commercialsupremacy, has been determined to deny her these, and, if possible, tocrush her; that she (Germany) has lived in perpetual fear and panic;and that if in this case she has been the first to strike, it has onlybeen because to wait England's opportunity would have been to courtdefeat. Allowing for the exaggerations inseparable from opposed pointsof view, is there not some justification for this plea? England, whoplunged into the Crimean War in order to _prevent_ Russia from obtaininga seaboard and her natural commercial expansion, and who afterwardsjoined with Russia in order to plunder Persia and to prevent Germanyfrom getting her railways along the Persian Gulf; who calmlyappropriated Egypt, with its valuable cottonlands and market; who, atthe behest of a group of capitalists and financiers, turned her greatmilitary machine on a little nation of Boer farmers in South Africa;who, it is said, [9] sold 300, 000 tons of coal to Russia to aid her fleetagainst Japan, and at the same time furnished Japan with gold at a highrate of interest for use against Russia--what trust can be placed inher? "England, " says Bernhardi, "in spite of all her pretences of aliberal and philanthropic policy, has never sought any other objectthan personal advantage and the unscrupulous suppression of her rivals. "Let us hope that this "never" is _too_ harsh; let us at least say"hardly ever"; but still, are we not compelled to admit that if the riseof commercial ambition in Germany has figured as a danger to _us_, ourfar greater commercial ambitions have not only figured as a danger toGermany, but, in conjunction with our alliance with France and Russia, her ancient foes, may well have led to a state of positive panic amongher people? And if, as the Allies would doubtless say, there was reallyno need for any such panic, the situation was obviously sufficientlygrave to be easily made use of by a military class for its own ends, orby an armaments ring or a clique of financiers for theirs. Indeed, itwould be interesting to know what enormous profits Kruppism (to use H. G. Wells' expressive term) _has_ already made out of this world-madness. Nor can it be denied that the commercial interest in England, if notdeliberately intending to provoke war with Germany, has not been at allsorry to seize this opportunity of laying a rival Power low--if only inorder to snatch the said rival's trade. That, indeed, the daily Pressreveals only too clearly. From all this the danger of class-domination emerges more and more intorelief. In Prussia the old Feudal caste remains--in a decadent state, certainly, but perhaps for that very reason more arrogant, more vulgar, and less conscious of any _noblesse oblige_ than even before. By itself, however, and if unsupported by the commercial class, it would probablyhave done little harm. In Britain the Feudal caste has ceased to beexclusively military, and has become blended with the commercial class. The British aristocracy now consists largely or chiefly of retiredgrocers and brewers. Commercialism here has become more confessedlydominant than in Germany, and whereas there the commercial class may_support_ the military in its ambitions, here the commercial class_uses_ the military as a matter of course and for its own ends. We havebecome a Nation of Shopkeepers having our own revolvers and machine-gunsbehind the counter. And yet not really a Nation of Shopkeepers, but rather a nation ruledby a shopkeeping _class_. [This is the point in the text referred to by Footnote 25 below] People sometimes talk as if commercial prosperity and the interests ofthe commercial folk represented the life of the whole nation. That is away of speaking, and it illustrates certainly a common modern delusion. But it is far from the truth. The trading and capitalist folk are only aclass, and they do _not_, properly speaking, represent the nation. Theydo not represent the landowning and the farming interests, both of whichdetest them; they do not represent the artisans and industrial workers, who have expressly formed themselves into unions in order to fight them, and who have only been able to maintain their rights by so doing; theydo not represent the labourers and peasants, who are ground under theirheel. It would take too long to go into the economics of this subject, interesting though they are. [10] But a very brief survey of facts showsus that wherever the capitalist and trading classes have triumphed--asin England early last century, and until Socialistic legislation wascalled in to check them--the condition of the mass of the people has byno means improved, rather the contrary. Japan has developed a worldtrade, and is on the look out for more, yet never before has there beensuch distress among her mass-populations. Russia has been lately movingin the same direction; her commercial interests are rapidly progressing, but her peasantry is at a standstill, France and Italy have alreadygrown a fat _bourgeoisie_, but their workers remain in a limbo ofpoverty and strikes. And in all these countries, including Germany, Socialism has arisen as a protest against the commercial order--whichfact certainly does not look as if commercialism were a generallyacknowledged benefit. No, commercial prosperity means only the prosperity of a class. Yet suchis the curious glamour that surrounds this, subject and makes a fetishof statistics about "imports and exports, " that nothing is more commonthan for such prosperity to be taken to mean the prosperity of thenation as a whole. The commercial people, having command of the Press, and of the avenues and highways of public influence, do not find it atall difficult to persuade the nation that _they_ are itsrepresentatives, and that _their_ advantage is the advantage of all. This illusion is only a part, I suppose, of a historical necessity, which as the Feudal regime passes brings into prominence the Commercialregime; but do not let us be deluded by it, nor forget that insubmitting to the latter we are being nose-led by a class just as muchas the Germans have been in submitting to the Prussian Junkers. Do notlet us, at the behest of either class, be so foolish as to set out invain pursuit of world-empire; and, above all, do not let us, in freeingourselves from military class-rule, fall under the domination offinanciers and commercial diplomats. Let us remember that wars forworld-markets are made for the benefit of the merchant _class_ and notfor the benefit of the mass-people, and that in this respect England hasbeen as much to blame as Germany or any other nation--nay, prettyobviously more so. What is clearly wanted--and indeed is the next stage of human evolutionin England and in all Western lands--is that the people shouldemancipate themselves from class-domination, class-glamour, and learnto act freely from their own initiative. I know it is difficult. Itmeans a spirit of independence, courage, willingness to make sacrifice. It means education, alertness to guard against the insidious schemes ofwire-pullers and pressmen, as well as of militarists and commercials. Itmeans the perception that only through eternal vigilance can freedom bemaintained. Yet it is the only true Democracy; and the logic of itsarrival is assured to us by the historical necessity that progress inall countries must pass through the preliminary stages of feudalism andcommercialism on its way to realize the true life of the mass-peoples. To-day the uprising of Socialist ideals, of the power of Trade Unions, and especially the formation of International Unions, show us that weare on the verge of this third stage. We are shaping our way towards thereal Democracy, with the attainment of which wars--though they will notcease from the world--will certainly become much rarer. Theinternational _entente_ already establishing itself among the manualworkers of all the European countries--and which has now become anaccepted principle of the Labour movement--is a guarantee and a promiseof a more peaceful era; and those who know the artisans and peasants ofthis and other countries know well how little enmity they harbour intheir breasts against each other. Racial and religious wars will nodoubt for long continue; but wars to satisfy the ambitions of a militaryclique or a personal ruler, or the ambitions of a commercial group, orthe schemes of financiers, or the engineering of the Press--wars fromthese all too fruitful causes will, under a sensible Democracy, cease. If Britain, during the last twenty years, had really favoured the causeof the People and their international understanding, there would havebeen no war now, for her espousal of the mass-peoples' cause would havemade her so strong that it would have been too risky for any Governmentto attack her. But of course that could not have happened, for thesimple reason that Conservatism and Liberalism are not Democracy. Conservatism is Feudalism, Liberalism is Commercialism, and Socialismonly is in its essence Democracy. It is no good scolding at Sir EdwardGrey for making friends with the Russian Government; for his onlyalternative would have been to join the "International"--which hecertainly could not do, being essentially a creature of the commercialregime. The "Balance of Power" and the _ententes_ and alliances ofFigure-head Governments _had_ to go on, till the day--which we hope isat hand--when Figure-heads will be no more needed. FOOTNOTES: [2] Reprinted by kind permission from the _English Review_ for December, 1914. [3] As an example of this belief, read the manifesto of ProfessorEucken, who represents such a large section of German opinion, and notethe absolute sincerity of its tone--as well as its simplicity. [4] _Wars and Capitalism_, by P. Kropotkin. (Freedom Press. ) [5] See _Nash's Magazine_ for October, 1914, article by "Diplomatist. " [6] Ibid. [7] In order to realize how easy such a process is, we have only toremember the steps by which the outbreak of the Boer War in 1899 wasengineered. [8] Of course we must remember that there has been all along and is nowin Germany a very large party, Socialist and other, which has _not_ beenthus carried away; but for the moment its mouth is closed and it cannotmake itself heard. [9] See Kropotkin's _War and Capitalism_, p. 12. [10] See note _infra_ on "Commercial Prosperity, " p. 167. (Chapter XI below) IV THE CASE AGAINST GERMANY; _November_, 1914. With every wish to do justice to Germany, to whose literature I feel Iowe such a debt, and among whose people I have so many personal friends;allowing also the utmost for the general causes in Europe which havebeen for years leading up towards war--and some of which I haveindicated already in the pages above--I still feel it is impossible notto throw on her the _immediate_ blame for the present catastrophe. However we distribute the indictment and the charges among the variousparties concerned, whether we accuse mainly the sway of PrussianMilitarism or the rise of German Commercialism, or the long traditionand growth of a _Welt-politik_ philosophy, or the general politicalignorance which gave to these influences such rash and uncriticalacceptance; or whether we accuse the somewhat difficult and variablepersonal equation of the Kaiser himself--the fact still remains that foryears and years this war has been by the German Government mostdeliberately and systematically prepared for. The fact remains thatBritain--though for a long period she had foreseen danger and had on thenaval side slowly braced herself to meet it--was on the military sidecaught at the last moment unprepared; that France was so littleintending war that a large portion of the nation was actually stillprotesting against an increase in the size of the standing army; andthat Russia--whatever plans she may have had, or not had, in mind--wasconfessedly at the same period two years or so behind in theorganization and completion of her military establishment. Whether right or wrong, it can hardly be denied that the moment of theprecipitation of war was chosen and insisted on by Germany. AfterAustria's monstrous and insulting dictation to Servia (23rd July), andServia's incredibly humble apology (25th), Austria was still notallowed to accept the latter, and the conference proposed (26th July) bySir E. Grey--though accepted by France, Russia, and Italy--was refusedby Germany (27th). On the 28th Austria declared war on Servia. It wasperfectly clear to every one that Russia--after what had happened beforein 1908-9, with regard to Bosnia and Herzegovina--could not possiblyallow this insult to Servia to pass. Germany, therefore, by this moveforced Russia's hand; and at a moment when Russia was known or supposedto be comparatively unprepared. [11] France had been involved in somemilitary scandals and was still debating as to the two years' instead ofthree years' period for her normal military service. The GermanAmbassador at Vienna had openly said that France was not in a conditionfor facing a war. England was currently supposed in Germany to beseriously hampered by domestic troubles at home--chiefly of courseamong the Irish, but also amongst the Suffragettes(!) _and_ bywidespread disaffection in India. It was thought, therefore, thatEngland would certainly remain neutral--and I think we may fairly saythat the extent to which Germany counted on this expected neutrality isevidenced by her disappointment and public rage when she found that shewas mistaken. Germany's initiative in the matter is further evidenced by her _instantreadiness_ to attack. She was in Luxemburg within a few hours of thedeclaration of war with Russia; and it was clearly her intention to"rush" Paris and then turn back upon Russia. It may be said that from her own point of view Germany was quite rightto take the initiative. If she sincerely believed that the _Entente_ wasplotting her downfall, she was justified in attacking instead of waitingto be attacked. That may be so. It is the line to which GeneralBernhardi again returns in his latest book (_Britain as Germany'sVassal_, translated by J. Ellis Barker). But it does not alter the factthat this was an immense responsibility to take, and that the immediateonus of the war rests with Germany. If she under all the abovecircumstances precipitated war, she can hardly be surprised if thejudgment of Europe (one may also say the world) is against her. If shehas played her cards so badly as to put herself entirely in the wrong, she must naturally "dree her weird. " There remains the case of her treatment of Belgium. Britaincertainly--who has only lately assisted at the dismemberment of Persia, and who is even now allowing Russia (in the face of Persian protests) tocross neutral territory in the neighbourhood of Tabriz on her way toattack Turkey, who has uttered, moreover, no word of protest against thelate Ukase (of mid-November) by which the independent rights of Finlandhave been finally crushed--Britain, I say, need talk no cant aboutBelgian neutrality. Britain, for her own absolute safety, has alwaysrequired and still requires Belgian neutrality to be respected. And thatby itself is a sufficient, and the most honest, reason. But in the eyesof the world at large Germany's deliberate and determined sacrifice ofBelgium, simply because the latter stood in the way of the rapidaccomplishment of her warlike designs against France (and England), cannever be condoned--little Belgium who had never harmed or offendedGermany in any way. Add to this her harsh and brutish ill-treatment ofthe Belgian civilian people, her ravage of their ancient buildings andworks of art, and her clearly expressed intention both in word and deedto annex their territory by force should the fortunes of war favourher--all these facts, which we may say are proven beyond the shadow of adoubt, form a most serious indictment. They substantiate the charge thatGermany by acting throughout in this high-handed way has deeply violatedthe natural laws of the Comity of Nations, which are the safeguards ofCivilization, and they confirm the rightful claim of Europe to sit injudgment on her. I say nothing at the moment about the charges of atrocities committed byGerman troops, partly because such charges are always in warfare made byeach side against the other, and partly because their verificationshould be the subject of a world-inquiry later on. It may be said, however, that the Belgian and French Commissions of inquiry havecertainly presented material and evidence which _ought_ to beinvestigated later--material which would hardly be credible of so humaneand cultured a people as the Germans, were it not for the fact, alludedto already, of such severities having been deliberately recommendedbeforehand by the philosophical writers, military and political, whohave during the last half-century moulded German public opinion. England, as I say, is in no position herself to sit in judgment onGermany and lecture her--much as she undoubtedly enjoys doing so. England's long-standing policy of commercial greed, leading to politicalgrab in every part of the world; her infidelity in late years towardssmall peoples, like the Boers and the Persians; her neglect of treatyobligations and silence about them when they do not suit her; her mostdubious alliance with a military despotism like Russia: all render itimpossible for her to accuse Germany. The extraordinary thing is that inthe face of such prevarications as these, which are patent to the wholeworld, Britain at any moment of serious crisis always comes forwardwith the air of utmost sincerity and in an almost saintly pose as thechampion of political morality! How is it? The world laughs and talks of_heuchlerei_ and _cant Britannique_. But I almost think (perhaps Istretch a point in order to save the credit of my country) that the realcause is not so much British hypocrisy as British _stupidity_--stupiditywhich keeps our minds in watertight compartments and prevents usperceiving how confused and inconsistent our own judgments are and howinsincere they appear to our neighbours. At any rate, whether the causeis pure hypocrisy or pure stupidity, or whether a Scotch mixture ofthese, it cannot be denied that its result is most irritating todecent-minded people. It is curious how a certain strain or vein of temperament, like thatjust mentioned, will run through a nation's whole life, and colour itsactions in all departments, recognized and commented on by the wholeoutside world, and yet remain unobserved by the nation itself. Every one who has known the Germans at home--even years back--has beenconscious of a certain strain in the Teutonic character which has had alike bearing in the German national life. How shall I describe it? It isa certain want of tact, unperceptiveness--a kind of overbearingsimplicity of mind. Whether it be in the train or the hotel or theprivate house, the German does not always seem to see the personalsituation. Whether you prefer to talk or remain silent, whether you wishthe window open or shut, whether you desire to partake of such and sucha dish or whether you don't--of such little matters he (or she) seemsunaware. Perhaps it is that the Teutonic mind is so vigorous that itoverrides you without being conscious of doing so, or that it is soconvinced of its own Tightness; or perhaps it is that the scientifictype of mind, depending always on formulae and statistics, necessarilyloses a certain finer quality. Anyhow, the fact remains that sociable, kindly, _gemüthlich_ and so forth as the Germans are, there is a lack ofdelicate touch and perception about them, of gentle manners, and acertain insensitiveness to the opinion of those with whom they have todeal. The strain may not be without its useful bearings in thedirection of strength and veracity, but it runs curiously through thenational life, and colours deeply, not only the domestic and socialrelations of the people but their foreign politics also, and even theirwar tactics and strategy. I have spoken before of the political ignorance of the Germanmass-people, which, dating from years back, caused them to be easily ledby their empire-building philosophers to a certain very dangerouspinnacle of ambition, and there tempted. The same want of perception ofhow their actions would be viewed by the world in general caused theGovernment to act in the most egregiously high-handed manner in thematter of the precipitation and declaration of the war itself, andsubsequently likewise in the ruthless invasion of Belgium and treatmentof her people and her cities. The want of discernment of what was goingon outside the sphere of her own psychology led her into fatal delusionsas to the attitude of England, of Ireland, of Belgium, Italy, India, andso forth. It caused her generals to miscalculate and seriouslyunder-estimate the strategic forces opposed to them, both in France andRussia; and in actual battles it has caused them to adopt, withdisastrous results, tactics which were foolishly inspired by contempt ofthe enemy. Without insisting too much on the stories ofatrocities--which are still to a certain extent _sub judice_--it doesrather appear that even those excesses which the Commissions of inquiryhave reported (and which occurred, be it said, chiefly in the early daysof the campaign) were due to an intoxication, not merely of champagnebut of excited self-glorification and blindness to the human rights ofpeoples at least as brave as themselves. [12] However that last point may be, it is certainly curious to thinkhow--whether it be in the case of the German or the English or any otherpeople--a vein of temperament or character may decide a nation's fate orcolour its history quite as much as or even more than matters of wealthand armament. Personally one feels sorry for the great and admirable Germanpeople--though I do not suppose it will matter to them whether one feelssorry or not! And I look forward to the day when there will come abetter understanding between them and ourselves--better perhaps than hasever been before--when we shall forgive them their sins against us, andthey will forgive us our sins against them, one of which certainly isour meanness and shopkeeperiness in rejoicing in the war as a means of"collaring their trade. " I feel sure that the German mass-people willwake up one day to the knowledge that they have been grossly betrayed athome, not only by Prussian militarism but by pan-German commercialphilosophy and bunkum, as well as by their own inattention to, andconsequent ignorance of, political affairs. And I hope they will wake upto the conviction that Destiny and the gods in this matter are after allbringing them to a conclusion and a consummation far finer than anythingthey have perhaps imagined for themselves. If, indeed, when the war isover, they are fortunate enough to be compelled by the terms ofsettlement to abandon their Army and Navy--or _all_ but the merestresidue of these--the consequences undoubtedly will be that, freed fromthe frightful burdens which the upkeep of these entails, they will rompaway over the world through an era of unexampled prosperity andinfluence. Their science, liberated, will give them the lead in manyarts and industries; their philosophy and literature, no longer crippledby national vanities, will rise to the splendid world-level of formerdays; their colonizing enterprise, unhindered by conscriptionist vetoes, will carry them far and wide over the globe; and even their trade willfind that without fortified seaports and tariff walls it will, in thesedays of universal movement and intercommunication, do fully as well as, if not much better than, ever it did before. In that day, however, letus hope that--the more communal conception of public life havingprevailed and come to its own--the success of Trade, among any nation orpeople, will no longer mean the successful manufacture of a dominant andvulgar class, but the real prosperity and welfare of the whole nation, including all classes. And in that day, possibly, the other nations, witnessing theextraordinary prosperity and success of that one which has abandonedarmaments and Kruppisms, will--if they have a grain of sense left inthem--follow suit and, voluntarily divesting themselves too of theirancient armour, give up the foolishness of national enmities andjealousies, and adopt the attitude of humanity and peace, which alonecan be the worthy and sensible attitude for us little mortals, when weshall have arrived at years of discretion upon the earth. [Just after writing the above I received the following remarks in aletter of a friend from South America, which may be worth reprinting. Hesays: "In spite of the events of 1815 and 1870, French 'culture' issupreme to-day over all South America. South America is a suburb ofParis, and French culture has won its triumphs wholly irrespective ofthe defeat of French arms. Therefore I incline to think that true Germanculture in science and music will gain rather than lose by thedestruction of German arms. Not only will that nation cease to spend itstime writing dull military books, but other nations will be more likelyto appreciate what there is in German thought and culture when this isno longer offered us at the point of the bayonet! German commerce inSouth America has suffered rather than gained by talk of 'shiningarmour. ' And the poet, scientist and business man will gain rather thanlose if no longer connected with Potsdam. "] FOOTNOTES: [11] It is said that Russia took some steps towards mobilization asearly as the 25th. If she did, that would seem quite natural under thecircumstances. [12] There may possibly be found another explanation of theseexcesses--namely, in the galling strictness of the Prussian militaryregime. After years and years of monotonously regulated and officiallives, it may be that to both officers and men, in their different ways, orgies of one kind or another came as an almost inevitable reaction. V. THE CASE FOR GERMANY Having put in the last chapter some of the points which seem to throwthe immediate blame of the war on Germany, it would be only fair in thepresent chapter to show how in the long run and looking to the generalEuropean situation to-day as well as to the history of Germany in thepast, the war had become inevitable, and in a sense necessary, as astage in the evolution of European politics. After the frightful devastation of Germany by the religious dissensionsof the early part of the seventeenth century and the Thirty Years War, it fell to Frederick the Great, not only to lay a firm foundation forthe Prussian State but to elevate it definitely as a rival to Austria inthe leadership of Germany. Thenceforth Prussia grew in power andinfluence, and became the nucleus of a new Germany. It would almost seemthat things could not well have been otherwise. Germany was seeking fora new root from which to grow. Clerical and ultra-Catholic Austria wasof no use for this purpose. Bavaria was under the influence of France. Lutheran Prussia attracted the best elements of the Teutonic mind. Itseems strange, perhaps, that the sandy wastes of the North-East, and itsrather arid, dour population, _should_ have become the centre of growthfor the new German nation, considering the latter's possession of itsown rich and vital characteristics, and its own fertile and beautifullands; but so it was. Perhaps the general German folk, with theirspeculative, easygoing, almost sentimental tendencies, _needed_ thishard nucleus of Prussianism--and its matter-of-fact, organizing type ofability--to crystallize round. The Napoleonic wars shattered the old order of society, and spread overEurope the seeds of all sorts of new ideas, in the direction ofnationality, republicanism, and so forth. Fichte, stirred by Napoleon'svictory at Jena (Fichte's birthplace) and the consequent disaster tohis own people, wrote his _Addresses to the German Nation_, pleadingeloquently for a "national regeneration. " He, like Vom Stein, Treitschke, and many others in their time, came to Berlin andestablished himself there as in the centre of a new national activity. Vom Stein, about the same time, carried out the magnificent anddemocratic work by which he established on Napoleonic lines (and much toNapoleon's own chagrin) the outlines of a great and free and federatedGermany. Carl von Clausewitz did in the military world much what Steindid in the civil world. He formulated the strategical methods andteachings of Napoleon, and in his book _Vom Krieg_ (published 1832) notonly outlined a greater military Germany, but laid the basis, it hasbeen said, of all serious study in the art of war. Vom Stein andClausewitz died in the same year, 1831. In 1834 Heinrich von Treitschkewas born. The three Hohenzollern kings, all named Frederick William, who reignedfrom the death of Frederick the Great (1786) to the accession of WilliamI (1861) did not count much personally. The first and third of thosementioned were decidedly weakminded, and the third towards the close ofhis reign became insane. But the ideas already initiated in Germanycontinued to expand. The Zollverein was established, the TeutonicFederation became closer, and the lead of Prussia more decided. With thejoint efforts of William I and Bismarck the policy became moregovernmental, more positive, and more deliberate--the policy ofconsolidation and of aggrandisement; and with this definite programme inview, Bismarck engineered the three wars of 1864, 1866, and 1870, against Denmark, Austria, and France. They all three had the effect ofconfirming the military power of Prussia. The first war gave her a muchdesired increase of access to the North Sea; the second led to thetreaty with Austria, and ultimately to the formation of the TripleAlliance; the third ended in the definite establishment of the Prussianhegemony, the crowning of William I as Emperor, and the union andconsolidation of all the German States under him; but alas! it left aseed of evil in the wresting of Alsace-Lorraine from France. ForFrance never forgave this. Bismarck and Moltke knew she would notforgive, and were sorely tempted to engineer a _second_ war which shouldutterly disable her; but this war never came off. The seed of Revenge, however, remained with France, and the seed of Fear with Germany; andthese two things were destined to lead to a harvest of disaster. In 1866 Treitschke came to Berlin. Though Saxon by birth, he becameultra-Prussian in sympathy and temperament. Somewhat deaf, and by nomeans yielding or facile in temper, he was not cut out for a politicalcareer. But politics were his interest; his lectures on history weresuccessful at Leipzig and had still more scope at Berlin. He became thestrongest of German Unionists, and with a keen but somewhat narrow mindtook an absolute pleasure in attacking every movement or body of peoplethat seemed to him in any way to stand in the path of Germany'sadvancement, or not to assist in her consolidation. Thus he poured outhis wrath in turn on Saxony (his own land) and on Hanover, on the Poles, the Socialists, and the Catholics, and ultimately in his later years onBritain. [13] He conceived, following the lines of the Prussian tradition, thatGermany had a great military mission to fulfil. Her immense energy andpower, which had bulked so large in the early history of Europe, andwhich had been so sadly scattered during the religious wars, was now tocome to its own again. She was to make for herself a great place inEurope, and to expand in colonies over the world. It was a pleasing andnatural ambition, and the expression of it gave a great vogue andpopularity to Treitschke's lectures. The idea was enormously reinforcedby the cause which I have already mentioned and dwelt upon--the growthof the commercial interest in Germany. From 1870 onwards this growth washuge and phenomenal. In a comparatively short time a whole new socialclass sprang up in the land, and a whole new public opinion. Ifexpansion from the point of view of Junker ambition had been desirablebefore, the same from the point of view of the financial and tradingclasses was doubly so now. If a military irruption into the politics ofthe world was favoured before, it was clamoured for now when a powerfulclass had arisen which not only, called the tune but could pay thepiper. Thus by the combination of military and commercial interests andentanglements the web of Destiny was woven and Germany was hurried alonga path which--though no definite war was yet in sight--was certain tolead to war. The general military, programme of Treitschke, theconviction that force and force alone could give his country herrightful place in the world, was more and more cordially adopted. In asense this was a perfectly natural and logical programme, and amid thesurrounding European conditions excusable--as I shall point outpresently. But before long it became a weird enthusiasm, almost anobsession. It was taken up over the land, and repeated in a thousandbooks and on as many platforms. One of these propagandists was Generalvon Bernhardi, who entered in more detail into the technical andstrategical aspects of the programme. The rude and almost brutalfrankness of both writers may be admired; but the want of real depth andbreadth of view cannot be concealed and must be deplored. The argumentsin favour of force, of unscrupulousness, of terrorism are--especially inBernhardi[14]--casuistical to a degree. They are those of a man who isdetermined to press his country into war at all costs, and who will useany kind of logic as long as it will lead in his direction. The wholemovement--largely made possible by the political ignorance of themass-people, of which I have spoken in a former chapter--culminated inan extraordinary national fever of ambition; and in the announcement ofschemes for the Germanization of the world, almost juvenile in the wantof experience and the sense of proportion which they display. It wouldnot be fair to take one writer as conclusive; but as a _specimen_ of thekind of thing we may quote the following extract (given by Mr. H. A. L. Fisher, the Oxford historian, in his able brochure _The War: Its Causesand Issues_) from the writings of Bronsart von Schellendorf: "Do not letus forget the civilizing task which the decrees of Providence haveassigned to us. Just as Prussia was destined to be the nucleus ofGermany, so the regenerated Germany shall be the nucleus of a futureEmpire of the West. And in order that no one shall be left in doubt, weproclaim from henceforth that our continental nation has a right to thesea, not only to the North Sea, but to the Mediterranean and Atlantic. Hence we intend to absorb one after another all the provinces whichneighbour on Prussia. We will successively annex Denmark, Holland, Belgium, Northern Switzerland, then Trieste and Venice, finally NorthernFrance from the Sambre to the Loire. This programme we fearlesslypronounce. It is not the work of a madman. The Empire we intend to foundwill be no Utopia. We have ready to our hands the means of founding it, and no coalition in the world can stop us. " Bronsart von Schellendorf (1832-91) was one of the Prussian Generals whonegotiated the surrender of the French at Sedan. He became Chief of theStaff, and War Minister (1883-9), and wrote on Tactics, etc. His aboveutterance, therefore, cannot be neglected as that of an irresponsibleperson. There is, as I have already had occasion to say, a certain easygoingabsurdity in the habit we commonly have of talking of nations--"Germany, " "France, " "England, " and so forth--as if they weresimple and plainly responsible persons or individuals, when all the timewe know perfectly well that they are more like huge whirlpools ofhumanity caused by the impact and collision of countless and oftenopposing currents flowing together from various directions. Yet there isthis point of incontestable similarity between nations and individualpersons, that both occasionally go mad! If Germany was afflicted by akind of madness or divine _dementia_ previous to the present war, Britain can by no means throw that in her teeth, for Britain certainlywent mad over Mafeking; and it was sheer madness that in 1870 threw thepeople of France and Napoleon III--utterly unready for war as theywere, and over a most trifling quarrel--into the arms of Bismarck forthe fulfilment of his schemes. But that some sort of madness did, in consequence of the above-mentionedcircumstances, seize the German people shortly before the outbreak ofthe present war we can hardly doubt, though (remembering the proverb) wemust not put the blame for that on her, but on the gods. It was a headyintoxication, caused largely, I believe, by that era of unexampledcommercial prosperity following upon a period of great political andmilitary expansion, and confirmed by the direct incitement of themilitary and political teachers I have mentioned. All these things, acting on a people unskilled in politics--of whom Bernhardi himself says"We are a non-political people"[15]--had their natural effect. But itseems part of the irony of fate that at this very juncture Germanyshould have fallen under the influence of a man who of all the world wasperhaps least fitted to guide her steadily through a difficult crisis. "We all know the Kaiser, " says Mr. Fisher, "the most amazing and amusingfigure on the great stage of politics. The outlines of his character arefamiliar to everybody, for his whole life is spent in the full glare ofpublicity. We know his impulsiveness, his naïveté, his heady fits ofwild passion, his spacious curiosity and quick grasp of detail, hisportentous lack of humour and delicacy, his childish vanity anddomineering will. A character so romantic, spontaneous, and robust mustalways be a favourite with the British people, who, were his lunaciesless formidable, would regard him as the most delectable burlesque ofthe age. " However the British generally may regard him, it is certain that theGerman nation accepted him as their acclaimed leader. Clever, good-looking, versatile, imperious, fond of the romantic pose, Wilhelmwas exactly the hero in shining armour that would capture the enthusiasmof this innocent people. They idolized him. And it is possible thattheir quick response confirmed him in his rather generous estimate ofhis own capabilities. He dismissed Bismarck and became his own ForeignSecretary, and entered upon a perilous career as Imperial politician, under the aegis of God and the great tradition of the Hohenzollerns, acareer made all the more perilous by his constant change of rôle and hisreal uncertainty as to his own mind. His "seven thousand speeches andthree hundred uniforms" were only the numerous and really emblematicdisguises of a character unable to concentrate persistently andeffectively on any one settled object. With a kind of theatricalsincerity he made successive public appearances as War Lord or Williamthe Peaceful, as Artist, Poet, Architect, Biblical Critic, Preacher, Commercial Magnate, Generalissimo of land forces and Creator of a WorldNavy; and with Whitman he might well have said, "I can resist anythingbetter than my own diversity. " If Wilhelm II was popular (as he was) among his own mass-people, it maywell be guessed that he was a perfect terror to his own politicaladvisers and generals. Undoubtedly a large share of responsibility forthe failure of German diplomacy before the war, and of German strategyduring the war, must be laid to the account of his ever-changing plansand ill-judged interferences. It is difficult, indeed, to imagine acharacter more dangerous as a great nation's leader. But out of dangersgreat things do often arise. A kind of fatality, as I have said, hasenveloped the whole situation, and still leads on to new and pregnantevolutions for the German people and for the whole world. Germany willin the end be justified, but in a way far different from what sheimagined. Up to the period of Germany's rising commercial prosperity Germany andEngland had been on fairly friendly terms. There was no particular causeof difference between them. But when Commercial and Colonial expansionbecame a definite and avowed object of the former's policy, she found, whereso she might look, that Britain was there, in the way--"everywhereBritish colonies, British coaling stations, and floating over a fifth ofthe globe the British flag. " Could anything be more exasperating? Andthese "absent-minded beggars" the English, without any forethought orscience or design, without Prussian organization or Prussian bureaucracyand statecraft, had simply walked into this huge inheritance withoutknowing what they were doing! It certainly was most provoking. But whatEngland had done why should not Germany do--and do it indeed muchbetter, with due science and method? Britain had shown no scruple inappropriating a fifth part of the globe, and dealing summarily with heropponents, whether savage or civilized; why should Germany show scruple? And it must be confessed that here Germany had a very good case. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. And if Germany, approvingBritain's example, could only show herself strong enough to imitate itin actual fact, Britain at least could not blame her. Besides, in herinternal industrial development Germany was already showing her equalitywith England. In her iron and steel manufactures, her agriculturalmachines, her cutlery, her armament works, her glass works, her anilinedyes, her toys, and her production of a thousand and one articles (likelamps) of household use, she was showing a splendid record--better insome ways than England. For while England was losing ground, Germany wasgaining all the time. England was becoming degenerate and lacking inenterprise. The Zeiss glassworks at Jena have now become the centre ofthe optical-glass industry of the world. Carl Zeiss, the founder, triedhard at one time to get the English glass-makers to turn out a specialglass for his purpose, with very high refractive index. They would nottrouble about it. Zeiss consequently was forced to take the matter uphimself, succeeded at last in getting such glass made in Germany, and"collared" the trade. The same happened in other departments. A certain amount of friction arose. The Germans at one time, knowing theEnglish reputation for cutlery, marked their knives and razors as "madein Scheffield. " The English retaliated in what seemed an insulting way, by marking the Fatherland's goods as "made in Germany. " With Germany'ssuccess, commercial jealousy between the two nations (founded on theutterly mistaken but popular notion that the financial prosperity ofthe country you trade with is inimical to your own prosperity) began toincrease. On the German side it was somewhat bitter. On the Englishside, though not so bitter, it was aggravated by the really shamefulignorance prevailing in this country with regard to things German, andthe almost entire neglect of the German tongue in our schools anduniversities and among our literary folk. As an expression (though onehopes exceptional) of commercial jealousy on our side I may quote apassage from a letter from a business friend of mine in Lancashire. Hesays: "I remember about a _fortnight before_ the war broke out withGermany having a conversation with a business man in Manchester, and hesaid to me that we most certainly ought to join in with the othernations and sweep the Germans off the face of the earth; I asked him_why_, and his only answer was, '_Look at the figures of Germany'sexports; they are almost as high as ours_!' All he had against them wastheir enterprise--commercial jealousy. " On the other hand, the head of a large warehouse told me only a few dayslater that when travelling in Germany for his firm some fifteen yearsago he had a conversation with a German, in the course of which he (theEnglishman) said: "I find your people so obliging and friendly that Ithink surely whatever little differences there are between us as nationswill be dispelled by closer intercourse, and so all danger of war willpass away. " "No, " replied the German, "you are quite mistaken. You and Iare friendly; but that is only as individuals. As nations we shall neverrest till we have war. The English nation may well be contented becausethey have already _got_ all the good things of the Earth--their trade, their ports, their colonies; but Germany will not allow this to go onfor ever. She will fight for her rightful position in the world; shewill challenge England's mercantile supremacy. She will have to do so, and she will not fail. "[16] Thus the plot thickened; the entanglement increased. The Boer War rousedill-feeling between England and Germany. The German Navy Bill followedin 1900, and the Kaiser announced his intention of creating a sea-powerthe equal of any in the world. Britain of course replied with her NavyBills; and the two countries were committed to a mad race of armaments. The whole of Europe stood by anxious. Fear and Greed, the two meanest ofhuman passions, ruled everywhere. Fear of a militarist Germany began toloom large upon the more pacific States of Europe. On the other hand, the fatality of Alsace-Lorraine loomed in Germany, full of forebodingsof revenge. France had found a friend in Russia--a sinister alliance. Britain, convinced that trouble was at hand, came to an understandingwith France in 1904 and with Russia in 1907. The Triple Entente was bornas a set-off against the Triple Alliance. The Agadir incident in 1911betrayed the purely commercial nature of the designs of the four Powersconcerned--France, Spain, England, and Germany--and a war over thecorpse of Morocco was only narrowly avoided. Germany felt quitenaturally that she was the victim of a plot, and thenceforth wasalternately convulsed by mad Ambition and haunted by a lurking Terror. And now we come to the last act of the great drama. So far therelations of Germany with Russia had not been strained. If there was anyfear of Russia, it was quite in the background. The Junkers--themselveshalf Slavs--had supplied a large number of the Russian officials, menlike Plehve and Klingenberg; the Russian bureaucracy was founded on andfollowed the methods of the German. The Japanese War called Russia'sattention away to another part of the world, and at the same timeexposed her weakness. But if Germany was not troubled about Russia, adifferent sentiment was growing up in Russia itself. The people therewere beginning to hate the official German influence and its hardatmosphere of militarism, so foreign to the Russian mind. They werelooking more and more to France. Bismarck had made a great mistake inthe Treaty of Berlin--mistake which he afterwards fully recognized andregretted. He had used the treaty to damage and weaken Russia, and hadso thrown Russia into the arms of France. A strange Nemesis was preparing. The programme of Germanexpansion--natural enough in itself, but engineered by Prussia duringall this long period with that kind of blind haughtiness and overbearingassurance which indeed is a "tempting of Providence"--had so far notconcerned itself much about Muscovite policy; but now there arose asudden fear of danger in that quarter. Hitherto the main German"objective" had undoubtedly been England and France, Belgium andHolland--the westward movement towards the Atlantic and the great world. But now all unexpectedly, or at any rate with dramatic swiftness, Russiaappeared on the scenes, and there was a _volte face_ towards the East. The Balkan Wars of 1912 and 1913 broke out. Whatever simmerings ofhostility there may have been between Germany and Russia before, therelations of the two now became seriously strained. The Balkan League, formed under Russian influence, was nominally directed against Turkey;but it was also a threat to Austria. It provided a powerful backing tothe Servian agitation, it was a step towards the dissolution of Austria, and it decisively closed the door on Germany's ambition to reachSalonika and to obtain a direct connection with the Baghdad Railway. Germany and Austria all at once found themselves isolated in the midstof Europe, with Russia, Servia, France, and England hostile on everyside. It was indeed a tragic situation, and all the more so when viewedas the sorry outcome and culmination of a hundred years of Prussiandiplomacy and statecraft. Why under these circumstances Austria (with Germany of course behindher) should have dictated most insulting terms to Servia, and thenrefused to accept Servia's most humble apology, is difficult tounderstand. The only natural explanation is that the Germanic Powers onthe whole thought it best, even as matters stood, to precipitate war;that notwithstanding all the complications, they thought that thelong-prepared-for hour had come. The German White Book puts the matteras a mere _necessity_ of self-defence. "Had the Servians been allowed, with the help of Russia and France, to endanger the integrity of theneighbouring Monarchy much longer, the consequence must have been thegradual disruption of Austria and the subjection of the whole Slavworld to the Russian sceptre, with the result that the position of theGerman race in Central Europe would have become untenable"; but it isobvious that this plea is itself untenable, since it makes a quitedistant and problematic danger the excuse for a sudden and insultingblow--for a blow, in fact, almost certain to precipitate the danger! Howthe matter was decided in Berlin we cannot at present tell, or what themotives exactly were. It seems rather probable that the Kaiser threw hisweight on the side of peace. The German Executive at any rate saw thatthe great war they had so long contemplated and so long prepared for wasclose upon them--only in an unexpected form, hugely complicated andthreatening. They must have realized the great danger of the situation, but they very likely may have thought that by another piece of bluffsimilar to that of 1908-9 they might intimidate Russia a second time;and they believed that Russia was behindhand in her militarypreparations. They also, it appears, thought that England would notfight, being too much preoccupied with Ireland, India, and othertroubles. And so it may have seemed that Now was the psychologicalmoment. Austria opened with war on Servia (28th of July), and the next dayRussia declared a considerable though not complete mobilization. Fromthat moment a general conflagration was practically inevitable. The newsof Russia's warlike movement caused a perfect panic in Berlin. Thetension of feeling swung round completely for the time being from enmityagainst England and France to fear of Russia. The final mobilization ofthe Russian troops (31st of July) was followed by the telegrams betweenthe Kaiser and the Tsar, and by the formal mobilization (really alreadycomplete) of the German Army and Navy on the 1st of August. War wasdeclared at Berlin on the 1st of August, and the same or next day theGerman forces entered Luxemburg. On August 4th they entered Belgium, andwar was declared by England against Germany. * * * * * Looking back at the history of the whole affair, one seems to see, as Ihave said, a kind of fatality about it. The great power and vigour ofthe German peoples, shown by their early history in Europe, had beenbroken up by the religious and other dissensions of the sixteenth andseventeenth centuries. It fell to Prussia to become the centre oforganization for a new Germany. The rich human and social material ofthe German States--their literary, artistic, and scientific culture, their philosophy, their learning--clustered curiously enough round thehard and military nucleus of the North. It was perhaps their instinctand, for the time, their salvation to do so. The new Germany, hemmed inon all sides by foreign Powers, could only see her way to reasonableexpansion and recognition, and a field for her latent activities, by theuse of force, military force. A long succession of politicalphilosophers drilled this into her. She embarked in small wars andalways with success. She became a political unity and a Great Power inEurope. And then came her commercial triumph. Riches beyond allexpectation flowed in; and a mercantile class arose in her midst whoseideals of life were of a corresponding character--the ideals of thewealthy shopkeeper. What wonder that, feeling her power, feeling herselfmore than ever baulked of her rights, she cast her eyes abroad, andcoveted the imperial and commercial supremacy of the world? In this she had the example of Britain before her. Britain had laid landto land and market to market over the globe, and showed no particularscruple in the matter. Why should not Germany do the same? It was truethat Britain always carried the Bible with her--but this was mereBritish cant. Britain carried the Bible in her left hand, but in herright a sword; and when she used the latter she always let the formerdrop. Germany could do likewise--but without that odious pretence ofmorality, and those crocodile tears over the unfortunates whom shedevoured. It was only a question of Might and Organization and Armament. So far Germany seems to have had a perfectly good case; and though we inEngland might not like her ambitions, we could not reasonably find faultwith motives so perfectly similar to our own. We might, indeed, make agrievance of the frank brutality displayed in her methods and thedefence of them; but then, she might with equal right object to oureverlasting pretence of "morality, " and our concealment of mercenaryand imperial aims under the cloak of virtue and innocence. One reallymust confess that it is difficult to say which is the worse. But if the crystallization of Germany round the Prussian nucleus was forthe time the source of Germany's success, it is a question whether it isnot even now becoming something quite different, and the likely cause ofa serious downfall. It would seem hardly probable that the amalgamationbetween elements so utterly dissimilar can permanently endure. Thekindly, studious, sociable, rather naïvely innocent German mass-peopledragged by the scruff of the neck into the arena of militarism andworld-politics, may for a time have had their heads turned by theexalted position in which they found themselves; but it is not likelythat they will continue for long to enjoy the situation. With no greatinstinct for politics, nor any marked gift of tact and discernment, unsuccessful as a rule as colonists, [17] and with no understanding ofhow to govern--except on the Prussian lines, which are every daybecoming more obsolete and less adapted to the modern world--the rôlewhich their empire-building philosophers set out for them is one whichthey are eminently unfitted to fulfil. It is sad, but we cannot blamethem for the defect. They blame the world in general for siding againstthem in this affair, but do not see that in most cases it has been theirown want of perception which has left them on the wrong side of thehedge. Bismarck, with his "Blood and Iron" policy, made a huge blunder in notperceiving that in the modern world spiritual forces are arising whichmust for ever discredit the same. He emphasized the blunder by wrestingAlsace-Lorraine from France, and again by crippling Russia in the treatyof 1878--thus making enemies where generosity might have brought himfriends. The German Executive in July of last year (1914) showedextraordinary want of tact in not seeing that Russia, rebuffed in 1908over Bosnia and Herzegovina, would never put up with a _second_ insultof the same kind over Servia. The same Government was strangely unableto perceive that whatever it might tactically gain by the invasion anddevastation of Belgium would be more than lost by the moral effect ofsuch action on the whole world; and notwithstanding its army of spies, it had not the sense to see that England, whether morally bound to ornot, was certain, at all costs, to fight in defence of Belgium'sneutrality. So true it is that without the understanding which comesfrom the heart, all the paraphernalia of science and learning and thematerial results of organization and discipline are of little good. But however we choose to apportion the blame or at least theresponsibility for the situation among the various Governmentsconcerned, the main point and the main lesson of it all is to see thatany such apportionment does not much matter! As long as our Governmentsare constructed as they are--that is, on the principle of representing, not the real masses of their respective peoples, but the interests ofcertain classes, especially the commercial, financial, and militaryclasses--so long will such wars be inevitable. The real blame rests, not with the particular Foreign policy of this or that country but withthe fact that Europe, already rising through her mass-peoples into a farfiner and more human and spiritual life than of old, still lies bound inthe chains of an almost Feudal social order. When the great German mass-peoples find this out, when they discover thelittle rift in the lute which now separates their real quality from thefalse standards of their own dominant military and commercial folk, thentheir true rôle in the world will begin, and a glorious rôle it will be. FOOTNOTES: [13] "A German, " he said, "could not live long in the atmosphere ofEngland--an atmosphere of sham, prudery, conventionality, andhollowness"! See article on "Treitschke, " by W. H. Dawson, in the_Nineteenth Century_ for January 1915. [14] The influence, however, of Bernhardi in his own country has beensomewhat exaggerated in England. [15] It seems that the same remark is made about the Germans in theU. S. A. , that they take little interest in politics there. [16] This attitude is exactly corroborated by Herr Maximilian Harden'smanifesto, originally published in _Die Zukunft, _ and lately reprintedin the _New York Times_. [17] Though this is only, perhaps, true of their State colonies. Intheir individual and missionary colonizing groups, and as pioneersettlers, they seem to have succeeded well. VI THE HEALING OF, NATIONS[18] It is quite possible that the little rift within the lute, alluded to inthe concluding paragraph of last chapter, may widen so far as to causebefore long great internal changes and reconstructions in Germanyherself; but short of that happening, it would seem that there is noalternative for the Allies but to continue the war until her Militarismcan be put out of court, and that for long years to come. There is noalternative, because she has revealed her hand too clearly as amenace--if she should prevail--of barbarous force to the whole world. Itis this menace which has roused practically the whole world against her. And there is this amount of good in the situation, namely, that whilewith the victory of Germany a German "terror" might be establishedthrough the world, with the victory of the Allies neither England, norFrance, nor Russia, nor little Belgium, nor any other country, couldclaim a final credit and supremacy. With the latter victory we shall befreed from the nightmare claim of any one nation's world-empire. But in order to substantiate this result England must also abdicate herclaim. She must abdicate her mere crass insistence on commercialsupremacy. The "Nation of Shopkeepers" theory, which has in the pastmade her the hated of other nations, which has created within herborders a vulgar and unpleasant class--the repository of much arrogantwealth--must cease to be the standard of her life. I have before me atthis moment a manifesto of "The British Empire League, " patronized byroyalty and the dukes, and of which Lord Rothschild is treasurer. Theconstitution of the League was framed in 1895; and I note with regretthat positively the five "principal objects of the League" mentionedtherein have solely to do with the extension and facilitation ofBritain's trade, and the "co-operation of the military and naval forcesof the Empire with a special view to the due protection of the traderoutes. " Not a word is said _in the whole manifesto_ about the human andsocial responsibilities of this vast Empire; not a word about theguardianship and nurture of native races, their guidance and assistanceamong the pitfalls of civilization; not a word about the principles ofhonour and just dealing with regard to our civilized neighbour-nationsin Europe and elsewhere; not a word about the political freedom andwelfare of all classes at home. One rubs one's eyes, and looks at thedocument again; but it is so. Its one inspiration is--Trade. Seeingthat, I confess to a sinking of the heart. Can we blame Germany forstruggling at all costs to enlarge her borders, when _that_ is what theBritish Empire means? Until we rise, as a nation, to a conception of what we mean by ournational life, finer and grander than a mere counting of trade-returns, what can we expect save failure and ill-success? Possibly in the conviction that she is fighting for a worthy object (theending of militarism), and in the determination (if sincerely carriedout) of once more playing her part in the world as the protector ofsmall nations, Britain may find her salvation, and a cause which willsave her soul. It is certainly encouraging to find that there is agrowing feeling in favour of the recognition and rehabilitation of thesmall peoples of the world. If it is true that Britain by her graspingImperial Commercialism in the past (and let us hope that period _is_past) has roused jealousy and hatred among the other nations, equally isit true that Germany to-day, by her dreams of world-conquest, has beenrousing hatred and fear. But the day has gone by of world-empiresfounded on the lust of conquest, whether that conquest be military orcommercial. The modern peoples surely are growing out of dreams sochildish as that. The world-empire of Goethe and Beethoven is even nowfar more extensive, far more powerful, than that which Wilhelm II andhis Junkers are seeking to encompass. There is something common, unworthy, in the effort of domination; and while the Great Powers havethus vulgarized themselves, it is the little countries who have goneforward in the path of progress. "In modern Europe what do we not owe tolittle Switzerland, lighting the torch of freedom six hundred years ago, and keeping it alight through all the centuries when despotic monarchiesheld the rest of the European Continent? And what to free Holland, withher great men of learning and her painters surpassing those of all othercountries save Italy? So the small Scandinavian nations have given tothe world famous men of science, from Linnaeus downwards, poets likeTegner and Björnson, scholars like Madvig, dauntless explorers likeFridthiof Nansen. England had, in the age of Shakespeare, Bacon, andMilton, a population little larger than that of Bulgaria to-day. TheUnited States, in the days of Washington and Franklin and Jefferson andHamilton and Marshall, counted fewer inhabitants than Denmark orGreece. "[19] In all their internal politics and social advancement, Switzerland, Holland, Denmark, Norway and Sweden, Finland (until the paw of the Bearwas on her) and Belgium (till the claw of the Spread-Eagle) have beenwell to the fore. It is they who have carried on the banner of idealismwhich Germany herself uplifted when she was a small people or a group ofsmall peoples. It is they who have really had prosperous, healthy, independent, and alert populations. How much more interesting, we maysay, would Europe be under the variety of such a regime than under themonotonous bureaucracy and officialism of any Great Power! And to somesuch scheme we must adhere. It would mean, of course, the alliance ofall the States of Western Europe, large and small (and including both aremodelled Germany and a largely remodelled Austria) in one greatFederation--whose purpose would be partly to unite and preserve Europeagainst any common foe, from the East or elsewhere, and partly toregulate any overweening ambition of a member of the Federation, such asmight easily become a menace to the other members. A secondary but mostimportant result of the formation of such a United States of Europewould be that while each State would probably preserve a small militaryestablishment of its own, the enormous and fatal incubus of the presentarmaments system would be rendered unnecessary, and so at last thethreat of national bankruptcy and ruin, which has of late pursued thenations Like an evil dream, might pass away. But in that matter offinance it cannot be disguised that a terrible period still awaits theEuropean peoples. Already the moneylenders sitting on their chests forma veritable nightmare; but with fresh debts by the thousand millionsterling being contracted, there is great danger that the mass-peoplesbeneath will be worse paralysed and broken even than they arenow--unless, indeed, with a great effort they rouse themselves and throwoff the evil burden. That the world is waking up to a recognition of _racial_ rights--thatis, the right of each race to have as far as possible its ownGovernment, instead of being lorded over by an alien race--is a goodsign; and a European settlement along that line must be pressed for. Atlast, after centuries of discomfort, we at home are finding our solutionof the Irish question in this very obvious way; and it may be thatEurope, tired of war, may finally have the sense to adopt the sameprinciple. Of course, there are cases where populations are so mixed, as, for instance, the Czechs and Slovaks and Germans in Bohemia andMoravia, or where small colonies of one race are so embedded in themidst of another race, as are the Germans among the Roumanians ofTransylvania, that this solution may be difficult. That is no reason, however, why the general principle should not be applied. It _must_, indeed, be applied if Europe is not to return to barbarism. And it interests us--having regard to what I have said about _class_rule being so fruitful a cause of war--to remember that the rule of onerace by another always does mean class rule. The alien conquerors whodescend upon a country become the military and landlord caste there. Thus the Norman barons in England, the English squires in Ireland, theMagyars in Hungary, the German barons in East Prussia and the Balticprovinces, and so forth. They make their profit and maintain themselvesout of the labour and the taxation of the subject peoples. In the earlier forms of social life, when men lived in tribes, a rudeequality and democracy prevailed; there was nothing that could well becalled class-government; there was simply custom and the leadership ofthe elders of the tribe. Then with the oncoming of what we callcivilization, and the growth of the sense of property, differencesarose--accumulations of wealth and power by individuals, enslavements oftribes by other tribes; and classes sprang up, and class-government, andso the material of endless suffering and oppression and hatred andwarfare. I have already explained (in the Introduction) that Class initself as the mere formation within a nation of groups of similaroccupation and activity--working harmoniously with each other and withthe nation--is a perfectly natural and healthy phenomenon; it is onlywhen it means groups pursuing their own interests counter to each otherand to the nation that it becomes diseased. There will come a time whenthe class-element in this latter sense will be ejected from society, andsociety will return again to its democratic form and structure. Therewill be no want, in that time, of variety of occupation and talent, orof differentiation in the social organism; quite the contrary; butsimply there will be no predatory or parasitical groups within suchorganism, whose, interests will run counter to the whole, and which willact (as such classes act now) as foci and seedbeds of disease and strifewithin the whole. With a return to the recognition of racial rights andautonomies over the world, it is clear that one great cause of strifewill be removed, and we shall be one step nearer to the ending of thepreposterous absurdity of war. And talking about the difficulty of sorting out mixed populations, or ofdealing with small colonies of one race embedded in the midst of anotherrace, it is evident that once you get rid of autocratic or military orclass-government of any kind, and return to democratic forms, thisdifficulty will be much reduced or disappear. Small democratic communesare perfectly simple to form in groups of any magnitude or minutenesswhich may be desirable; and such groups would easily federate or allythemselves with surrounding democracies of alien race, whereas iflorded over by alien conquerors they would be in a state of chronicrebellion. Of such democratic alliance and federation of peoples oftotally different race, Switzerland supplies a well-recognized andfar-acclaimed example. * * * * * That in the future there will be an outcry in favour of Conscriptionmade by certain parties in Britain goes without saying; but that must bepersistently opposed. The nation says it is fighting to put downMilitarism. Why, then, make compulsory militarism foundational in ournational life? To abolish militarism _by_ militarism is like "puttingdown Drink" by swallowing it! The whole lesson of this war is againstconscription. Germany could never have "imposed herself" on Europewithout it. And yet her soldiers, brave as they naturally are, andskilfully as they have fought, have not done themselves justice. Howcould they under such conditions--forced into battle by their officers, flung in heaps on the enemy's guns? The voluntary response in Britain tothe call to arms has been inspiriting; and if voluntaryism meansmomentary delay in a crisis, still it means success in the end. Notroops have fought more finely than the British. Said Surgeon-GeneralEvatt, speaking in London in October--and General Evatt's word in such amatter ought to carry weight: "After long experience in studyingRussian, German, Bavarian, Saxon, French, Spanish, and American fightingunits, my verdict is unhesitatingly in favour of the British. . . . Whathas occurred lately has been a splendid triumph of citizenship, becausepeople were allowed their proper liberty and the consciousness offreely, sharing in a great Empire. " Besides it must always be remembered that conscription gives aGovernment power to initiate an iniquitous war, whereas voluntaryismkeeps the national life clean and healthy. A free people will not fightfor the trumped-up schemes and selfish machinations of a class--not, indeed, unless they are grossly deceived by, Press and Class plots. Anyhow, to force men to fight in causes which they do not approve, tocompel them to adopt a military career when their temperaments areutterly unsuited to such a thing, or when their consciences or theirreligion forbid them--these things are both foolish and wicked. If the nation wants soldiers it must pay for them. England, for example, is rolling in wealth; and it is simply a scandal that the wealthyclasses should sit at home in comfort and security and pay to the man inthe trenches--who is risking his life at every moment, and often livingin such exhaustion and misery as actually to wish for the bullet whichwill _end_ his life--no more than the minimum wage of an ordinaryday-labourer; and that they should begrudge every penny paid to hisdependents--whether he be living or dead--or to himself when he returns, a lifelong cripple, to his home. To starve and stint your own soldiers, to discourage recruiting, and then to make the consequent failure of mento come forward into an excuse for conscription is the meanest ofpolicies. As a matter of fact, the circumstances of the present war showthat with anything like decent reward for their services there is anabundant, an almost over-abundant, supply of men ready to flock to thestandard of their country in a time of necessity. Nor must it beforgotten, in this matter of pay, that the general type and average ofour forces to-day, whether naval or military, is far higher than it wasfifty, years ago. The men are just as plucky, and more educated, morealert, more competent in every way. To keep them up to this highstandard of efficiency they need a high standard of care andconsideration. It may, however, be said--in view of our present industrial conditions, and the low standard of physical health and vitality prevailing amongthe young folk of our large towns--that physical drill and scouttraining, including ambulance and other work, and qualification in_some_ useful trade, might very well be made a part of our generaleducational system, for rich and poor alike, say, between the ages ofsixteen and eighteen. Such a training would to each individual boy beimmensely valuable, and by providing some rudimentary understanding ofmilitary, affairs and the duties of public service and citizenship, would enable him to choose _how_ he could be helpful to thenation--provided always he were not forced to make his choice in adirection distasteful or repugnant to him. In any good cause, as in awar of _defence_ against a foreign enemy, it is obvious enough, as Ihave said, that there would be plenty of native enthusiasm forthcomingwithout legal or official pressure. However, I have enlarged a little onthe subject of Conscription in a later chapter, and will say no morehere. But the burning and pressing question is: Why should we--we, the"enlightened and civilized" nations of Europe--get involved in thesesenseless wars at all? And surely _this_ war will, of all wars, force ananswer to the question. Here, for the last twenty years, have theseso-called Great Powers been standing round, all professing that theirone desire is peace, and all meanwhile arming to the teeth; eachaccusing the others of militant intentions, and all lamenting that "waris inevitable. " Here they have been forming their _Ententes_ andAlliances, carrying on their diplomatic cabals and intrigues, studyingthe map and adjusting the Balance of Power--all, of course, with thebest intentions--and lo! with the present result! What nonsense! Whathumbug! What an utter bankruptcy of so-called diplomacy! When will thepeoples themselves arise and put a stop to this fooling--the people whogive their lives and pay the cost of it all? If the present-day, diplomats and Foreign Ministers have sincerely striven for peace, thentheir utter incapacity and futility have been proved to the hilt, andthey must be swept away. If they have not sincerely striven for peace, but only pretended to so strive, then also they must be swept away, fordeceit in such a matter is unpardonable. And no doubt the latter alternative is the true one. There has been apretence of the Governments all round--a pretence of deep concern forhumanity and the welfare of the mass-peoples committed to their charge;but the real moving power beneath has been _class_-interest--theinterest of the great commercial class in each nation, with its acolyteand attendant, the military or aristocratic. It is this class, with itsgreeds and vanities and suspicions and jealousies, which is the cause ofstrife; the working-masses of the various nations have no desire toquarrel with each other. Nay, they are animated by a very differentspirit. In an interesting article published by the German Socialist paper_Vorwärts_, on September 27, 1914, and reproduced in our Press, occurredthe following passage, in which the war is traced to its commercialsources: "Germany has enjoyed an economical prosperity such as no othercountry has experienced during the last decade. That meant with thecapitalist class a revival of strong Imperialist tendencies, which havebeen evident enough. This, again, gave rise to mistrust abroad, atleast in capitalist circles, who did their best to communicate theirfeelings to the great masses, . . . And so the German people as a wholehas been made responsible for what has been the work of a smallclass. . . . The comrades abroad can be assured that though German workmenare ready to defend their country they will, above all, not forget thattheir interests are the same as those of the proletariat in othercountries, who also against their will were forced into the war and nowdo their duty. They can rest assured that the German people are not lesshumane than others--a result to which education through workmen'sorganizations has greatly contributed. If German soldiers in theexcitement of war should commit atrocities, it can be said that amongus--and also in other circles--there will not be a single person toapprove of them. " Reading this statement--so infinitely more sensible and human thananything to be found in the ordinary Capitalist Press of England andGermany--one cannot help feeling that there is practically little hopefor the future _until_ the international working masses throughoutEurope come forward and, joining hands with each other, take charge ofthe foolish old Governments (who represent the remains of the decadentfeudal and commercial systems), and shape the Western world at last tothe heart's desire of the peoples that inhabit it. "The peoples of the world desire peace, " said Bourtzeff, the Russianexile[20]--and he, who has been in many lands, ought to know. But theyalso--if they would obtain peace--must exercise an eternal vigilancelest they fall into the hands of class-schemers and be betrayed intothat which they do _not_ desire. The example of Germany--which we haveconsidered above--shows how easily a good and friendly and pacificpeople may, by mere political inattention and ignorance, and by aquasi-scientific philosophy, which imposes on its political ignorance, be led into a disastrous situation. It shows how preposterous it is thatGovernments generally--as at present constituted--should set themselvesup as the representatives of the mass-peoples' wishes, and as thearbiters of national destinies. And it shows how vitally necessary it isthat the people, even the working masses and the peasants, should havesome sort of political education and understanding. In that matter, of the political education of the masses, America, inher United States and Canada, yields a fine example. Though notcertainly perfect, her general standard of education and alertness isinfinitely superior to that of the peoples of the Old World. And somewriters contend that it is just in that--in her general level and not inher freaks of genius--that America's claim lies to distinction among thenations of the earth. If you consider the peoples of the Old World, whether in England, Scotland, or Ireland, in France, Spain, Italy, Germany, Austria, Russia, or farther East and farther South over theearth, you will find the great masses, on the land or in the workshops, still sunk in vast ignorance, apathy, and irresponsibility. Only hereand there among those I have mentioned, and notably among the smallerpeoples of Western Europe, like Switzerland, Holland, Denmark, andSweden, are the masses beginning to stir, as it were, towards thedaylight. It can only be with the final opening of their eyes andawakening from slumber that the rule of the classes will be at an end. But that awakening--with the enormous spread of literature andlocomotion and intercommunication of all kinds over the modern world, cannot now, one would say, be long delayed. * * * * * Meanwhile, and until that era arrives, we can only insist (at any ratein our own country) on a different kind of foreign policy from what wehave had--a policy open and strong, not founded on Spread-Eagleism, anddecidedly not founded on commercialism and the interests of the tradingclasses (as the Empire League seem to desire), but directed towards thereal welfare of the masses in our own and other lands. If our rulers andrepresentatives really seek peace, here is the obvious way to ensue andsecure it--namely, by making political friends of those in all countrieswho _desire peace_ and are already stretching hands of amity to eachother. What simpler and more obvious way can there be? "We hail ourworking-class comrades of every land, " says the Manifesto of theIndependent Labour Party. "Across the roar of guns we send greeting tothe German Socialists. They have laboured unceasingly to promote goodrelations with Britain, as we with Germany. They are no enemies of ours, but faithful friends. In forcing this appalling crime upon the nations, it is the rulers, the diplomats, the militarists, who have sealed theirdoom. In tears and blood and bitterness the greater Democracy will beborn. With steadfast faith we greet the future; our cause is holy andimperishable, and the labour of our hands has not been in vain. " Yes, we must have a foreign policy strong and sincere--and not only so, but open and avowed. The present Diplomatic system is impossible ofcontinuance. It has grown up in an automatic way out of antiquatedconditions, and no one in particular can be blamed for it. But thatyoung men, profoundly ignorant of the world, and having the very _borné_outlook on life which belongs to our gilded youth (67 per cent. Of thecandidates for the Diplomatic Corps being drawn from Eton alone), havingalso in high degree that curious want of cosmopolitan sympathy andadaptability which is characteristic of the English wealthy classes(every candidate for the Corps must have at least £400 a year of hisown)--that such a type should be charged with the representation of theUnited Kingdom in foreign affairs is to-day a hopeless anomaly, andindeed a very great danger. The recommendations just published of theRoyal Commission are in the right direction, but they need urgentreinforcement and extension by the pressure of public opinion. And if inthe present-day situation of affairs we cannot refer every questionwhich arises directly to the nation, we must at least do away with theone-man-Secretary system, and have in his place a large and responsiblecommittee, representative, not of any one party or class but as far aspossible of the whole people. [At this moment, for instance, as far aswe know, the terms of settlement of the present war may actually bebeing arranged over our heads, and yet that may be taking place quiteapart from the approval and the wishes of the most weighty portion ofthe nation. ] Another thing that we must look to with some hope for the future is theinfluence of Women. Profoundly shocked as they are by the senselessfolly and monstrous bloodshed of the present conflict, it is certainthat when this phase is over they will insist on having a voice in thepolitics of the future. The time has gone by when the mothers and wivesand daughters of the race will consent to sit by meek and silent whilethe men in their madness are blowing each other's brains out and makingmountains out of corpses. It is hardly to be expected that war willcease from the earth this side of the millennium; but women will surelyonly, condone it when urged by some tremendous need or enthusiasm; theywill not rejoice--as men sometimes do--in the mere lust of dominationand violence. With their keen perception of the little things of life, and the way in which the big things are related to these, they will seetoo clearly the cost of war in broken hearts and ruined homes to allowtheir men to embark in it short of the direst necessity. And through the women I come back to the elementary causes and roots ofthe present war--the little fibres in our social life which have fed, and are still feeding, the fatal tree whose fruits are, not the healingbut the strife of nations. In the present day--though there may be otherinfluences--it is evident enough that rampant and unmeasured commercialgreed, concentrating itself in a special class, is the main cause, thetap-root, of the whole business. And this, equally evidently, springsout of the innumerable greed of _individuals_--the countless fibres thatcombine to one result--the desire of private persons to get rich quickat all costs, to make their gains out of others' losses, to takeadvantage of each other, to triumph in success regardless of others'failures. And these unworthy motives and inhuman characteristics againspring obviously out of the mean and materialistic ideals of life whichstill have sway among us--the ideals of wealth and luxury anddisplay--of which the horrors of war are the sure and certain obverse. As long as we foster these things in our private life, so long will theylead in our public life to the embitterment of nation against nation. What is the ruling principle of the interior and domestic conduct ofeach nation to-day--even within its own borders--but an indecentscramble of class against class, of individual against individual? Torise to noisy power and influence, and to ill-bred wealth and riches, bytrampling others down and profiting by their poverty is--as Ruskin longago told us--the real and prevailing motive of our peoples, whatevertheir professions of Christianity may be. Small wonder, then, if out ofsuch interior conditions there rise to dominance in the great worldthose very classes who exhibit the same vulgarities in their mostperfect form, and that _their_ conflict with each other, as betweennation and nation, exhibit to us, in the magnified and hideous form ofwar, the same sore which is all the time corrupting our internaleconomy. The brutality, and atrocity of modern war is but the reflectionof the brutality and inhumanity of our commercial regime and ideals. Theslaughter of the battlefields may be more obvious, but it is lessdeliberate, and it is doubtful whether it be really worse, than thedaily and yearly slaughter of the railways, the mines, and theworkshops. That being so, it is no good protesting against, and beingshocked at, an evil which is our very own creation; and to cry outagainst war-lords is useless, when it is _our_ desires and ambitionswhich set the war-lords in motion. Let all those who indulge andluxuriate in ill-gotten wealth to-day (and, indeed, their name isLegion), as well as all those who meanly and idly groan because theirwealth is taken from them, think long and deeply on these things. Truthand simplicity of life are not mere fads; they are something more thanabstractions and private affairs, something more than social ornaments. They are vital matters which lie at the root of national well-being. They are things which in their adoption or in their denial search rightthrough the tissue of public life. To live straightforwardly by yourown labour is to be at peace with the world. To live on the labour ofothers is not only to render your life false at home, but it is toencroach on those around you, to invite resistance and hostility; andwhen such a principle of life is favoured by a whole people, that peoplewill not only be in a state of internal strife, but will assuredly raiseup external enemies on its borders who will seek its destruction. The working masses and the peasants, whose lives are in the great wholehonest--who support themselves (and a good many others besides) by theirown labour--_have no quarrel_; and they are the folk who to-day--notwithstanding lies and slanders galore, and much of race-prejudiceand ignorance--stretch hands of amity and peace to each other wellnighall over the world. It is of the modern moneyed classes that we may saythat their life-principle (that of taking advantage of others and livingon their labour) is essentially false[21]; and these are the classeswhich are distinctively the cause of enmities in the modern world, andwhich, as I have explained above, are able to make use of the militaryclass in order to carry out their designs. It can only be with theending of the commercial and military classes, as classes, that peacecan come to the world. China, founded on the anti-commercial principlesof Confucius, disbanded her armies a thousand years ago, and only quitelately--under the frantic menace of Western civilization--felt compelledto reorganize them. She was a thousand years before her time. It canonly be with the emergence of a new structure of society, based on theprinciple of solidarity and mutual aid among the individuals of anation, and so extending to solidarity and mutual aid among nations, that peace can come to the Western world. It is the best hope of thepresent war that, like some frightful illness, it marks the working outof deep-seated evils and their expulsion from the social organism; andthat with its ending the old false civilization, built on private gain, will perish, crushed by its own destructive forces; and in its place thenew, the real culture, will arise, founded on the essential unity ofmankind. FOOTNOTES: [18] Reprinted by permission from the _English Review_ for January, 1915. [19] Lord Bryce in the _Daily Chronicle_, October, 1914. [20] In a letter to the _Times_, September 18, 1914. [21] There is no reason in itself why Commercialism should be false. Commerce and interchange of goods is of course a perfectly natural andhealthy function of social life. Indeed, it is a function which shouldhave a most beneficent influence in binding nations together. It is whenthat function is perverted to private gain that it becomes false. But ofcourse without this perversion there would be no distinctivelycommercial _class_ with interests opposed to those of the community. VII PATRIOTISM AND INTERNATIONALISM Many Socialists and sympathizers with the Labour movement over the worldbelittle Patriotism, and seem to think that by decrying and discouragingthe love of one's country one will bring nearer the day ofInternationalism. I do not agree. Of course we all know there is a lot of sham and falsePatriotism--such as, for instance, Pressmongers magnify and make use ofin order to sell their papers, or such as comfortable, well-to-do folkwith big dividends do so heartily encourage among the poorer classes, who can thus be persuaded to fight for them; we know, indeed, that thereis a good deal of very mean and unworthy Patriotism--the flag-wavingvariety, for instance, which we saw in the Boer war--exultant over asmall nation of farmers defending their homes, and whipped updeliberately by a commercial gang for their own purposes; or thenarrow-minded, lying, canting variety which blinds a people to its ownfaults, and credits itself with all the moral virtues, while at the sametime it gloats over every defamation of the enemy. There is a good dealof that variety in the present war. And it is easy to understand thatmany people, sick of that sort of Patriotism, would go straight for aready-made denial of all frontiers and boundaries. Still, allowing to the full all that can be said in the above direction, one must admit also that there is such a thing as a true Patriotism, andI do not see why--however socialist or cosmopolitan we may be--we shouldnot recognize what is an obvious fact. There is a love of one's owncountry--a genuine attachment to and preference for it--"in spite of alltemptations to belong to other nations"--which after all is verynatural, and on the whole a sound and healthy thing. There may be somepeople whose minds are so lofty that to them all peoples and races arealike and without preference; but one knows that the vast multitudes ofour mortal earth are not made like that. "If a man love not his brotherwhom he hath seen, how shall he love God whom he hath not seen?" It iscertainly easier and more natural to make an effort and a sacrifice forthe sake of your own countrymen whom you know so well and with whom youare linked by a thousand ties than for the sake of foreigners who arelittle more than a name--however worthy you may honestly believe thelatter to be. It is more obvious and instinctive for a man to work forhis own family than to give his services to his municipality or hiscounty council. Charity begins at home, and the wider spirit of humanlove and helpfulness which passes beyond the narrow bounds of the familyhearth has perhaps to find an intermediate sphere before it can unfolditself and expand in the great field of Humanity among all colours andraces. Personally, I am probably more International by temperament thanPatriotic. I feel a strange kinship and intimacy with all sorts of queerand outlandish races--Chinese, Egyptian, Mexican, or Polynesian--andalways a slight but persistent sense of estrangement andmisapprehension among my own people. Flag-waving certainly, does notstir me. Still, I feel that, whatever one's country may be, the love ofit has value and is not to be scoffed at. The Nation is bigger than theParish; and to a man of limited outlook it is a means of getting him outof his own very narrow and local circle of life; to rob him of that inorder to jump him into a cosmopolitan attitude (which to him may bequite empty and arid) is a mistake. It is easy enough to break the shellfor the growing chick, but if you break it too soon your chick, whenhatched, will be dead. If you look at the great majority of those who are enthusing just nowabout our country and patriotically detesting the Germans, you will seethat notwithstanding lies and slanders and cant galore, and much ofconceit and vanity, their patriotism _is_ pulling them together from oneend of Britain to another, causing them to help each other in a thousandways, urging them to make sacrifices for the common good, helping themto grow the sinews and limbs of the body politic, and even the wingswhich will one day transport that body into a bigger world. Really, Ithink we ought to be very grateful to the Germans for doing all this forus; and the Germans ought to be grateful to us for an exactly similarreason. You will see plainly enough that the great majority of those whoare at this moment giving their thoughts and lives for their countrymenand neighbours either in Germany or in England could not by any mannerof possibility be expected to act with similar self-surrender andenthusiasm in an International cause. They are not grown to that pointof development yet, and it is better that they should learn helpfulnessand brotherhood within somewhat narrow bounds than perhaps not learnthese things at all in the open and indiscriminate field of universalequality. After all, to stimulate love and friendship there is nothinglike a common enemy! It is an old story and an old difficulty. There comes a time when everyinstitution of social life becomes rotten and diseased and has to beremoved to make way for the new life which is expanding behind it. Broadly speaking, we may say that the institution of Patriotism is_approaching_ this period--at any rate over Western Europe. The outlinesof an International life are becoming clearly visible behind it. What we have to do is to help on that international life and spirit toour best, and certainly clear out a lot of sham patriotism that standsin its way; but this has to be done with discrimination and a certaintact. People must be made to see that "my country, right or wrong, " isnot the genuine article. They must be made to understand how easily thissort of slapdash sentiment throws them into the hands of schemingpoliticians and wire-pullers for sinister purposes--how readily it canbe made use of directly it has become a mere unreasoning instinct andhabit. If a war is wanted, or conscription, or a customs tariff--it maybe merely to suit the coward fears of autocratic rulers, or the selfishinterests of some group of contractors or concession-hunters--all thatthe parties concerned have to do is to play the patriotic stop, and theystand a good chance of getting what they want. Just now there is a goodbit of fleecing going on in this fashion--both of the public and thewage-workers. Even in its more healthy forms, when delayed in too long, patriotism easily becomes morbid and delays also the birth of the largerspirit which is waiting behind it. The Continental Socialists complainthat their cause has hitherto made little progress in Alsace-Lorraineand Poland for the simple reason that political circumstances haveover-accentuated the patriotic devotion in both these regions. Thus we have to push on with discrimination. Always we have to rememberthat the wide, free sense of equality and kinship which lies at the rootof Internationalism is the real goal, and that the other thing is but astep on the way, albeit a necessary step. Always we have to press ontowards that great and final liberation--the realization of our commonhumanity, the recognition of the same great soul of man slumbering underall forms in the heart of all races--the one guarantee and assurance ofthe advent of World-peace. That we are verging rapidly towards some altered perspective I quitebelieve; and the day is coming when in the social and political spheresInternational activity will make excessive patriotism seem somewhatridiculous--as, in fact, it has already done in the spheres of Scienceand Industry and Art. Still, I also do not see any reason why the twotendencies should not work side by side. The health of local organs andmembers in the human body is by no means incompatible with the health ofthe whole organism, and we may understand the great map of Humanity allthe better for its being differently coloured in different parts. VIII THE PSYCHOLOGY OF, WAR AND RECRUITING _November_, 1914. I sometimes think the country-folk round about where I live the mostsensible people I know. They say with regard to the War--or said at itsoutset: "What are they fighting about? _I_ can't make out, and nobodyseems to know. What I've seen o' the Germans they're a decent enoughfolk--much like ourselves. If there's got to be fightin', why don't themas makes the quarrel go and fight wi' each other? But killing all themfolk that's got no quarrel, and burnin' their houses and farms, andtramplin' down all that good corn--and all them brave men dead what cannever live again--its scandalous, I say. " This at the outset. But afterwards, when the papers had duly explainedthat the Germans were mere barbarians and savages, bent on reducing thewhole world to military slavery, they began to take sides and feel therewas good cause for fighting. Meanwhile almost exactly the same thing washappening in Germany, where England was being represented as a greedyand deceitful Power, trying to boss and crush all the other nations. Thus each nation did what was perhaps, from its own point of view, themost sensible thing to do--persuaded itself that it was fighting in ajust and heroic cause, that it was a St. George against the Dragon, aDavid out to slay Goliath. The attitude of the peasant, however, or agriculturist, all over theworld, is the same. He does not deal in romantic talk about St. Georgeand the Dragon. He sees too clearly the downright facts of life. He hasno interest in fighting, and he does not want to fight. Being the onehonest man in the community--the one man who creates, not only his ownfood but the food of others besides, and who knows the value of hiswork, he perceives without illusion the foolery of War, the hideouswaste of it, the shocking toll of agony and loss which it inflicts--andif left to himself would as a rule have no hand in it. It is onlyoccasionally--when ground down beyond endurance by the rent-rackingclasses above him, or threatened beyond endurance by an enemy fromabroad, that he turns his reaping-hook into a sword and his muck-forkinto a three-pronged bayonet, exchanges his fowling-piece for a rifle, and fights savagely for his home and his bit of a field. England, curiously enough, is almost the only country in the world wherethe peasant or ordinary field-worker _has_ no field of his own[22]; andI find that in the villages and among the general agriculturalpopulation there is even now but little enthusiasm for the presentwar--though the raid on our coasts at Scarborough and other placescertainly did something to stimulate it. Partly this is, as I have said, because the agricultural worker knows that his work is foundational, andthat nothing else is of importance compared with it. [At this moment, for instance, there are peasants in Belgium and Northern Franceploughing and sowing, and so forth, actually close to the trenches andbetween the fighting lines. ] Partly it is because in England, alas! thecountryman _has_ so little right or direct interest in the soil. Onewonders sometimes why he _should_ feel any enthusiasm. Why should menwant to fight for their land when they have no land to fight for--whenthe most they can do is to die at the foot of a trespass-board, singing, "Britons never, never shall be slaves!" If the War is ever finished, surely one of the first things to beinsisted on afterwards, with regard to England, must be the settlementof the actual people (not the parasites) on the land. Else how, afterall that they have gone through, can it be expected that they will everagain "fight for their country"? But that this vast landless populationin the villages and country districts--hungering as it is for some suretenure and interest in the soil--should actually, as now, be berated andscolded by superior persons of the "upper" classes, and threatened withconscription if it does not "come forward" more readily, is a spectaclesufficient to gratify the most hardened cynic. Certainly it is remarkable that such numbers of the great working massesof this country (including villagers) should come forward in connexionwith the war, and join the standard and the ranks of fighting men--asthey do--and it is a thing for which one must honour them. But in thatmatter there are not a few considerations to be kept in mind. In the first place a large number are not really very enthusiastic, butsimply join because pressure to do so is put upon them by their"masters. " The press-gangs of old exist no longer, but substitutes forthem revive in subtler form. Many large landlords, for instance, havegiven notice to a percentage of their gamekeepers, gardeners, parkemployees, and the like, to the effect that their services are nolonger required, but that if they enlist in the ranks now they will bereinstated in their masters' service again when the war is over ("ifstill alive" is, we presume, understood). Large numbers of manufacturingand other firms have notified their workmen and clerks in similar terms. This means pretty serious economic pressure. A man in the prime of life, suddenly ousted from his job, and with no prospect either of finding asimilar job elsewhere or of learning any new one, is in a pretty fix. His only certain refuge lies in the fact that he can be taught to use arifle in a few weeks; and in a few weeks perhaps it becomes clear to himthat to accept that offer and the pay that goes with it--poor as itis--is his only chance. There are others, again--perhaps a very large number--who do not caremuch about the war in itself, and probably have only the vaguest notionof what it is all about, but for them to join the ranks means adventure, comradeship, the open air--all fascinating things; and they hail theprospect with joy as an escape from intolerable dullness--from themonotony of the desk and the stuffy office, from the dreary round andmechanical routine of the factory bench, from the depressing environmentof "home" and domestic squalor. I must confess--though I have no general prejudice in favour ofwar--that I have been much struck, since the outbreak of the presentone, by the altered look of crowds of young men whom I personallyknow--who are now drilling or otherwise preparing for it. The gay lookon their faces, the blood in their cheeks, the upright carriage andquick, elate step--when compared with the hang-dog, sallow, dullcreatures I knew before--all testify to the working of some magicinfluence. As I say, I do not think that this influence in most cases has much todo with enthusiasm for the "cause" or any mere lust of "battle" (happilyindeed for the most part they do not for a moment realize what modernbattle means). It is simply escape from the hateful conditions ofpresent-day commercialism and its hideous wage-slavery into somethinglike the normal life of young manhood--a life in the open under the widesky, blood-stirring enterprise, risk if you will, co-operation and_camaraderie_. These are the inviting, beckoning things, the thingswhich swing the balance down--even though hardships, low pay, and highchances of injury and death are thrown in the opposite scale. Nevertheless, and despite these other considerations, there doescertainly remain, in this as in other wars, a fair number of men amongthose who enlist who are _bonâ fide_ inspired by some Ideal which theyfeel to be worth fighting for. It may be Patriotism or love of theircountry; it may be "to put down militarism"; it may be Religion orHonour or what not. And it is fine that it should be so. They may incases be deluded, or mistaken about facts; the ideal they fight for maybe childish (as in the mediaeval Crusades); still, even so it is finethat people should be willing to give their lives for an idea--that theyshould be capable of being inspired by a vision. Humanity has at leastadvanced as far as that. I suppose patriotism, or love of country--when it comes to its fullrealization, as in the case of invasion by an enemy, is the mostpowerful and tremendous of such ideals, sweeping everything before it. It represents something ingrained in the blood. In that case all theother motives for fighting--economic or what not--disappear and areswallowed up. Material life and social conditions under a Germangovernment might externally be as comfortable and prosperous as underour own, but for most of us something in the soul would wither andsicken at the thought. Anyhow, whatever the motives may be which urge _individuals_ intowar--whether sheer necessity or patriotism, or the prospect of wages ordistinction, or the love of adventure--a nation or a people in order tofight _must_ have a "cause" to fight for, something which its publicopinion, its leaders, and its Press can appropriate--some phrase whichit can inscribe on its shield: be it "Country" or "God" or "Freedom fromTyranny, " or "Culture _versus_ Barbarism. " It must have some such cry, else obviously it could not fight with any whole-heartedness or anyforce. The thing is a psychological necessity. Every one, when he gets into aquarrel, justifies himself and accuses the other party. He puts his ownconduct in an ideal light, and the conduct of his opponent in thereverse! Doubtless if we were all angels and could impartially enterinto all the origins of the quarrel, we should not fight, because to"understand" would be to "forgive"; but as we have not reached thatstage, and as we cannot even explain why we are quarrelling--the matterbeing so complex--we are fain to adopt a phrase and fight on thestrength of that. It is useless to call this hypocrisy. It is apsychological necessity. It is the same necessity which makes a mistressdismiss her maid on the score of a broken teapot, though really she hasno end of secret grievances against her; or which makes the man ofscience condense the endless complexity of certain physical phenomenainto a neat but lying formula which he calls a _Law of Nature_. He couldnot possibly give all the real facts, and so he uses a phrase. In war, therefore, each nation adopts a motto as its reason forfighting. Sometimes the two opposing nations both adopt the same motto IEngland and Germany both inscribe on their banners: "Culture _versus_Barbarism. " Each believes in its own good faith, and each accuses theother of hypocrisy. In a sense this is all right, and could not be better. It does not somuch matter which is really the most cultured nation, England orGermany, as that each should really _believe_ that it is fighting in thecause of Culture. Then, so fighting for what it knows to be a goodcause, the wounds and death endured and the national losses anddepletion are not such sad and dreadful things as they at first appear. They liberate the soul of the individual; they liberate the soul of thenation. They are sacrifices made for an ideal; and (provided they aretruly such) the God within is well-pleased and comes one step nearer tohis incarnation. Whatever inner thing you make sacrifices for, the samewill in time appear visibly in your life--blessing or cursing you. Therefore, beware I and take good care as to what that inner thingreally is. Such is the meaning of the use of a phrase or "battle-cry"; but we have, indeed, to be on our guard against _how_ we use it. It can so easilybecome a piece of cant or hypocrisy. It can so easily be engineered byruling cliques and classes for their own purposes--to persuade andcompel the people to fight _their_ battles. The politicians get us (forreasons which they do not explain) into a nice little entanglement--perhaps with some tribe of savages, perhaps with a greatEuropean Power; and before the nation knows where it is it finds itselfcommitted to a campaign which may develop and become a serious war. Thenthere is no alternative but for Ministers to repair to a certain Cabinetwhere the well-dried formulae they need are kept hanging, and select onefor their use. It may be "Women and Children, " or it may be "ImmoralSavages, " or it may be "Empire, " or it may be "Our Word of Honour. "Having selected the right one, and duly displayed and advertised it, they have little difficulty in making the nation rise to the bait, andfight whatever battles they desire. Since the early beginnings of the human race we can perceive the sameprocesses in operation. We can almost guess the grade of advancementreached among primitive tribes by simply taking note of their _totems_. These were emblems of the things which held the mind of the tribe, asadmirable or terrible, with which it was proud to identify itself--thefox, for instance, or the bear, the kangaroo, or the eagle. To be worthyof _such ideals_ men fought. Later, every little people, every knightly, family, every group of adventurers, adopted a device for its shield, amotto for its flag, a figure of some kind, human, or more often animal. Even the modern nations have not got much farther; and we can judge of_their_ stage of advancement by the beasts of prey they, flaunt on theirbanners or the deep-throat curses which resound in their nationalanthems. But surely the time has now come--even with this world-war--when thegreat heart of the peoples will wake up to the savagery and the follyperpetrated in their names. The people, who, although they enjoy a"scrap" now and then, are essentially peaceful, essentially friendly, all the world over; who in the intervals of slaughter offer cigarettesto their foes, and tenderly dress their enemies' wounds; whose worst andage-long sin it is that they allow themselves so easily to be dominatedand led by, ambitious and greedy schemers--surely it is time that theyshould wake up and throw off these sham governments--these governmentsthat are three-quarters class-scheming and fraud and only one-quartergenuine expressions of public spirit--and declare the heart ofsolidarity that is within them. The leaders and high priests of the world have used the name ofChristianity to bless their own nefarious works with, till the soul issick at the very sound of the word; but surely the time has come whenthe peoples themselves out of their own heart will proclaim the adventof the Son of Man--conscious of it, indeed, as a great light ofbrotherhood shining within them, even amid the clouds of race-enmity andignorance, and will deny once for all the gospel of world-empire andconquest which has so long been foisted on them for insidiously selfishends. An empire based on brotherhood--a holy _human_ empire of the World, including all races and colours in a common unity and equality--yes! Butthese shoddy empires based on militarism and commercialism, and built upin order to secure the unclean ascendancy of two outworn and effeteclasses over the rest of mankind--a thousand times no! Thatdispensation, thank Heaven! is past. "These fatuous empires with theirparade of power and their absolute lack of any real policy--this BritishLion, this Russian Bear, these German, French, and AmericanEagles--these birds and beasts of prey--with their barbaric notions ofGreed and War, their impossible armaments, and their swift financialruin impending--will fall and be rent asunder. The hollow masks of themwill perish. And the sooner the better. But underneath surely there willbe rejoicing, for it will be found that so after all the real peoples ofthe earth have come one degree nearer together--yes, one degree nearertogether. " FOOTNOTES: [22] In Servia, for instance, which many folk doubtless regard as abenighted country, more than four-fifths of the people are peasantfarmers and cultivate lands belonging to their own families. "Theseholdings cannot be sold or mortgaged entire; the law forbids thealienation for debt of a peasant's cottage, his garden or courtyard, hisplough, the last few acres of his land, and the cattle necessary forworking his farm. " [Encycl. Brit. ] In 1910 there were altogether _fivehundred_ agricultural co-operative societies in Servia. IX CONSCRIPTION _December_, 1914. While protesting, as I have already done, against forced militaryservice, it must still be admitted that the argument in favour of itretains a certain validity: to the extent, namely, that every one owes aduty of some kind to his own people, that it is mean to accept all theadvantages of citizenship--security, protection, settled conditions oflife, and so forth--and still to refuse to make sacrifice for one'scountry in a time of distress or danger. It is difficult of course forany one to trace all the threads and fibres which have worked themselvesinto his life from his own homeland--as it is difficult for a child totrace all the qualities of blood that it owes to its mother; but therethey are, and though some of these native inheritances and conditionsmay not really be to a man's liking, yet he can hardly refuse toacknowledge them, or to confess the debt of gratitude that he owes tothe land of his birth. Granting all this, however, most fully, there still remains a longstretch from this admission to that of forced military service. Thedrawbacks to this latter are many. In the first place compulsion anyhowis bad. A voluntary citizen army may be all right; but to _compel_ a manto fight, whether he will or not--in violation, perhaps, of hisconscience, of his instinct, of his temperament--is an inexcusableoutrage on his rights as a human being. In the second place it is grossfolly; for a man who fights devoid of freewill and against hisconscience, against his temperament, cannot possibly make a goodfighter. An army of such recusants, however large, would be useless; andeven a few mixed with the others do, as a matter of fact, greatly lowerthe efficiency of the whole force associated with them. In the thirdplace compulsion means compulsion by a Government, and Government, atany rate to-day, means class-rule. Forced military service means serviceunder and subjection to a Class. That means Wars carried on abroad toserve the interests, often iniquitous enough, of the Few; and militaryoperations entered into at home to suppress popular discontent or toconfirm class-power. To none of these things could any high-minded manof democratic temper consent. There are other drawbacks, but these willdo to begin with. On the other hand, if we reject enforced militarism are we to throwoverboard the idea of "national service" altogether? I think not. The way out is fairly clear and obvious. Let it beunderstood that there _is_ such a thing as national or public service, to which (within the limits of individual conscience and capacity) everyone is bound to respond. Let it be understood that at a certain age, sayfrom sixteen to eighteen (but the period would no doubt be a movableone) every one, boy or girl, rich or poor, shall go through a course oftraining fitting him or her for healthy and effective citizenship. Thiswould include _first of all_ bodily exercises and drill (needed byalmost all, but especially in the present day by town workers), allsorts of scouting-work, familiarity with Nature, camp and outdoor life;then all kinds of elementary and necessary trades, like agriculture insome form or other, metal-work, wood-work, cloth-work, tailoring, bootmaking; then such things as rifle-shooting, ambulance-work, nursing, cookery, and so on. Let it be understood that _every one_, male orfemale, rich or poor, learned or ignorant, is expected to qualify--notin the whole programme, but first of all and as far as humanly possiblein the primary condition of physical health and development, and thenafter that in some one, at any rate, of the above-mentioned or similartrades--so that in case of general need or distress he can do_something_ of use. That would at least be an approach to a valuable andreasonable institution. As things are it is appalling to think of the abject futility and_uselessness_ of vast classes in all the modern nations of to-day, --butperhaps especially in our own nation. Think of the populations of ourdrawing-rooms, of our well-to-do clubs, of our universities, of ourcommercial and professional offices, whose occupations, whatever theyare, are entirely remote from the direct needs and meanings of life; oragain of the vast masses who inhabit the mean streets of our greattowns, ignorant, ill-grown, unskilled, and in a chronic state of mostprecarious and uncertain employment. What would these populations do inany case of national crisis--say in a case of serious war or famine orhuge bankruptcy of trade or multitudinous invasion by Chinese orJapanese, or of total collapse of credit and industry? With a fewbrilliant exceptions they would collapse too. They could not feedthemselves, clothe themselves, or defend themselves; they could notbuild shelters from the storm, or make tools or weapons of any kind fortheir own use; they would be unable to nurse each other in illness orcook for each other in health. A tribe of Arabs or a commando of Boerfarmers would be far more competent than they. But the said deficiency, which would be painfully illustrated by aserious crisis, is there equally in ordinary humdrum times of peace. Thecrippled and idiotic life which would bring disaster _then_ isundermining our very existence _now_. Is it not time that a sensiblenation should look to it that every one of its members, when adult, should at least be healthy, well-fed, and well-grown, and that eachshould not only be decently developed in himself or herself, but shouldbe capable of bearing a useful part of some kind in the life of thenation? Is it not time that the nation should place _first of all_ onits programme the creation of capable and healthy citizens? Can a nationbe really effective, really strong, really secure, without this? I donot seem to doubt a large _willingness_ among our people to-day formutual service and helpfulness--I believe a vast number of our youngwomen of the well-to-do type are at this moment deeply regretting theirinability to do anything except knit superfluous mufflers--but was thereever in the history of the world such huge, such wide-flooding_incompetence_? The willingness of the well-to-do classes may be judgedfrom their readiness to come forward with subscriptions, theirincompetence from the fact that they have _nothing else to offer_: thatis, that all they can offer is to set _some one else_ (by means of theirmoney) to do useful work in their place. They cannot themselves nursewounded soldiers, or make boots for them, or build huts or weaveblankets; they cannot help in housing or building schemes, or in schemesfor the reclaiming and cultivation of waste lands; they cannot grow cornor bake bread or cook simple meals for the assistance of the indigent orthe aged or the feeble, because they understand none of these things;but they can _pay some one else_ to do them--that is, they can divertsome of the money, which they have already taken from the workers, tosetting the latter toiling again! But what use would that be on the daywhen our monetary system broke down--as it nearly did at thecommencement of this war? What use would it be on some critical day whena hostile invasion called every competent man and woman to do the workof defence absolutely necessary at the moment? What use would it be inthe hour when complete commercial dislocation caused downright famine?Who would look at offers of money then? Could the nation Carry this vastmass of incompetents and idlers on its back then; and can it reasonablybe expected to do so now? A terrible and serious crisis, as I have already said, awaits us--evenwhen the War is over--a crisis probably worse than that which we arepassing through now. We have to remember the debts that are being piledup. If the nations are staggering along now under the enormous load ofidlers and parasites living on interest, how will it be then? Unless wecan reorganize our Western societies on a real foundation of actuallife, of practical capacity, of honest and square living, and of mutualhelp instead of mutual robbery, they will infallibly collapse, or passinto strange and alien hands. Now is the critical moment when with theenormous powers of production which we wield it may be possible to makea new start, and base the social life of the future on a generousrecognition of the fellowship of all. How many times have thecivilizations of the past, ignoring this salvation, gone down into thegulf! Can we find a better hope for our civilization to-day? It is clear, I think, that any nation that wants to stand the shock ofevents in the future, and to hold its own in the vast flux of racial andpolitical changes which is coming on the world, will have to found itslife, not on theories and views, or on the shifting sands of literatureand fashion, but on the solid rock of the real _material_ capability ofits citizens, and on their willingness, their readiness to help eachother--their ingrained instinct of mutual service. A conscript army, forced upon us by a government and becoming inevitably a tool for theuse of a governing class, we do not want and we will not have; but anation of capable men and women, who know what life is and are preparedto meet it at all points--who will in many cases make a free gift oftheir capital and land for such purposes as I have just outlined--we_must_ have. Personally I would not even here--though the need is acrying one--advocate downright compulsion; but I would make these thingsa part of the recognized system of education, with appropriateregulations and the strongest recommendations and inducements to everyindividual to fall in and co-operate with them. Thus in time an urgentpublic opinion might be formed which would brand as disgraceful theconduct of any person who refused to qualify himself for usefulservice, or who, when qualified, deliberately refused to respond to thecall for such service, if needed. Under such conditions the question ofmilitary defence would solve itself. Thousands and thousands of menwould of their own free choice at an early age and during a certainperiod qualify themselves in military matters; other thousands, men andwomen, would qualify in nursing or ambulance work; other millions, again, would be prepared to aid in transport work, or in the productionof food, clothing, shelter, and the thousand and one necessaries oflife. No one would be called upon to do work which he had not chosen, noone would be forced to take up an activity which was hateful to him, yetall would feel that what they could do and did do would be helpful tothe other ranks and ranges, and would be _solidaire_ with the rest ofthe nation. Such a nation would be sane and prosperous in time of peace, and absolutely safe and impregnable in the hour of danger. X HOW SHALL THE PLAGUE BE STAYED? _Christmas_, 1914. People ask what new arrangements of diplomacy or revivals ofChristianity--what alliances, _ententes_, leagues of peace, Haguetribunals, regulation of armaments, weeks of prayer, or tons ofChristmas puddings sent into the enemies' camps--will finally scotchthis pestilence of war. And there is no answer, because the answer istoo close at hand for us to see it. Nothing but the general abandonment of the system of living on thelabour of others will avail. _There is no other way_. This, whether asbetween individuals or as between nations, is--and has been since thebeginning of the world--the root-cause of war. Early and primitive warswere for this--to raid crops and cattle, to carry off slaves on whosetoil the conquerors could subsist; and the latest wars are the same. Toacquire rubber concessions, gold-mines, diamond-mines, where colouredlabour may be exploited to its bitterest extreme; to secure colonies andoutlying lands, where giant capitalist enterprises (with either white orcoloured labour) may make huge dividends out of the raising of mineralsand other industrial products; to crush any other Power which stands inthe way of these greedy and inhuman ambitions--such are the objects ofwars to-day. And we do not see the cause of the sore because it is sonear to us, because it is in our blood. The whole private life of thecommercial and capitalist classes (who stand as the representatives ofthe nations to-day) is founded on the same principle. As individuals ourone object is to find some worker or group of workers whose labour valuewe can appropriate. Look at the endless columns of stock and sharequotations in the daily papers, and consider the armies of those whoscan these lists over their breakfast-tables with the one view offinding some-where an industrial concern whose slave-driven toilerswill yield the shareholder 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 12 per cent, on his capital. Undisguised and shameless parasitism is the order, or disorder, of ourdays. The rapacity of beasts of prey is in our social life but thinlyveiled--thinly veiled indeed by a wash of "Christian" sentiment and by anetwork of philanthropic institutions for the supposed benefit of thevery victims whom we have robbed. Is it any wonder that this principle of internecine warfare and rapacitywhich rules in our midst, this vulgar greed, which loads people's bodieswith jewels and furs and their tables with costly food, regardless ofthose from whom these comforts are snatched, should eventuate ultimatelyin rapacity and violence on the vast stage of the drama of nations, andin red letters of war and conflict written across the continents? It isno good, with a pious snuffle, to say we are out to put down warfare andmilitarism, and all the time to encourage in our own lives, and in ourChurch and Empire Leagues and other institutions, the most sordid andselfish commercialism--which itself is in essence a warfare, only awarfare of a far meaner and more cowardly kind than that which issignalized by the shock of troops or the rage of rifles and cannon. No, there is no other way; and only by the general abandonment of ourpresent commercial and capitalist system will the plague of war bestayed. [23] FOOTNOTES: [23] When these hundreds and hundreds of thousands of men return homeafter the war is over, do we expect them to go meekly back to theidiotic slavery of dingy offices and dirty workshops? If we do I trustthat we shall be disappointed. These men who have fought so nobly fortheir land, and who have tasted, even under the most trying conditions, something of the largeness and gladness of a free open-air life, will, Ihope, refuse to knuckle down again to the old commercialism. Now at lastarises the opportunity for our outworn Civilization to make a freshstart. Now comes the chance to establish great self-supporting Coloniesin our own countrysides and co-operative concerns where real Goods maybe manufactured and Agriculture carried on in free and glad and healthyindustry. XI COMMERCIAL PROSPERITY THE PROSPERITY OF A CLASS The economics of the statement that "commercial prosperity means littlemore than the prosperity of a _class_"[24] may be roughly indicated bythe following considerations: International trade means division oflabour among the nations. There is certainly a gain in such division, amargin of advantage in production; and that gain, that margin, issecured by the trading class. That is all. Let us take an example, and to simplify the problem let us leave out ofaccount those exotic products--like tea or rubber or raw cotton--which_can_ only be produced in one of the exchanging countries. Let us takethe case of Germany and England, both producing cutlery and bothproducing cloth. There is no reason why each country should not produce_both_ articles exclusively for its own use; and as a matter of fact fora long time they did so. But presently it was found that the cost ofproduction of certain kinds of cutlery was less in Germany, and the costof production of certain kinds of cloth less in England. Merchants anddealers came in and effected the exchange, and so an intertrade hassprung up. The effect of this on the workers in England is simply totransfer a certain amount of employment from the cutlery trade to thecloth trade, and on the workers in Germany to transfer an equal amountfrom the cloth trade to the cutlery trade. This may mean dislocation ofindustry; but the actual number of persons employed or of wages receivedin both countries may in such a case remain just the same as before. There is nothing in the mere fact of exchange to alter those figures. There is, however, a gain, there is a marginal advantage, in theexchange; and that is collared by the merchants and dealers. It is, infact, _in order to secure this margin_ that the merchant class arises. This is, of course, a very simple and elementary statement of theproblem, and the exceptions to it or modifications of it may be suppliedby the reader. But in the main it embodies the very obvious truth thattrade is created for the advantage of the trader (who often also inmodern times is the manufacturer himself). What advantages may here andthere leak through to the public or to the employee are small and, so tospeak, accidental. The mere fact of exchange in itself forms no index ofgeneral prosperity. Yet it is often assumed that it does. If, forinstance, it should happen that the whole production of cutlery, asbetween Germany and England, were secured by Germany, and the wholeproduction of cloth were secured by England, so that the _whole_ ofthese products on each side had to be exchanged, then doubtless therewould be great jubilation--talk of the immense growth of oversea tradein both countries, the wonderful increase of exports and imports, thegreat prosperity, and so forth; but really and obviously it would onlymean the jubilation and the prosperity of the merchants, the brokers, the railway and shipping companies of both lands. There would be anincrease in _their_ riches (and an increase in the number of theiremployees). It would mean more merchant palaces in Park Lane, biggerdividends on the shares of transport companies; but after that thegeneral position of the manual workers in both trades, the numbersemployed, and their rates of wages would be much as before. Prices also, as regards the general Public, would be but little altered. It is onlybecause this great trading, manufacturing, and commercial class hasamassed such enormous wealth and influence, and is able to command thePress, and social position, and votes and representation on publicbodies and in both Houses of Parliament, that it succeeds in impressingthe nation generally with the idea that _its_ welfare is the welfare ofthe whole people, and its prosperity the advantage of every citizen. Andit is in this very fact that its great moral and social danger to thecommunity lies. It must not be thought (but I believe I have said this before) that inmaking out that the commercial classes are largely to blame for modernwars I mean to say that the present war, and many previous ones, havebeen _directly_ instigated by commercial folk. It is rather that theatmosphere of commercial competition and rivalry automatically leads upto military rivalries and collisions, which often at the last moment(though not always) turn out contrary to the wishes of the commercialpeople themselves. Also I would repeat that it is not _Commerce_ but the_class_ interest that is to blame. Commerce and exchange, as we know ina thousand ways, have the effect of drawing peoples together, givingthem common interests, acquaintance, and understanding of each other, and so making for peace. The great jubilation during the latter half ofthe nineteenth century--from 1851 onwards--over world-wide trade andIndustrial Exhibitions, as the heralds of the world's peace and amity--ajubilation voiced in Tennyson's earlier _Locksley Hall_--was to acertain extent justified. There is no doubt that the nations have beendrawn together by intertrading and learned to know each other. Bonds, commercial and personal, have grown up between them, and are growingup, which must inevitably make wars more difficult in the future andless desirable. And if it had been possible to carry on this intertradein a spirit of real friendliness and without grasping or greed theresult to-day would be incalculably great. But, unfortunately, thislatter element came in to an extent quite unforeseen and blighted theprophetic hopes. The second _Locksley Hall_ was a wail ofdisillusionment. The growth of large mercantile classes, intoxicatedwith wealth and pursuing their own interests _apart from, and indeedlargely in opposition to_, those of the mass-peoples, derailed theforward movement, and led in some of the ways which I have indicatedabove to more of conflict between the nations and less of peace. Doubtless the growth of these mercantile classes has to a certain extentbeen inevitable; and we must do them the justice to acknowledge thattheir enterprise and ingenuity (even set in action for their own privateadvantage) have been of considerable benefit to the world, and thattheir growth may represent a necessary stage in affairs. Still, wecannot help looking forward to a time when, this stage having beencompleted, and commerce between nation and nation having ceased to behandled for mere private profit and advantage, the parasitical power inour midst which preys upon the Commonweal will disappear, the mercantileclasses will become organic with the Community, and one great andsinister source of wars will also cease. FOOTNOTES: [24] See p. 50 above. XII COLONIES AND SEAPORTS There is another point of economics on which there seems to be someconfusion of mind. If mere extension of Trade is the thing sought for, it really does not matter much, in these days of swift and internationaltransport, whether the outlying lands with which the Trader deals or theports _through_ which he deals are the property of his own nation or ofsome other nation. The trade goes on all the same. England certainly hascolonies all over the world; but with her free trade and open ports itoften happens that one of her colonies takes more German or French goodsof a certain class than English goods of the same class; or that itexports more to Germany and France than it does to England. The bulk, for instance, of the produce of our West African colonies goes, innormal times, to Germany. German or French trade does not suffer indealing with English colonies, though English trade may sometimes sufferin dealing with French, German or other foreign colonies on account ofthe preferential duties they put on in favour of their own goods. Exceptfor these tariff-walls and bounty systems (which after all, on accountof their disturbing and crippling effect, seem to be gradually going outof fashion) trade flows over the world, regardless of national barriers, and will continue so to flow. It is all a question of relativeefficiency and price. German goods, owing to their cheapness and theiraccuracy of construction, have of late years been penetratingeverywhere; and to the German trader, as a pure matter of trade, itmakes no difference whether he sells to a foreign nation or a Germancolony. It is the same with seaports. Holland is delighted to provide passagefor Germany's exports and imports, and probably does so at a minimumcost. The Berlin manufacturer or merchant would be no better off, as faras trade conditions are concerned, if Germany instead of Holland heldthe mouths of the Rhine. The same with a harbour like Salonika. Germanyor Austria may covet dreadfully its possession; and for strategic orpolitical reasons they may be right, but for pure trade purposesSalonika in the hands of the Greeks would probably (except for certaininitial expenses in the enlargement of dock accommodation) serve them aswell as in their own hands. Of course there _are_ other reasons which make nations desire coloniesand ports. Such things may be useful for offensive or defensive purposesagainst other nations; they feed a jealous sense of importance andImperialism; they provide outlets for population and access to landswhere the institutions and customs of the Homeland prevail; they supplyfinanciers with a field for the investment of capital under theprotection of their own Governments; they favour the development of anational _carrying_ trade; and, above all, they supply plentifulofficial and other posts and situations for the young men of the middleand commercial classes; but for the mere extension and development ofthe nation's general trade and commerce it is doubtful whether they haveanything like the importance commonly credited to them. XIII WAR AND THE SEX IMPULSE _January_, 1915. It seems that War, like all greatest things--like Passion, Politics, Religion, and so forth--is impossible to reckon up. It belongs toanother plane of existence than our ordinary workaday life, and breaksinto the latter as violently and unreasonably, as a volcano into thecool pastures where cows and sheep are grazing. No arguments, protests, proofs, or explanations are of any avail; and those that are advancedare confused, contradictory, and unconvincing. Just as people quarrelmost violently over Politics and Religion, because, in fact, those arethe two subjects which no one really understands, so they quarrel inWarfare, not really knowing _why_, but impelled by deep, inscrutableforces. Spectators even and neutrals, for the same reason, take sidesand range themselves bitterly, if only in argument, against each other. But Logic and Morals are of no use on these occasions. They are toothin. They are only threads in a vast fabric. You extract a singlethread from the weaving of a carpet, and note its colour and itsconcatenations, but that gives you no faintest idea of the pattern ofthe carpet; and then you extract another, and another, but you are nonearer the design. Logic and morals are similar threads in the great webof life. You may follow them in various directions, but withouteffective result. Life is so much greater than either; and War is avolcanic manifestation of Life which gives them little or no heed. There is a madness of nations, as well as of individual people. Everyone who has paid attention to the fluctuations of popular sentimentknows how strange, how unaccountable, these are. They seem to suggestthe coming to the surface, from time to time, of hiddenwaves--groundswells of some deep ocean. The temper, the temperament, thecharacter, the policy of a whole nation will change, and it isdifficult to see why. Sometimes a passion, a fury, a veritable mania, quite unlike its ordinary self, will seize it. There is a madness ofpeoples, which causes them for a while to hate each other with bitterhatred, to fight furiously and wound and injure each other; and then lo!a little while more and they are shaking hands and embracing andswearing eternal friendship! What does it all mean? It is all as mad and unreasonable as Love is--and that is saying a gooddeal! In love, too, people desire to _hurt_ each other; they do nothesitate to wound one another--wounding hearts, wounding bodies even, and hating themselves even while they act so. What does it all mean? Arethey trying the one to reach the other _at all costs_--if not byembraces, at least by injuries--each longing to make his or herpersonality felt, to _impress_ himself or herself upon the other in suchwise as never again to be forgotten. Sometimes a man will stab the girlhe loves, if he cannot get at her any other way. Sex itself is apositive battle. Lust connects itself only too frequently with violenceand the spilling of blood. Is it possible that something the same happens with whole nations andpeoples--an actual lust and passion of conflict, a mad intercourse andravishment, a kind of generation in each other, and exchange oflife-essences, leaving the two peoples thereafter never more the same, but each strangely fertilized towards the future? Is it this thatexplains the extraordinary ecstasy which men experience on thebattlefield, even amid all the horrors--an ecstasy so great that itcalls them again and again to return? "Have you noticed, " says one ofour War correspondents, [25] "how many of our colonels fall? Do you knowwhy? It is for five minutes of _life_. It is for the joy of riding, whenthe charge sounds, at the crest of a wave of men. " Is it this that explains the curious fact that Wars--notwithstanding alltheir bitterness and brutishness--do not infrequently lead to strangeamalgamations and generations? The spreading of the seeds of Greekculture over the then known world by Alexander's conquests, or thefertilizing of Europe with the germs of republican and revolutionaryideas by the armies of Napoleon, or the immense reaction on themediaeval Christian nations caused by the Crusades, are commonplaces ofhistory; and who--to come to quite modern times--could have foreseenthat the Boer War would end in the present positive alliance between theDutch and English in South Africa, or that the Russo-Japanese conflictwould so profoundly modify the ideas and outlook of the two peoplesconcerned? In making these remarks I do not for a moment say that the gainsresulting from War are worth the suffering caused by it, or that thegains are _not_ worth the suffering. The whole subject is too vast andobscure for one to venture to dogmatize on it. I only say that if we areto find any order and law (as we must inevitably _try_ to do) in theseconvulsions of peoples, these tempests of human history, it is probablyin the direction that I have indicated. Of course we need not leave out of sight the ordinary theory andexplanation, that wars are simply a part of the general struggle forexistence--culminating explosions of hatred and mutual destructionbetween peoples who are competing with each other for the means ofsubsistence. That there is something in this view one can hardly deny;and it is one which I have already touched upon. Still, I cannot helpthinking that there is something even deeper--something that connectsWar with the amatory instinct; and that this probably is to be found inthe direction of a physiological impact and fusion between the two (ormore) peoples concerned, which fertilizes and regenerates them, and isperhaps as necessary in the life of Nations as the fusion of cells is inthe life of Protozoa, or the phenomena of sex in the evolution of Man. And while the Nations fight, the little mortals who represent them haveonly the faintest idea of what is really going on, of what the warfaremeans. They _feel_ the sweep of immense passions; ecstasies and horrorsconvulse and dislocate their minds; but they do not, cannot, understand. And the dear creatures in the trenches and the firing-lines give theirlives--equally beautiful, equally justified, on both sides: fascinated, rapt, beyond and beside themselves, as foes hating each other with adeadly hatred; seized with hideous, furious, nerve-racking passions;performing heroic, magnificent deeds, suffering untold, indescribablewounds and pains, and lying finally side by side (as not unfrequentlyhappens) on the deserted battlefield, reconciled and redeemed andclasping hands of amity even in death. FOOTNOTES: [25] H. M. Tomlinson, in the _Daily News_. XIV THE OVER-POPULATION SCARE Some cheerful and rather innocent people insist that because of theover-population difficulty wars must go on for ever. The population ofthe world, they say--or at any rate of the civilized countries--isconstantly increasing, and if war did not from time to time reduce thenumbers there would soon be a deadlock. They seem to think that the onlyway to solve the problem is for the men to murder each other. This saysnothing about the women, who, after all, are the chief instruments ofmultiplication. It may also be pointed out that even the barbaric methodof slaughter is not practicable. Although wars of extermination may havenow and then occurred in the past among tribes and small peoples, suchwars are not considered decent nowadays; and the numbers killed inmodern campaigns--horribly "scientific" and "efficient" as the methodsare--is such a small fraction of the population concerned as to have noappreciable result. The population of Germany is about seventy millions, and I suppose the wildest anti-Teuton could hardly hope that _more_ thana million Germans will be actually killed in the present conflict--lessthan 1-1/2 per cent. --a fraction which would probably soon becompensated by the increased uxoriousness of the returning troops. No, War is no solution for the over-population question. If thatquestion is a difficulty, other means must be employed. We asktherefore: (1) Is it a serious difficulty? (2) If so, what is theremedy? That over-population is in certain localities a serious difficulty fewwould deny. China, with her four hundred millions, is probablyover-populated; that is, with her present resources in production thepopulation presses against the margin of subsistence and can only justmaintain itself. There is evidence to show that in the past the nativesof some of the Pacific islands, isolated in the great ocean and unableto migrate to other lands, have suffered from the same trouble. Britainis often said to be over-populated; but here quite other considerationscome in. Though it might be pleasant for many reasons to have more landat our immediate command, we cannot fairly say that our populationpresses against the margin of subsistence, for the simple reason thatwith our immense powers of industrial production and the enormous wealthhere yearly obtained the total, if evenly distributed (anything like aswell, for instance, as in China), would yield to every man, woman, andchild in the United Kingdom an ample affluence. [26] The _appearance_here of over-population arises from the fact that while the wage-earnersactually produce this mass of wealth, two-thirds of it are taken by theemployers and employing classes. Great portions, therefore, of theactual producers or producing classes _are_ on the margin ofsubsistence, while the rest of the wealth of the country is absorbed bythose trading and dividend-consuming classes of whom I have spoken morethan once in previous pages. There is over-population certainly, but itis an over-population (as any one may see who walks through the West Endof London or the corresponding quarters of any of our large towns) ofidlers and futile people, who are a burden to the nation. With ourextraordinary industrial system--or want of system--it commonly happensthat the abundance of ill-paid or unemployed workers at one end of thesocial scale, by reducing the rates of wages and so increasing the ratesof dividends, actually creates a greater abundance of unemployed rich atthe other end; but neither excess points in itself to over-population--only to a diseased state of distribution. What we reallyought to aim at creating is a nation in which every one wascapable of doing useful or beautiful work of some kind or other and wasgladly occupied in doing it. Such a nation would be truly healthy. Itwould be powerful and productive beyond all our present dreams. But theWestern nations of to-day, with their huge burdens of unskilled, ill-grown poor and their huge burden of incompetent, feeble rich--it isa wonder that they survive. They would not survive a decade or two ifthe Chinese or the Japanese in their numbers were to come into personaland direct competition with them. If Britain is not really at present over-populated, the same is probablyeven more true of Germany. For Germany, with a larger and more fertilearea in proportion to her population, is safer than we are in the matterof self-support. But again in Germany the outcry of over-population hasarisen, and has arisen from the same cause as here--namely, the rise ofthe commercial system, the division of the nation into extremes ofpoverty and riches, and the consequent _appearance_ of excess populationin both directions. And this diseased state of the nation has led to afever of "expansion" and has been (as already said) one of the chiefcauses of the present war. As long as the modern nations are such foolsas to conduct their industrial affairs in the existing way they will notonly be full of strife, disease, and discord in themselves, but theywill inevitably quarrel with their neighbours. All this, however, does not prove that a genuine over-populationdifficulty may not occur even now in localities, and possibly in somefar future time over the whole earth. And it may be just as well toconsider these possibilities. Dismissing War and Disease as solutions--as belonging to barbarous andignorant ages of human evolution--there remain, perhaps, three rationalmethods of dealing with the question: (1) the organization andimprovement of industrial production on existing lands so far as toallow the support of a larger population; (2) the transport of excesspopulations to new and undeveloped lands (colonization); (3) thelimitation of families. The first method hardly needs discussion here. Its importance is tooobvious. It needs, however, more public discussion in England than ithas hitherto received. The second method--operating at present only in avery casual and unsystematic way--ought, one would say, to be verysystematically considered and dealt with by the modern States. For anation to plant out large bodies of colonists on comparativelyunoccupied lands, as in Africa or Australia or Canada, in a deliberateand organized fashion, with every facility towards co-operation andsuccess, and yet on the principle of leaving, each colonial unit plentyof freedom and autonomy, would not be a very difficult task, nor a veryexpensive one, considering the end in view. And in such a case therewould really be no adequate reason for jealousy between States havingcolonies in the neighbourhood of each other. If Germany (or any othercountry) wishes to have a colony in East Africa or West Africa, it isreally ridiculous to go to war about such a matter. Any peacefularrangement would be less expensive; and, as a matter of fact, aflourishing German (or other) colony in the neighbourhood of a Britishsettlement would help to bring prosperity to the latter. The twocolonies would benefit each other. It is only _unreasoning jealousy_which prevents people understanding this. Finally, there is the third method, of the intentional limitation offamilies. Surely the time has come when blind and unlimited propagationamong civilized and self-respecting peoples must come to an end. Theold text "Blessed is he that hath his quiver full of them" has ceased tohave any use or application. Eugenic and healthy conditions ofchild-rearing and nurture demand small families. The well-to-do andeducated do already limit their families; and for the poorer classes tobreed and propagate indefinitely is only to play into the hands of thedividend-hunting rich by increasing the supply of cheap labour, while atthe same time the general standard of the population becomes more andmore degraded. It is indeed a curious question why, in the Press andamong the official classes, every effort to spread abroad the knowledgeof how in a healthy, humane, and eugenic way to limit the size of thefamily is discountenanced. Sometimes one thinks that this is done partlyin order to encourage that said pullulation of workers which is sofavourable to, the keeping down of wages; but, of course, ancientreasons of ignorance and religious bias weigh also. In the United Statesthe persecutions of Comstockery are worse than here. The aborigines of Australia are so ignorant that they do not even knowthat conception arises from the meeting of the male and female elements. They think that certain bushes and trees are haunted by the spirits ofbabies, which leap unawares into the bodies of passing women. It can beimagined what evils and delusions spring from such a theory. We do notwant to return to such a period; and yet it would seem that many folk donot want to go forward from our present condition, with all _its_ evilsand delusions, to something better and more intelligent. If the nations haven't the sense to be able (if they wish) to limittheir families--short of resorting to such methods as War, Cannibalism, the spread of Disease, the exposure of Infants, and the like--one canonly conclude that they must go on fighting and preying upon each other(industrially and militarily) till they gain the sense. Mere unbridledand irrational lust may have led to wars of extermination in the past. Love and the sacrament of a true and intimate union may come some daywith the era of peace. FOOTNOTES: [26] Militating also against the idea of over-population is the factthat so much of our agricultural land is obviously uncared for andneglected. XV THE FRIENDLY AND THE FIGHTING INSTINCTS _January_, 1915. Fighting is certainly a deeply ingrained instinct in the human race--themasculine portion. In the long history of human development it hasundoubtedly played an important part. It has even (such is thecussedness and contrariety of Nature) helped greatly in the evolution oflove and social solidarity. There is no greater bond in early stagesbetween the members of a group or tribe than the consciousness that theyhave a common enemy. [27] It is also obviously still a great _pleasure_to a very large proportion of our male populations--as, indeed, the factof its being the fulfilment of a deep instinct would lead us to expect. It does not follow, however, from these remarks that we expect war inits crudest form to continue for ever. There will come a term to thisphase of evolution. Probably the impact and collision betweennations--if required for their impregnation and fecundity--will comeabout in some other way. If fighting is an ingrained instinct, the sociable or friendly instinctis equally ingrained. We may, indeed, suppose it roots deeper. In themidst of warfare maddest foes will turn and embrace each other. In thetale of _Cuchulain of Muirthemne_[28] he (Cuchulain) and Ferdiad foughtfor three days on end, yet at the close of each day kissed each otheraffectionately; and in the present war there are hundreds of storiesalready in circulation of acts of grace and tenderness between enemies, as well as the quaintest quips and jokes and demonstrations ofsociability between men in opposing trenches who "ought" to have beenslaying each other. In the Russo-Japanese War during the winter, whenmilitary movement was not easy, and the enemy lines in some cases werevery near each other, the men, Russians and Japanese, played gamestogether as a convenient and pleasant way of passing the time, and notunfrequently took to snowballing each other. A friend of mine, who was in that war, told me the following story. TheJapanese troops were attacking one of the forts near Port Arthur withtheir usual desperate valour. They cut _zig-zag_ trenches up thehillside, and finally stormed and took a Russian trench close under theguns of the fort. The Russians fled, leaving their dead and woundedbehind. After the _mêlée_, when night fell, five Japanese foundthemselves in that particular trench with seven Russians--all prettybadly wounded--with many others of course dead. The riflemen in the fortwere in such a nervous state, that at the slightest movement in thetrench they fired, regardless of whom they might hit. The whole partyremained quiet during the night and most of the next day. They weresuffering from wounds, and without food or water, but they dared notmove; they managed, however, to converse with each other alittle--especially through the Japanese lieutenant, who knew a littleRussian. On the second night the fever for water became severe. One ofthe less wounded Russians volunteered to go and fetch some. He raisedhimself from the ground, stood up in the darkness, but was discernedfrom the fort, and shot. A second Russian did the same and was shot. AJapanese did likewise. Then the rest lay, quiet again. Finally, thedarkness having increased and the thirst and the wounds beingintolerable, the Japanese lieutenant, who had been wounded in the legsand could not move about, said that if one of the remaining Russianswould take him on his back he would guide the whole party into a placeof safety in the Japanese lines. So they did. The Russian soldiercrawled on his belly with the Japanese officer lying on his back, andthe others followed, keeping close to the ground. They reached theJapanese quarters, and were immediately, looked after and cared for. Afew days afterwards the five Russians came on board the transport onwhich my friend was engineer. They were being taken as prisoners toJapan; but the Japanese crew could not do enough for them in the way oftea and cigarettes and dressing their wounds, and they made quite ajolly party all together on deck. The Japanese officer was also onboard, and he told my friend the story. Gallantry towards the enemy has figured largely in the history ofWar--sometimes as an individual impulse, sometimes as a recognizedinstruction. European records afford us plenty of examples. The Chinese, always great sticklers for politeness, used to insist in early timesthat a warrior should not take advantage of his enemy when the latterhad emptied his quiver, but wait for him to pick up his arrows beforegoing on with the fight. And in one tale of old Japan, when one Daimiowas besieging another, the besieged party, having run short ofammunition, requested a truce in order to fetch some more--which thebesiegers courteously granted! The British officer who the other day picked up a wounded German soldierand carried him across into the German lines, acted in quite the samespirit. He saw that the man had been left accidentally when the Germanswere clearing away their wounded; and quite simply he walked forwardwith the object of restoring him. But it cost him his life; for theGermans, not at first perceiving his intention, fired and hit him in twoor three places. Nevertheless he lifted the man and succeeded in bearinghim to the German trench. The firing of course ceased, and the Germancolonel saluted and thanked the officer, and pinned a ribbon to hiscoat. He returned to the British lines, but died shortly after of thewounds received. "Ils sont superbes, ces braves!" said a French soldier in hospital toMrs. Haden Guest, indicating the German wounded also there. And a dyingGerman whispered to her: "I would never have fought against the Frenchand English had I known how kind they were. I was told that I was onlygoing on manoeuvres!"[29] The French are generous in the recognition of bravery. A small companyrushed a Prussian battery in the neighbourhood of the Aisne and put allthe gunners out of action, except one who fought gamely to the last andwould not give in till he was fairly surrounded and made prisoner. "_Tuest chic, tu--tu est bien chic_" shouted the _pioupious_ with oneaccord, and shook him cordially by the hand as they led him away. Howpreposterous do such stories as these make warfare appear!--and others, such as the two opposing forces tacitly agreeing to fetch water at theevening hour from an intervening stream without molestation on eitherside; or the two parties using an old mill as a post-office, by means ofwhich letters could pass between France and Germany in defiance of alldecent war-regulations! How they illustrate the absolutely instinctiveand necessary tendency of the natural man (notwithstanding occasionalbouts of fury) to aid his fellow and fall into some sort ofunderstanding with him! Finally the fraternizations last Christmasbetween the opposing lines in Northern France almost threatened at onetime to dissolve all the proprieties of official warfare. If they hadspread a little farther and lasted a little longer, who knows what mighthave happened? High politics might have been utterly confounded, andthe elaborate schemes of statesmen on both sides entirely frustrated. Headquarters had, through the officers, to interfere and all suchdemonstrations of amity to be for the future forbidden. Could anythingmore clearly show the beating of the great heart of Man beneath thethickly overlying husks of class and class-government? When, oh! whenindeed, will the real human creature emerge from its age-long chrysalis? FOOTNOTES: [27] And even the hundred and one humane Associations of to-day derive agreat part of their enthusiasm and vitality from fighting each other! [28] Put into English by Lady Gregory. (John Murray, 6s. Net. ) [29] From _T. P. 's Weekly_, November 7, 1914. XVI NEVER AGAIN! Like a great cry these words to-day rise from the lips of thenations--"Never Again!" Never before certainly have such enormous massesof human beings been locked in deadly grip with each other over theearth, and never before, equally certainly, has their warfare been sohorrible in its deliberate preparation, so hideous, so ghastly in itsafter-effects, as to-day. The nations stand round paralysed with disgustand despair, almost unable to articulate; and when they do find voice itis with the words above written. How are we to give effect to the cry? Must we not call upon the Workersof all countries--those who are the least responsible for the inceptionof wars, and yet who suffer most by them, who bear the brunt of thewounds, the slaughter, the disease, and the misery which are a necessarypart of them--to rise up and forbid them for ever from the earth? Let usdo so! For though few may follow and join with us to-day, yet to-morrowand every day in the future, and every year, as the mass-peoples comeinto their own, and to the knowledge of what they are and what theydesire to be, those numbers will increase, till the cry itself is nolonger a mere cry but an accomplished fact. It is a hopeful sign that not only among bewildered onlookers andoutsiders but among the soldiers themselves (of the more civilizedcountries) this cry is being taken up. Who, indeed, should know betterthan they what they are talking about? The same words are on the lips atthis moment of thousands and thousands of French and English and Germansoldiers, [30] and in no faint-hearted or evasive sense, but with theconviction and indignation of experience. We may hope they will not beforgotten this time when the war is over. The truth is that not only was this particular war "bound to come, " but(among the civilized peoples) the refusal of war is also bound to come. Two great developments are leading to this result. On the one hand, thesoldiers themselves, the fighters, are as a class becoming infinitelymore sensitive, more intelligent, more capable of humane feeling, lessstupidly "patriotic" and prejudiced against their enemies than were thesoldiers of a century ago--say, of the time of Wellington; on the otherhand, the horrors, the hideousness, the folly, and the waste of war areinfinitely greater. It is inevitable that these two contradictorymovements, mounting up on opposite sides, must at last clash. The risingconscience of Humanity must in the end say to the War-fiend, "Get theebehind me, Satan!" Never before have there passed over the fields ofEurope armies so intelligent, so trained, so observant, so sensitive asthose to-day of Belgium, France, England, and Germany. Some day or otherthey will return to their homes; but when they do it will be with atale that will give to the Western world an understanding of what warmeans, such as it never had before. All the same, if the word _is_ to be "Never Again!" it must come throughthe masses themselves (from whom the fighters are mainly drawn); it mustbe through them that this consummation must be realized. It must bethrough the banding together and determined and combined effort of theUnions, local, national, and international, and through the weight ofthe workers' influence in all their associations and in all countries. To put much reliance in this matter upon the "classes" is rash; forthough just now the latter are sentimentalizing freely over thesubject--having got into nearer touch with it than ever before--yet whenall is settled down, and the day arrives once more that _their_interests point to war, it is only too likely that they (or the majorityof them) will not hesitate to sacrifice the masses--unless, indeed, thepower to do so has already departed from them. And it is no good for _us_ to sentimentalize on the subject. We must notblink facts. And the fact is that "it's a long way" to _Never Again_. The _causes_ of War must be destroyed first; and, as I have more thanonce tried to make clear, the causes ramify through our midst; they arelike the roots, pervading the body politic, of some fell disease whoseoutbreak on the surface shocks and affrights us. To dislodge andextirpate these roots is a long business. But there is this consolationabout it--that it is a business which we can all of us begin at once, inour own lives! Probably wars will still for many a century continue, though lessfrequent we hope. And if the people themselves _want_ to fight, and mustfight, who is to say them Nay? In such case we need not be overmuchtroubled. There are many things worse than fighting; and there are manywounds and injuries which people inflict on each other worse than bodilywounds and injuries--only they are not so plain to see. But I certainlywould say--as indeed the peasant says in every land--"Let those whobegin the quarrel do the fighting"; and let those who have to do thefighting and bear the brunt of it (including the women) decide whetherthere _shall_ be fighting or not. To leave the dread arbitrament of Warin the hands of private groups and cliques who, for their own ends andinterests, are willing to see the widespread slaughter of theirfellow-countrymen and the ruin of innumerable homes is hateful beyondwords. FOOTNOTES: [30] See "A War-Note for Democrats, " by H. M. Tomlinson _(EnglishReview_, December, 1914). "This war was bound to come, and we've got tofinish it proper. No more of this bloody rot for the kids, an' chanceit. " XVII THE TREE OF LIFE _February_, 1915. Finally, and looking back on all we have said, and especially on theChristmas scenes and celebrations between the trenches in this war andthe many similar fraternizations of the rank and file of opposing armiesin former wars, one realizes the monstrosity and absurdity of thepresent conflict--its anachronism and out-of-dateness in the existingage of human thought and feeling. The whole European situation resemblesa game of marbles played by schoolboys. It is not much more dignifiedthan that. Each boy tries on the quiet to appropriate some of themarbles out of another boy's bag. From time to time, in consequence, furious scrimmages arise--generally between two boys--the otherslooking' on and laughing, knowing well that they themselves are guiltyof the same tricks. Presently, in the fortunes of the game, one boy--alittle more blundering or a little less disguised than the others--layshimself open to the accusations of the whole crew. They all fall uponhim, and give him a good drubbing; and even some of them say they arepunishing him _for his good_! When shall we make an end, once for all, of this murderous nonsense? However our Tommy Atkinses have been worked up to fighting point byfears for the safety of old England, or by indignation at atrocitiesactually observed or distantly reported; however the German soldiershave been affected by similar fears and indignations, or the French thesame; however the political coil has been engineered (as engineered insuch cases it always is), and whatever inducements of pay or patriotismhave been put in operation and sentiments circulated by the Press--onething remains perfectly certain: that left to themselves these men wouldnever have quarrelled, never have attacked each other. One thing isperfectly certain: that such a war as the present is the result of theactivity of governing cliques and classes in the various nations, acting through what are called "Diplomatic" channels, for the most partin secret and unbeknown to their respective mass-peoples, and formotives best known to themselves. One would not venture to say that _all_ wars are so engineered, forthere certainly are occasionally wars which are the spontaneousexpression of two nations' natural hostility and hatred; but these arerare, very rare, and the war in which we are concerned at present iscertainly not one of them. Also one would not venture to say that thoughin the present affair the actuating motives have been of class origin, and have been worked through secret channels, the motives so put inaction have all been base and mean. That would be going too far. Some ofthe motives may have been high-minded and generous, some may have beenmean, and others may have been mean and yet _unconsciously_ so. Butcertainly when one looks at the conditions of public and political life, and the arrangements and concatenations by which influence there isexerted and secured, and sees (as one must) the pretty bad corruptionwhich pervades the various parties in all the modern States--thecommercial briberies, the lies of the Press, the poses andprevarications of Diplomats and Ministers--one cannot but realize thegreat probability that the private advantage of individuals or classeshas been (in the present case) a prevailing instigation. The fact thatin Britain two influential and honourable Cabinet Ministers resigned atonce on the declaration of war (a fact upon which the Press has beencuriously silent) cannot but "give one to think. " One cannot but realizethat the fighting men in all these nations are the pawns and counters ofa game which is being played for the benefit--or supposed benefit--ofcertain classes; that public opinion is a huge millstream which has tobe engineered; that the Press is a channel for its direction, and Moneythe secret power which commands the situation. The fact is sad, but it must be faced. And the facing of it leadsinevitably to the question, "How, then, can Healing ever come?" If (itwill be said) the origin of wars is in the diseased condition of thenations, what prospect is there of their ever ceasing? And one sees atonce that the prospect is not immediate. One sees at once that PeaceSocieties and Nobel Prizes and Hague Tribunals and reforms of theDiplomatic Service and democratic control of Foreign Secretaries andQuaker and Tolstoyan preachments--though all these things may be good intheir way--will never bring us swiftly to the realization of peace. Theroots of the Tree of Life lie deeper. We have seen it a dozen times in the foregoing pages. Only when thenations cease to be diseased in themselves will they cease fighting witheach other. And the disease of the modern nations is the disease ofdisunity--not, as I have already said, the mere existence of variety ofoccupation and habit, for that is perfectly natural and healthy, but thedisease by which one class preys upon another and upon the nation--thedisease of parasitism and selfish domination. The health of a peopleconsists in that people's real _unity_, the organic life by which eachsection contributes freely and generously to the welfare of the whole, identifies itself with that welfare, and holds it a dishonour to snatchfor itself the life which should belong to all. A nation which realized_that_ kind of life would be powerful and healthy beyond words; it wouldnot only be splendidly glad and prosperous and unassailable in itself, but it would inevitably infect all other nations with whom it haddealings with the same principle. Having the Tree of Life well rootedwithin its own garden, its leaves and fruit and all its acts andexpressions would be for the healing of the peoples around. But a nationdivided against itself by parasitic and self-exalting cliques andsections could never stand. It could never be healthy. No armaments noringenuity of science and organization could save it, and even though theform of its institutions were democratic, if the reality of Democracywere not there, its peace crusades and prizes and sentimentalConferences and Christianities would be of little avail. At this juncture, then, all over Europe, when the classes are failing usand by their underhand machinations continually embroiling one nationwith another, it is above all necessary that the mass-peoples shouldmove and insist upon the representation of their great unitary andcommunal life and interests. It is high time that they should opentheir eyes and see with clear vision what is going on over their heads, and more than high time that they should refuse to take part in theQuarrels of those who (professionally) live upon their labour. It isindeed astonishing that the awakening has been so long in coming; butsurely it cannot be greatly delayed now. Underneath all the ambitions ofcertain individuals and groups; underneath all the greed and chicaneryof others; underneath the widespread ignorance, mother of prejudice, which sunders folk of different race or colour-deep down the human heartbeats practically the same in all lands, drawing us little mortalstogether. Strangely enough--and yet not strangely--it beats strongest and clearestoften in the simplest, the least sophisticated. Those who live nearestthe truth of their own hearts are nearest to the hearts of others. Thosewho have known the realities of the world, and what Life is close to theearth--they are the same in all lands--they have at least the key to theunderstanding of each other. The old needs of life, its destinies andfatalities, its sorrows and joys, its exaltations and depressions--these are the same everywhere; and to the manual workers--the peasant, the labourer, the sailor, the mechanic--theworld-old trades, pursuits, crafts, and callings with which they are sofamiliar supply a kind of freemasonry which ensures them even amongstrangers a kindly welcome and an easy admittance. If you want to travelin foreign lands, you will find that to be skilled in one or two manualtrades is better than a high official passport. Among such people there is no natural hatred of each other. Despite allthe foam and fury of the Press over the present war, I doubt whetherthere is any really violent feeling of the working masses on either sidebetween England and Germany. There certainly is no great amount inEngland, either among the country-folk or the town artisans andmechanics; and if there be much in Germany (which is quite doubtful) itis fairly obviously due to the _animus_ which has been aroused and the_virus_ which has been propagated by political and social schemers. We have had enough of Hatred and Jealousy. For a century now commercialrivalry and competition, the perfectionment of the engines of war, andthe science of destruction have sufficiently occupied the nations--withresults only of disaster and distress and ruin to all concerned. To-daysurely another epoch opens before us--an epoch of intelligenthelpfulness and fraternity, an epoch even of the simplest common sense. We have rejoiced to tread and trample the other peoples underfoot, tomalign and traduce them, to single out and magnify their defects, toboast ourselves over them. And acting thus we have but made the moreenemies. Now surely comes an era of recognition and understanding, andwith it the glad assurance that we have friends in all the ends of theearth. We--and I speak of the European nations generally--have talked loudly ofour own glory; but have we welcomed and acclaimed the glory and beautyof the other peoples and races around us--among whom it is our privilegeto dwell? We have boasted to love each our own country, but have wecared at all for the other countries too? Verily I suspect that it isbecause we have _not_ truly loved our own countries, but have betrayedthem for private profit, that we have thought fit to hate our neighboursand ill-use them for our profit too. What a wonderful old globe this is, with its jewelled constellations ofhumanity! Alfred Russel Wallace, in his _Travels on the Amazon_ (1853, ch. Xvii), says: "I do not remember a single circumstance in my travelsso striking and so new, or that so well fulfilled all previousexpectation, as my first view of the real uncivilized inhabitants of theriver Uaupés. . . . I felt that I was as much in the midst of something newand startling, as if I had been instantaneously transported to a distantand unknown country. " He then speaks of the "quiet, good-natured, inoffensive" character of these copper-coloured natives, and of theirquickness of hand and skill, and continues: "Their figures are generallysuperb; and I have never felt so much pleasure in gazing at the fineststatue as at these living illustrations of the beauty of the humanform. " Elsewhere he says[31]: "Their whole aspect and manner weredifferent [from the semi-civilized Indians]; they walked with the freestep of the independent forest-dweller . . . Original and self-sustainingas the wild animals of the forest . . . Living their own lives in theirown way, as they had done for countless generations before America wasdiscovered. The true denizen of the Amazonian forests, like the forestitself, is unique and not to be forgotten. " Not long ago I was talking to a shrewd, vigorous old English lady whohad spent some forty years of her life among the Kafirs in South Africaand knew them intimately. She said (not knowing anything about _my_feelings): "Ah! you British think a great deal about yourselves. Youthink you are the finest race on earth; but I tell you the Kafirs arefiner. They are splendid. Whether for their physical attributes, ortheir mental, or for their qualities of soul, I sometimes think _they_are the finest people in the world. " Whether the old lady was right (andone has heard others say much the same), or whether she was carried awayby her enthusiasm, the fact remains that here is a people _capable_ ofexciting such enthusiasm, and certainly capable of exciting muchadmiration among all who know them well. Read the accounts of the Polynesian peoples at an early period--beforecommerce and the missionaries had come among them--as given in the pagesof Captain Cook, of Herman Melville, or even as adumbrated in their pastlife in the writings of R. L. Stevenson--what a picture of health andgaiety and beauty! Surely never was there a more charming and happyfolk--even if long-pig did occasionally in their feasts alternate withwild-pig. And yet how strange that the white man, with all his science and all hisso-called Christianity, has only come among these three peoplesmentioned (and how many more?) to destroy and defile them--to flog themild and innocent native of the Amazons to death for greed of hisrubber; to rob the Kafir of his free wild lands and blast his life withdrink and slavery in the diamond mines; to degrade and exterminate thePacific islanders with all the vices and diseases of "civilization"! Think of the Chinese--that extraordinary people coming down from theremotest ages of history, with their habits and institutions apparentlybut little changed--so kindly, so "all there, " so bent on making thebest of this world. "At the first sight of these ugly, cheery, vigorouspeople I loved them. Their gaiety, as of children, their friendliness, their profound humanity, struck me from the first and remained with meto the last. "[32] And the verdict of all who know the people well--inthe interior of the country of course--is the same. Think of theJapanese with their slight and simple, but exceedingly artistic andexceedingly heroic type of civilization. Or, again, of the East Indian peoples, so unfitted as a rule for makingthe best of this world, so passive, dreamy, subtle, unpractical, and yetwith their marvellous spiritual gift, their intuition (also since thedawn of history) and conviction of another plane of being than that inwhich we mostly move, and their occasional power of distinctly sensingthat plane and acting on its indications. Think of their ancientreligious philosophy--their doctrine of world-unity--absolutelyfoundational and inexpugnable, the corner-stone of all metaphysics, science, and politics, and of the latest most modern democracy; andstill realized and believed in in India as nowhere else in the world. Think of the gentle Buddhistic Burmese, the active, social Malays, thehard-featured, hard-lived Thibetans and Mongolians. Think of the Arabianand Moorish and Berber races, who, once the masters of the science andcomforts of civilization, of their own accord (but in accordance alsowith their religion) abandoned the worship of all these idols andreturned to the Biblical simplicity of four thousand years ago--havingrealized that they already possessed something better, namely, the gloryof the sky and the earth, the sun and the desert sands, and the freedomof love and adventure. How strange, and yet how natural, that sunderedonly by a narrow strip of sea they even now should look back upon allthe laborious, feverish, and overcrowded wealth of Europe and _seeingthe cost thereof_ should feel for it only contempt! For that, indeed, is actually for the most part the case--though not of course withoutexceptions among certain sections of the population. Or again, the millions and millions of Great and Little Russianpeasants. Big-framed, big-hearted, patient, friendly, with a greatnatural gift for association and co-operation, peacefully minded andprofoundly religious; yet superstitious, and capable of rising at anymoment _en masse_ to the call of a great crusade or "holy war"; it mightseem that they hold all Western Europe in the hollow of their hands. Indeed they constitute not only a hope and promise of deliverance to ourmodern world, but also a considerable danger. All depends on how wedispose ourselves towards them. Should the nations of Western Europerouse their hatred by chicanery and mean treatment the result might befatal. If their flood once began to move, no battle array of armamentswould be of any use--any more than a revolver against a rising tide--theflood would flow round and over us. But if on the other hand we couldreally reach the heart of this great people, if we could treat themreally generously and with understanding, we should create a responsethere, and a recognition, which would remove all risk to ourselves, andpossibly help to free Russia from the great burden of politicalservitude and ignorance which has so long oppressed her peasantry. Or think of the Servians--that hospitable people, good lovers and goodhaters, with their ancient, almost prehistoric, system of familycommunities surviving down to modern days, and blossoming out in aperfect genius for co-operative agriculture and Raffeisen banks! Or the Finns, the Swedes, the Norwegians, and the Danes (if I may classthese together); what a clear, clean-minded, healthy people are these, so direct in their touch on Nature and the human instincts, sodemocratic, bold, and progressive in their social organizations--what aprivilege to have them as our near neighbours and relatives! Or theGermans, in many ways resembling the last mentioned group, only richerand more varied in their culture and racial characteristics! Or theDutch, so well-based and broad-seated both in body and mind, with theirample bowels of compassion and their well-equipped brains, so full oftenderness and of sturdy commonsense, what a gift has been theirs toEurope, what a legacy of artistic treasure and of heroic record! Or theSpanish with their beautiful and dignified women, or the French withtheir fine logical and artistic sense, or the Hungarians, Greeks, andItalians! Have we nothing to do but to prepare engines of death and of slaughteragainst all these peoples? Is our main idea of relation to them one ofdomination and profit? Have we no use for them but to gain their riches, and in exchange to lose our own souls? Or shall we, like the Prussians, seek to "impose" our own standards of so-called culture on them, andtrim their infinite variety and grace to one sorry pattern? These areall in their diverse glory and beauty as leaves of the one great Treewhose branches spread over the earth. Whoever understands this, andpenetrating to the great heart beneath, recognizes the same originallife in them all, will possess the secret of salvation; whatever nationfirst casts aside the filthy rags of its own self-righteousness and thedefiling and sordid garment of mercenary gain, and accepts the othersfrankly as its brother and sister nations, all of one family--thatnation will become the Healer and Redeemer of the World. It is interesting to find that, according to the Book of Revelation, thetree of which we have been speaking grows with its roots "in the pureriver of the water of Life, which proceeds from the throne of God andthe Lamb. " What exactly the author of the book meant by this passage hasbeen much debated. It is clear that there is here a veiled allusion tothe Zodiac--that mysterious belt of constellations which runs like ariver round the whole starry heavens, and rises in the constellation ofthe Ram or He-lamb--but to debate _that_ question now would beunprofitable, even were one fully competent to do so. More to the pointis it to see that this remarkable simile has an inner sense applicableto mankind, and so far independent of any allusion to the Zodiac. ThisTree that is for the healing of the nations has its roots in the purewater of Life which flows from the great Throne. We have seen in anearly chapter where the roots of Strife between the nations are to besought for, and whence they draw their nourishment. They are to be foundin the very muddy waters of domination and selfishness and greed. Butthe roots of the Tree of Healing are in the pure waters of Life. Rightdown below all the folly and meanness which clouds men's souls flows theuniversal Life pure from its original source. The longer you live, themore clearly and certainly you will perceive it. In the eyes of the menand women around you you will perceive it, and in the eyes of thechildren--aye, and even of the animals. Unclean, no doubt, will thesurface be--muddied with meannesses and self-motives; and among thoseclasses and currents of people who chiefly delight to dwell in the midstof such things (who dwell in the floating mire of malice and envy andself-assertion and avarice and conceit and deceit and domination andother such refuse), the waters will be foul indeed; but below theseclasses, among the simple, comparatively unselfconscious types ofhumanity who everywhere represent the universal life (without, in asense, being aware of it), and again, above them, among those whosespirits have passed "in compassion and determination around the wholeearth and found only equals and lovers, " the water flows pure and free. These two groups--between them forming far the largest and mostimportant mass of human kind--are those whose influence and tendency istoward peace and amity. It is only the scurrying, avaricious, fever-stricken, and, for all their wealth, poverty-stricken classes andcliques of the civilization-period who are the sources of discord andstrife--and they only for a time. In the end it will be found that byevery river and stream and tiny brook over the whole earth grows theinvincible Tree of Life, whose roots are deep in the human heart, andwhose leaves are for the healing of the Nations. FOOTNOTES: [31] _My Life_, vol ii, p. 288. [32] G. Lowes Dickinson, _Civilizations of India, China, and Japan_, p. 43. See also Eugene Simon, _La Cité Chinoise, _ passim. * * * * * APPENDIX [The following extracts, mostly from contemporaneous sources, aregathered together in an Appendix with the object of throwingside-lights, _often from opposing points of view_, on the questionsraised in the text. ] * * * * * APPENDIX A NEW AND BETTER PEACE. "If we now destroy the German national idol, it must not be to set up anidol of our own in its place. There will be ruin enough after the war torepair, and a heavy task for all the nations in repairing it; but ifthey have learned then that peace is not a disguised war but a state ofbeing in which men and nations alike pursue their own ideas ofexcellence without rivalry, then we shall know that the irrevocable deadhave not died in vain. "--_"Times" Literary Supplement_, _September_ 17, 1914. * * * * * THE CHANGE FROM THE GERMANY OF KANT AND GOETHE AND SCHUBERT TO THEGERMANY OF TO-DAY--AND THE DELUSION OF IMPERIALISM. "What, then, has wrought this wonderful change in a people so closelyallied to ourselves, whose race is so similar that their children in thehotels of France and Italy are mistaken for British children? The humanraw material is the same, and until half a century ago gave resultswhich won our respect and admiration. What is this change of the lasthalf-century which from the same material gives results so different?There can be only one answer. The old Germany was a Germany of small, self-governing States, of small political power; the new Germany is a'great' Germany, with a new ideal and spirit which comes of victory andmilitary and political power, of the reshaping of political and socialinstitutions which the retention of conquered territory demands, itsmilitarization, regimentation, centralization, and unchallengedauthority; the cultivation of the spirit of domination, the desire tojustify and to frame a philosophy to buttress it. Some one has spoken ofthe war which made 'Germany great and Germans small. '. . . " ". . . So in our day, it is not the German national faith, the_Deutschtum_, the belief that the German national ideal is best for theGerman--it is not that belief that is a danger to Europe. It is a beliefthat that German national ideal is the best for all other people, andthat the Germans have a right to impose it by the force of their armies. It is that belief alone which can be destroyed by armies. We must showthat we do not intend to be brought under German rule, or have Germanideals imposed upon us, and having demonstrated that, the Allies mustshow that they in their turn have no intention of imposing their idealsor their rule or their dominance upon German peoples. The Allies mustshow after this war that they do not desire to be the masters of theGerman peoples or States, but their partners and associates in a Europewhich none shall dominate, but which all shall share. "--_From "Shallthis War End German Militarism?" by Norman Angell_. * * * * * GERMAN PUBLIC OPINION IN 1913 WITH REGARD TO THE IMPENDING WAR. The Report on this subject given in the French Yellow Book (Section 5)throws much light on the attitude of the various classes in Germany. Infavour of peace (it says) are "the large mass of workmen, artisans, andpeasants, who are peaceful by instinct"; a considerable number ofnon-military nobility, and of "manufacturers, merchants, and financiersof minor importance, to whom even a victorious war would bringbankruptcy"; also a vast number of those who are continually in a stateof "suppressed revolt against Prussian policy, " like the "Government andruling classes of the great southern States, Saxony, Bavaria, Wurtemburg, " and so forth. On the other hand, in favour of war are the great, mainly Prussian, warparty, consisting of the military aristocracy and nobility "who see withterror the democratization of Germany and the growing force of theSocialist party"; "others who consider war as necessary for economicreasons found in over-population and over-production, the need ofmarkets and outlets"; the great _bourgeoisie_, "which also has itsreasons of a social nature--the upper middle class being no lessaffected than the nobility by the democratization of Germany . . . And, finally, the gun and armour-plate manufacturers, the great merchants whoclamour for greater markets, and the bankers who speculate on the GoldenAge and the indemnity of war. These, too, think that war would be goodbusiness. " The whole paper is too long for extensive citation here, but is wellworth reading. * * * * * POLITICAL IGNORANCE IN GERMANY. "On Tuesday last at the Union Society Mr. Dudley Ward, late Berlincorrespondent of the _Daily Chronicle_ and other English papers, andFellow of St. John's College, dealt with 'The War from the German Pointof View. ' Mr. Ward's profound knowledge of Germany, especially since1911, and his obvious attempt to review recent events with impartiality, was a revelation to Cambridge, and a very large audience showed itsenthusiastic appreciation of his ability and his frankness. "Mr. Ward emphasized particularly the _astonishing political ignorance_of the German people as a whole, an ignorance quite unintelligible toany one unacquainted with their Press and their political institutions. Public opinion, as he said, counts for little in Germany, and theGovernment can generally guide it into any direction it may please, andthis fact is essential to the understanding of the events--diplomaticevents--which led to the declaration of war. "--_From the "CambridgeMagazine, " December 5, 1914. _ * * * * * "One of the political phenomena of America has always been theindifference of the German to active participation in politics. Effortsto persuade him to organize with any political party have neversucceeded except in isolated cases. The German-American has beenregarded as an independent politically. Until Europe's conflict raisedconcealed characteristics to the surface the German-American'sindifference to politics had not been looked upon as a seriousmatter. "--_From article by Alt. John Herbert in the London "Daily News, "December, _ 1914. * * * * * GERMANY'S PURPOSE. _According to Herr Maximilien Harden's article in "Die Zukunft, " asreproduced in the "New York Times, " December, 1914_. "Not as weak-willed blunderers have we under-taken the fearful risk ofthis war. We wanted it. Because we had to wish it and could wish it. Maythe Teuton devil throttle those whiners whose pleas for excuses make usludicrous in these hours of lofty experience. We do not stand, and shallnot place ourselves, before the Court of Europe. Our power shall createnew law in Europe. Germany strikes. If it conquers new realms for itsgenius, the priesthood of all the gods will sing songs of praise to thegood war. "We are at the beginning of a war the development and duration of whichare incalculable, and in which up to date no foe has been brought to hisknees. We wage the war in order to free enslaved peoples, and thereafterto comfort ourselves with the unselfish and useless consciousness of ourown righteousness. We wage it from the lofty point of view and with theconviction that Germany, as a result of her achievements and inproportion to them, is justified in asking, and must obtain, wider roomon earth for development and for working out the possibilities that arein her. " * * * * * ENGLAND'S PERFIDY. _From the Manifesto of Professors Haeckel and Eucken, September, 1914. _ "What is happening to-day surpasses every instance from the past; thislast example will be permanently characterized in the annals of theworld as the _indelible shame of England_. Great Britain is fighting fora Slavic, semi-Asiatic Power _against Teutonism_; she is fighting, notonly in the ranks of barbarism but also on the side of _wrong andinjustice_, for let it not be forgotten that Russia began the war, because she refused to permit adequate expiation for a miserableassassination; but the blame for extending the limits of the presentconflict to the proportions of a world-war, through which the sum ofhuman culture is threatened, rests upon England. "And the reason for all this? Because England was _envious_ of Germany'sgreatness, because she was bound to hinder further expansion of theGerman sphere at any cost! There cannot be the least doubt that Englandwas determined from the start to break in upon Germany's great conflictfor _national existence_, to cast as many stones as possible inGermany's path, and to block her every effort toward adequate expansion. England lay in wait until the favourable opportunity for inflicting alasting injury upon Germany should come, and promptly seized upon _theunavoidable German invasion of Belgian territory_ as a pretext fordraping her own brutal national egotism in a mantle of decency. "_Or is there in the whole world a person so simple as to believe thatEngland would have declared war upon France, had the latter Powerinvaded Belgium?_ In that event, England would have shed hypocriticaltears over the necessary violation of international law, whileconcealing a laughing face behind the mask. The most repulsive thing inthe whole business is this hypocritical Pharisaism; it merits onlycontempt. "History shows that such sentiments as these, far from guiding nationsupward, lead them along the downward path. But we of this present timehave fixed our faith firm as a rock upon our righteous cause, and uponthe superior power and the inflexible will for victory that abide in theGerman nation. Nevertheless the deplorable fact remains, that theboundless egotism already mentioned has for that span of the futurediscernible to us destroyed the collaboration of the two nations whichwas so full of promise for the intellectual uplift of humanity. But theother party has willed it so. Upon England alone rests the monstrousguilt and the responsibility in the eye of world-history. " "ERNST HAECKEL. "RUDOLF EUCKEN. " * * * * * FROM THE MANIFESTO OF PROFESSOR EUCKEN. "Let us hope that our German weapons will show the Englishmen that theywere entirely wrong in their reckoning; but first let us point out thewide discrepancy between their motives and ours. "With them it is self-seeking, envy, calculation; with us the convictionthat we are fighting for the holiest possessions of our people, forright and justice. " * * * * * NIETZSCHE ON DISARMAMENT. The following extract from _Nietzsche_ may be worth quoting aspresenting one aspect of his many-sided thought:-- "Perhaps a memorable day will come when a nation renowned in wars andvictories, distinguished by the highest development of military orderand intelligence, and accustomed to make the heaviest sacrifices forthese objects, will voluntarily exclaim, 'We will break our swords, ' andwill destroy its whole military system, lock, stock, and barrel. To makeourselves defenceless (after having been most strongly defended), fromloftiness of sentiment, is the means towards genuine peace. . . . Theso-called armed peace that prevails at present in all countries is asign of a bellicose disposition, that trusts neither itself nor itsneighbour, and, partly from hate partly from fear, refuses to lay downits weapons. Better to perish than to hate and fear; and twice better toperish than to make oneself hated and feared. "--_From "Human all tooHuman, " vol. Ii. (translated by P. V. Colm, 1911)_. * * * * * THE EFFECT OF DISARMAMENT. "Just as the growth of armaments increases the common danger, so apolicy of reduction would have the opposite effect, and were oneEuropean country boldly to adopt disarmament it would strengthenincalculably the forces making for peace in all countries. The armamentsof European nations are interdependent, and were such a policy pursuedby one nation it would be followed, if not by immediate disarmament inother nations, at any rate, by very considerable reductions. It is veryeasy to underrate the feeling which for some time past has been growingthroughout Europe against the colossal waste of armaments. Even inGermany, whose geographical position from a military point of view isweak, the Socialist vote, which is cast strenuously against armaments, has grown at each election until it now represents some 35 per cent, ofthe total electorate. The great weapon with which reaction has attemptedto combat Socialist growth has been an appeal against the 'unpatriotic'opposition to armaments. What effect would this appeal have in face ofdisarmament abroad? The Socialist party, with its anti-militaristprogramme, would sweep Germany and compel the Government rapidly tofollow suit. Sooner or later the internal pressure of public opinionwould force the adoption of a similar policy upon the Government ofevery civilized country in Europe. "--_From "Why Britain Should Disarm"by George Benson (National Labour Press, 1d. )_. * * * * * THE PRINCIPLE OF NATIONALITY. "Now the war has come, and when it is over let us be careful not to makethe same mistake or the same sort of mistake as Germany made when shehad France prostrate at her feet in 1870. (Cheers. ) Let us, whatever wedo, fight for and work towards great and sound principles for theEuropean system. And the first of those principles which we should keepbefore us is the principle of nationality--that is to say, not theconquest or subjugation of any great community or of any strong race ofmen, but the setting free of those races which have been subjugated andconquered; and if doubt arises about disputed areas of country we shouldtry to settle their ultimate destination in the reconstruction of Europewhich must follow from this war with a fair regard to the wishes andfeelings of the people who live in them. "--_From the speech of Mr. Churchill, September_ 11, 1914, at the London Opera House. * * * * * CONSCRIPTION. "If we, in a moment of unthinking panic, adopt the advice of ourmilitarists and develop an Army based on universal service, we shallprepare for ourselves the very situation in which Germany finds itselfat this moment. However much we may protest that our aims are pacific, and that our Army is intended only for defensive purposes, foreignnations will view it with alarm, and will reflect that, by the help ofour Navy, we can land an armed force in any country that has a seacoast. We shall thus incur the risk of a coalition against us. It issaid that if we had had a conscript Army, the present war would not havetaken place. But it is not realized that a different and far moredangerous war would have been probable, a war in which we should havehad no continental Allies, but should have been resisted, as Germany isbeing resisted, in order to relieve Europe of an intolerable terror. . . . "In a word, of all the measures open to us to adopt, none is so likelyto bring us to disaster as universal military service. "--_By Hon. Bertrand Russell (in "The Labour Leader, " October 15, 1914). _ * * * * * H. G. WELLS ON THE REGULATION OF ARMAMENTS AND NEUTRALIZATION OF THE SEA. "If there is courage and honesty enough in men, I believe it will bepossible to establish a world Council for the regulation of armaments asthe natural outcome of this war. First, the trade in armaments must beabsolutely killed. And then the next supremely important measure tosecure the peace of the world is the neutralization of the sea. "It will lie in the power of England, France, Russia, Italy, Japan, andthe United States, if Germany and Austria are shattered in this war, toforbid the further building of any more ships of war at all. "--_From the"Daily Chronicle, " August 21, 1914. _ * * * * * THE WAR AND DEMOCRACY. "It will be necessary soon to consider the relations of democracy to thewar. The war is a war of nationalities, but it was not made by peoples. Its begetter was a comparatively small band of unscrupulous, blind, andconceited persons, who were clever and persistent enough to demoralize awhole people. In so far as they permitted themselves to be demoralizedthe people were to blame, but the chief blame lies on the small band. Europe is laid waste, hundreds of thousands of men murdered, andpractically every human being in the occidental hemisphere made tosuffer, not for the amelioration of a race, but in order to satisfy theidiotic ambitions of a handful. Let not this fact be forgotten. Democracy will not forget it. And foreign policy in the future will notbe left in the hands of any autocracy, by whatever specious name theautocracy may call itself. Ruling classes have always said that masseswere incapable of understanding foreign policy. The masses understand itnow. They understand that in spite of very earnest efforts in variousCabinets, the ruling classes have failed to avert the most terribledisaster in history. The masses will say to themselves, 'At any rate wecouldn't have done worse than that. ' The masses know that if the wardecision had been openly submitted to a representative German chamber, instead of being taken in concealment and amid disgusting chicane, nowar would have occurred. It is absolutely certain that the triumph ofdemocracy, and nothing else, will end war as an institution. War will beended when the Foreign Offices are subjected to popular control. Thatpopular control is coming. "--_Arnold Bennett in the "Daily News, " October15, 1914. _ * * * * * THE FUTURE SETTLEMENT. Let us turn, then, from the past to the future and ask, first, what thegovernmental mind, left to itself, is likely to make of Europe when thewar is finished; secondly, what we, on our part, want and mean to makeof it. What the diplomatists will make of it is written large on everypage of history. Again and again they have "settled" Europe, and alwaysin such a way as to leave roots for the growth of new wars. For alwaysthey have settled it from the point of view of States, instead of fromthe point of view of human life. How one "Power" may be aggrandized andanother curtailed, how the spoils may be divided among the victors, howthe "balance" may be arranged--these kinds of considerations and thesealone have influenced their minds. The desires of peoples, theinterests of peoples, that sense of nationality which is as real a thingas the State is fictitious--to all that they have been indifferent. . . . What can be foreseen with certainty is, that if the peace is to be madeby the same men who made the war it will be so made that in anotherquarter of a century there will be another war on as gigantic ascale. . . . When this war is over Europe might be settled, then and there, if thepeoples so willed it and made their will effective, in such a way thatthere would never again be a European War. . . . First, the whole idea of aggrandizing one nation and humiliating anothermust be set aside. . . . Secondly, in rearranging the boundaries of States, one point, and one only, must be kept in mind: to give to all peoplessuffering and protesting under alien rule the right to decide whetherthey will become an autonomous unit, or will join the political systemof some other nation. . . . Let no community be coerced under British rulethat wants to be self-governing. We have had the courage, though late, to apply this principle to South Africa and Ireland. There remains ourgreatest act of courage and wisdom--to apply it to India. --_G. LowesDickinson, "The War and the Way Out, " pp. 34 et seq. _ * * * * * A WAR NOTE FOR DEMOCRATS. "The truth about the present fighting--well, it cannot be rendered inwords significant enough to shock into understanding the people who arelooking in the newspapers now for stories of heroism, 'brilliant bayonetcharges, ' and the rest of the inducements which sell stories of warfare, but tell us nothing about it. Perhaps, indeed, there are no words forit. I doubt whether the sincerest artist, finely sensitive, and with thechoicest army of words at his ready and accurate command, could assemblethe case. The mind of a witness in France is not stirred; it is stunned. One is speechless before the spectacle of men, not fighting in the waytwo angry men would fight, but coolly blasting great masses of theiropponents to pieces at long range, and out of sight of each other, tilla region with its wrecked towns and homesteads is littered with humanbowels and fragments. It is possible to value human life too highly, maybe. But what profit, physical, moral, or economic, can be got fromdraining several nations' best male generative force into the clay, Ileave it to worshippers of tribal war-gods of whatever church, and tothe military minds, to explain. But unless the democracies of Europe, after settling this business, see to securing such a settlement--whatever the governing classes desire--that this Continentalwaste can never occur again, then one would have to admit human natureis too stupid and base to be troubled over any longer. "--_H. M. Tomlinson, "English Review, " December, 1914, p. 75_. * * * * * PATRIOTISM! "It would seem, then, that love of our country can flourish only throughthe hatred of other countries, and the massacre of those who sacrificethemselves in defence of them. There is in this theory a ferociousabsurdity, a Neronian dilettantism which repels me in the very depths ofmy being. No! Love of my country does not demand that I shall hate andslay those noble and faithful souls who also love their country, butrather that I should honour them, and seek to unite myself with them forour common good. . . . "You Socialists on both sides claim to be defending liberty againsttyranny--French liberty against the Kaiser, Germany liberty against theTsar. Would you defend one despotism against another? _Unite and makewar on both_. There was no reason for war between the Western nations;French, English, and German, we are all brothers, and do not hate oneanother. The war-preaching Press is envenomed by a minority, a minorityvitally interested in maintaining these hatreds; but our peoples, Iknow, ask for peace and liberty, and that alone. "--_From RomainRolland's pamphlet "Above the Battlefield, " Cambridge, 1914_. * * * * * NO PATRIOTISM IN BUSINESS! The following leaderette is from the _Glasgow Evening Citizen_ for the15th of January:-- "In business patriotism does not enter. Insistently the pocket comesfirst. And if the British consumer of aniline dyes can obtain his rawmaterial more advantageously from the German than from the Britishproducer, he will probably be ready to do so for the greater gain ofmore economic production in his own business. " * * * * * MANIFESTO OF THE INDEPENDENT LABOUR PARTY. "We desire neither the aggrandizement of German militarism nor Russianmilitarism, but the danger is that this war will promote one or theother. Britain has placed herself behind Russia, the most reactionary, corrupt, and oppressive Power in Europe. If Russia is permitted togratify her territorial ambitions and extend her Cossack rule, civilization and democracy will be gravely imperilled. Is it for thisthat Britain has drawn the sword? "To us who are Socialists the workers of Germany and Austria, no lessthan the workers of France and Russia, are comrades and brothers; inthis hour of carnage and eclipse we have friendship and compassion toall victims of militarism. Our nationality and independence, which aredear to us, we are ready to defend, but we cannot rejoice in theorganized murder of tens of thousands of workers of other lands who goto kill and be killed at the command of rulers to whom the people are aspawns. "The People must everywhere resist such territorial aggression andnational abasement as will pave the way for fresh wars; and, throughoutEurope, the workers must press for frank and honest diplomatic policies, controlled by themselves, for the suppression of militarism and theestablishment of the United States of Europe, thereby advancing towardsthe world's peace. Unless these steps are taken Europe, after thepresent calamity, will be still more subject to the increasingdomination of militarism, and liable to be drenched with blood. " * * * * * RESPONSIBILITY RESTS ON THE WHOLE CAPITALIST CLASS. "Prussian militarism, as we have shown in previous issues, exists, asall militarism does, to further and protect trade. The furtherance ofthat trade meant territorial expansion, which in its turn was a menaceto Britain and her allies. Thus it is that this war, carefullymanoeuvred by the diplomats, is being fought to conserve to one set ofcapitalists their right to exploit the peoples, and to check another setfrom encroaching upon that right. "Germany--or rather, the capitalists of Germany, for whom the Kaiser hasalways been the "Publicity Agent"--has consistently worked toward theobjective of challenging the right of Britain to a world-wide Empire. Tothe German capitalists this war is but the realization of theirphilosophy, "Might is Right, " and, reckless of human life and suffering, a European war is to them the way to vaster fields of exploitation andgreater wealth. Their militarism was the machine, and the workers thecogs of the wheels. British capitalists, on the other hand, determinedto maintain what they hold, forgetful of how it had been obtained, werethus compelled to take up the cudgels for their own sakes; and here, asin Germany, the workers are the tools used to save their fortunes andconserve their rights. "--"_The Voice of Labour, " October_, 1914. "And it is not unlikely that the present bloody catastrophe will at lastawaken the people from their indifference. The bitter pain and fearfulsuffering will perhaps make a deeper impression than the words of therevolutionaries. It is possible that the Social Revolution will be thelast act in the present tragedy; possible that murderous militarism willbe drowned in the blood of its numberless victims; that the people ofthe different countries will unite against the bloody regime of modernCapitalism and its institutions, and finally produce a new socialculture upon the basis of free Socialism. "--"_Freedom, " September 14. _ In an American contemporary a quotation is given from an issue of_Vorwärts_ which was suppressed by the German Government. It reads:-- "The comrades abroad can be assured that the German working classdisapproves to-day of every piratical policy of State just as it hasalways disapproved and that it is determined to resist the predatorysubjugation of foreign peoples as strongly as the circumstances permit. The comrades in foreign lands can be assured that, though the Germanworkmen are also protecting their Fatherland, they will nevertheless notforget that their interests are the same as those of the proletariat inother countries, who, like themselves, have been compelled to go to waragainst their will, indeed, even against their often repeatedpronouncements in favour of peace. " * * * * * TEXT OF LIEBKNECHT'S PROTEST. The _Berner Tagwacht_ publishes the full text of Karl Liebknecht'sprotest against the vote of credit by the Reichstag on December 2nd. Theprotest was not read, the President having vetoed it under pretext thatit would entail a call to order. The protest was communicated to theGerman Press. Not one paper published it. It runs:-- "This war, desired by none of the peoples concerned, has not broken outin behalf of the welfare of the German people or any other. It is anImperialist war, a war for the capitalist domination of the world'smarkets and for the political domination of important regions for theplacing of industrial and banking capital. From the point of view ofrivalry in armaments, it is a preventive war provoked by the German andAustrian war parties together in the obscurity of semi-absolutism and ofsecret diplomacy. " After declaring that this is not a defensive war for Germany, theprotest continues:-- "A rapid peace, one which does not humiliate anybody, a peace withoutconquests, this is what we must demand. Every effort in this directionmust be favourably received. The continuous and simultaneous affirmationof this desire, in all the belligerent countries, can alone put a stopto the bloody massacre before the complete exhaustion of all the peoplesconcerned. A peace based upon the international solidarity of theworking class and on the liberty of all the peoples can alone be alasting peace. It is in this sense that the proletariats of allcountries must furnish, even in the course of this war, a Socialisteffort for peace. "But my protest is against the war, against those who are responsiblefor it, against those who direct it; it is against the capitalist policywhich gave it birth; it is directed against the capitalist objectspursued by it, against the plans of annexation, against the violation ofthe neutrality of Belgium and Luxemburg, against military dictatorship, against the total oblivion of social and political duties of which theGovernment and ruling classes are still to-day guilty. For this reason, I reject the military credits asked for. "--_From the "Daily News, "December 14, 1914. _ "KARL LIEBKNECHT. "BERLIN, _December 2_. " * * * * * DANGER OF RUSSIA. The following is the text of the resolution passed by the CentralCommittee of the Russian Social Democratic Party in reply to M. Vandervelde's appeal on behalf of the Allied cause:-- "We recognize the anti-democratic character of the Prussian hegemony, but as Russian Social Democrats we cannot forget another enemy of theworkers, and no less dangerous--Russian absolutism. In home affairs thisenemy remains what it always has been, a merciless oppressor and anunceasing exploiter. Even at the present moment, when we should havethought this despotism would be more cautious, it remains the same andcontinues the political persecution of the democracy, and of all subjectnationalities. To-day all Socialist journals are stopped, all workingclass organizations are disbanded, many hundreds of members arearrested, and our brave comrades are sent to exile just as before. Should this war end in victory for our present Government, it willbecome the centre and mainstay of international reaction. . . . Ourimmediate objective should be the convocation of a ConstitutionalAssembly. We demand this in the interests of the same European democracyon whose behalf you appeal. Our party is a very important section of theworld's democracies, and by fighting for our interests we are at thesame time fighting for the interests of all democracies, enlarging andstrengthening them. We hope that our interests are not considered asopposed to those of other European democracies which we esteem as highlyas our own. We are persuaded that Russian absolutism is the chiefsupport of reactionary militarism in Europe, and that it has bred in theGerman hegemony the dangerous enmity towards European democracy. " * * * * * LETTER ON RUSSIA FROM P. KROPOTKIN. "'But what about the danger of Russia?' my readers will probably ask. "To this question, every serious person will probably answer, that whenyou are menaced by a great, very great danger, the first thing to do isto combat this danger, and then see to the next. Belgium and a good dealof France _are_ conquered by Germany, and the whole civilization ofEurope is menaced by its iron fist. Let us cope first with this danger. "As to the next, Is there anybody who has not thought himself that thepresent war, in which all parties in Russia have risen unanimouslyagainst the common enemy, will render a return to the autocracy of oldmaterially impossible? And then, those who have seriously followed therevolutionary movement of Russia in 1905 surely know what were the ideaswhich dominated in the First and Second, approximately freely electedDumas. They surely know that complete Home Rule for all the componentparts of the Empire was a fundamental point of all the Liberal andRadical parties. More than that: Finland then actually _accomplished_her revolution in the form of a democratic autonomy, and the Dumaapproved it. "And finally, those who know Russia and her last movement certainly feelthat _autocracy will never more be re-established in the forms it hadbefore_ 1905, _and that a Russian Constitution could never take theImperialist forms and spirit which Parliamentary rule has taken inGermany_. As to us, who know Russia from the inside, we are sure thatthe Russians never will be capable of becoming the aggressive, warlikenation Germany is. Not only the whole history of the Russians shows it, but with the Federation which Russia is _bound to_ become inthe very near future, such a warlike spirit would be absolutelyincompatible. "--_Quoted in "Freedom, " also in the "Manchester Guardian, "October, 1914_. * * * * * THE FUTURE OF EUROPE. _Portion of a letter written by P. Kropotkin to Mr. R. J. Kelly, K. C. , ofDublin, December 15, 1915. _ "The same for the South Slavs and for all nationalities oppressed inEurope. When the last Balkan War had shown the inner power of the SouthSlavs, I greeted in it the disintegration of the Turkish Empire, whichwould be followed by the disintegration of the three otherEmpires--Austria, Russia, and Germany--so as to open the way for two, three, or more federations. A South Slavonic federation--the BalkanUnited State was the dream of Bakunin--would be followed by a freePoland, free Finland, Free Caucasia, free Siberia, federated for peacepurposes. Yes, dear Mr. Kelly, you are right, we are on the eve of greatevents in Europe. Warmest wishes that this should become a reality, orreceive a sound beginning of realization, during the coming new year, and my very best wishes to you of health and vigour. --Sincerely yours, "P. KROPOTKIN. " * * * * * SERVIA. "We are therefore justified in declining to accept such evidence. We arewitnessing the birththroes of a new nation, the triumph of the idea ofnational unity among the disunited Southern Slavs, and it is the duty ofBritain and France, whose Fleets are now operating on the Adriatic, toinsist upon a just and permanent solution, based upon the principle ofnationality and the wishes of the Southern Slav race. Only by treatingthe problem as an organic whole and avoiding patchwork we can hope toremove one of the chief danger centres in Europe. "--_Lecture at EssexHall, November 13, 1914, by R. W. Seton Watson_. * * * * * THE BATTLEFIELD. "Then the camps of the wounded--O heavens what scene is this?--is thisindeed _humanity_--these butchers' shambles? There are several of them. There they lie, in the largest, in an open space in the woods, from twohundred to three hundred poor fellows--the groans and screams--the odourof blood, mixed with the fresh scent of the night, the grass, thetrees--that slaughter-house! Oh, well is it their mothers, their sisterscannot see them--cannot conceive and never conceived these things. "One man is shot by a shell, both in the arm and leg--both areamputated--there lie the rejected members. Some have their legs blownoff--some bullets through the breast--some indescribably horrid woundsin the face or head, all mutilated, sickening, torn, gouged out--some inthe abdomen--some mere boys--many rebels, badly hurt--they take theirregular turns with the rest, just the same as any--the surgeons use themjust the same. Such is the camp of the wounded--such a fragment, areflection afar off of the bloody scene--while all over the clear, largemoon comes out at times softly, quietly shining. "Amid the woods, the scene of flitting souls--amid the crack and crashand yelling sounds--the impalpable perfume of the woods--and yet thepungent, stifling smoke--the radiance of the moon, looking from heavenat intervals so placid--the sky so heavenly--the clear-obscure up there, those buoyant upper oceans--a few large, placid stars beyond, comingsilently and languidly out, and then disappearing--the melancholy, draperied night above, around. And never one more desperate in any ageor land--both parties now in force--masses--no fancy battle, nosemi-play, but fierce and savage demons fighting there--courage andscorn of death is the rule, exceptions almost none. "--_From WaltWhitman_. * * * * * CHINESE CHRISTIANS ON THE WAR. "The most remarkable attitude yet taken in regard to the war by any bodyof people in the world is that of the native Christian Churches inChina. I was told a fortnight ago by a missionary just returned fromChina that the Chinese Christians are holding daily prayer meetings topray for peace. They are also praying earnestly that the Christians inEurope may be forgiven for killing each other, and, in particular, thatthe British and German churches and ministers may be forgiven for theblasphemy of praying to the Common Father for victory over one another, _i. E. _ for Divine assistance in smashing and maiming and murdering moreof their fellow Christians. I am also told that these Chinese Christiansappreciate perfectly that for the most part the people to be killed arehelpless, innocent workmen, who have had nothing to do with the cause ofall the trouble. "That action of the Chinamen is of the essence of real Christianity. Itis the real spirit. It has been expressed in Europe only by the Pope, onthe one hand, and, on the other, by the Socialists of the neutralcountries and by the I. L. P. In England. It is the echo of the angel songof the first Christmas two thousand years ago. It is the true note, theeternal note. It is the note which will bring mankind back to its senseswhen the hideous passions, the false idealisms, and the sordid greedsbehind this world tragedy are shown up for what they are. "--_By Dr. Alfred Salter in "The Labour Leader, " December_ 31, 1914. * * * * * ESSENTIAL FRIENDLINESS OF PEOPLES. "This essential friendliness, not between nations, but between people ofdifferent nations, is one of the biggest facts of civilization. And yetit has counted for so little that half the nations in Europe arefighting one another. Are the causes, then, that have set us fightingstronger still? Yes, when it is a question of national conscience. Andone must regretfully say yes, as long as it is possible for those whorule nations and desire war to carry out their will. "Is that wicked, mediaeval power--in the hands of the few, but stillstrong enough to overrule the natural tendencies of peoples towardspeace and friendship and to turn their likings into hatreds--is it goingto continue when this war is over? Who can doubt, if it were possible totake a plebiscite of all the nations who are fighting now as to whetherinternational disputes should be settled by war or arbitration, what theresult would be? Is the desire of the many to have its chance when thiswar shall be ended, or shall we submit ourselves again to be dominatedby the desire of the few?"--_From "The Daily News, " October_ 5, 1914. "At one spot where there had been a fierce hand-to-hand fight therewere indications that the combatants when wounded had shared theirwater-bottles. Near them were a Briton and a Frenchman whose cold handswere clasped in death, a touching symbol of the unity of the two nationsin this terrible conflict. "--_From "The Sheffield Telegraph, " November14, 1914. _ * * * * * RECONCILIATION IN DEATH. _Letter written by a French cavalry officer as he lay wounded and dyingin Flanders. _ "There are two other men lying near me, and I do not think there is muchhope for them either. One is an officer of a Scottish regiment, and theother a private in the Uhlans. They were struck down after me, and whenI came to myself I found them bending over me rendering first aid. "The Britisher was pouring water down my throat from his flask, whilethe German was endeavouring to staunch my wound with an antisepticpreparation served out to them by their medical corps. The Highlanderhad one of his legs shattered, and the German had several pieces ofshrapnel buried in his side. "In spite of their own sufferings they were trying to help me, and whenI was fully conscious again the German gave us a morphia injection andtook one himself. His medical corps had also provided him with theinjection and the needle, together with printed instructions for itsuse. "After the injection, feeling wonderfully at ease, we spoke of the liveswe had lived before the war. We all spoke English, and we talked of thewomen we had left at home. Both the German and the Britisher had onlybeen married a year. "I wondered, and I suppose the others did, why we had fought each otherat all. I looked at the Highlander, who was falling to sleep exhausted, and in spite of his drawn face and mud-stained uniform he looked theembodiment of freedom. Then I thought of the tricolor of France, and allthat France had done for liberty. Then I watched the German, who hadceased to speak. He had taken a prayer-book from his knapsack, and wastrying to read a service for soldiers wounded in battle. " The letter ends with a reference to the failing light and the roar ofthe guns. It was found at the dead officer's side by a Red Cross file, and was forwarded to his fiancée. --_From "The Daily Citizen, " December21, 1914. _ * * * * * CHRISTMAS, 1914. _Letters from the Front (from the Daily Press). _ "Last night (Christmas Eve) was the weirdest stunt I have ever seen. Allday the Germans had been sniping industriously, with some success, butafter sunset they started singing, and we replied with carols. Then theyshouted, 'Happy Christmas!' to us, and some of us replied in German. Itwas a topping moonlight night, and we carried on long conversations, andkept singing to each other and cheering. Later they asked us to send oneman out to the middle, between the trenches, with a cake, and they wouldgive us a bottle of wine. "Hunt went out, and five of them came out and gave him the wine, cigarettes, and cigars. After that you could hear them for a long timecalling from half-way, 'Engleeshman, kom hier. ' So one or two more ofour chaps went out and exchanged cigarettes, etc. , and they all seemeddecent fellows. " * * * * * "We had quite a sing-song last night (Christmas Eve), " says one writer. "The Germans gave a song, and then our chaps gave them one in return. AGerman that could speak English, and some others, came right up to ourtrenches, and we gave them cigarettes and papers to read, as they neverget any news, and then we let them walk back to their own trenches. Thenour chaps went over to their trenches, and they let them come back allright. About five o'clock on Christmas Eve one of them shouted acrossand told us that if we did not fire on them they would not open fire onus, and so the officers agreed. About twenty of them came up all atonce and started chatting away to our chaps like old chums, and neitherside attempted to shoot. " * * * * * "I suppose I have experienced about the most extraordinary Christmas onecould conceive. About seven o'clock on Christmas Eve the Saxons, who areentrenched about seventy yards from our trenches, began singing. Theyhad a band playing, and our chaps cheered and shouted to them. Aftersome time they stood on the top of their trenches, and we did likewise. We mutually agreed to cease fire, and all night we sang and shouted toeach other. To cap everything, their band played 'God save the King. ' "When daylight came two of our fellows, at the invitation of the enemy, left the trenches, met half-way, and drank together. That completed it. They said they would not fire if we did not; so after that we strolledabout talking to each other. " * * * * * "On Christmas morning it was very foggy, so we had a short run on thetop of the trenches to get warm. When the fog lifted we, as well as theGermans, were exposed. No firing occurred, and the Germans began to waveumbrellas and rifles, and we answered. They sang and we sang. When wemet we found they were fairly old fellows. They gave us sausages, cigars, sweets, and perkin. We mixed together, played mouth-organs, andtook part in dances. My word! the Germans can't half sing part-songs. Weexchanged addresses and souvenirs, and when the time came we shook handsand saluted each other, returning to our trenches. " * * * * * "On Christmas morning one of the Germans came out of a trench and heldup his hands. Then lots of us did the same, and we met half-way, and forthe rest of the day we fraternized, exchanging cigars, cigarettes, andsouvenirs. The Germans also gave us sausages, and we gave them some ofour food. The Scotsmen then started the bagpipes, and we had a rare oldjollification, which included football, in which the Germans took part. The Germans said they were tired of the war, and wished it was over. Next day we got an order that all communication and friendly intercoursemust cease. " * * * * * "I went up into the trenches on Christmas night. One wouldn't havethought there was a war going on. All day our soldiers and the Germanswere talking and singing half-way between the opposing trenches. Thespace was filled with English and Germans handing one another cigars. Atnight we sang carols. " * * * * * EXTRACT FROM A LETTER PUBLISHED BY THE "_Berliner Tageblatt_" OFDECEMBER 24, 1914. The author of the letter is Baron Marschall von Bieberstein, a captainof the reserves and Prussian "Landrat, " obviously a kinsman of the latediplomatist and Ambassador in London. He wrote on October 18 from thetrenches. He said:-- "Whoever fights in this war in the front ranks, whoever realizes all themisery and unspeakable wretchedness caused by a modern war . . . Willunavoidably arrive at the conviction, if he had not acquired it earlier, that mankind must find a way of overcoming war. It is untrue thateternal peace is a dream, and not even a beautiful one. A time will andmust arrive which will no longer know war, and this time will mark agigantic progress in comparison with our own. Just as human morality hasovercome the war of all against all; just as the individual had toaccustom himself to seek redress of his grievances at the hands of theState after blood feuds and duels had been banished by civil peace, soin their development will the nations discover ways and means to settlebudding conflicts not by means of wars, but in some other regulatedfashion, irrespective of what each of us individually may think. " Unfortunately, the writer of this thoughtful letter fell on thebattlefield. THE END