What Germany Thinks - Thomas F. A. Smith
It is necessary to return to Germany's proposal in regard to Belgian
neutrality. In simple language it means that Germany wanted to sell her
pledged word, given in 1839, for British neutrality in 1914. In view of
the fact that Professor Oncken looked upon this as a legitimate bargain,
one wonders in silence at his standard of morality and honour. Is he not
a scoundrel who first gives his word of honour and afterwards tries to
strike a bargain with the same? Stripped of all verbiage that is
Germany's proposal in its naked immorality, and the author chronicles
with pleasure that the House of Commons cried down even its discussion.
It recalls to his memory the fact, that the Reichstag--Germany's highest
legislative assembly--cheered to the echo Bethmann-Hollweg's
announcement that German armies, in violating the dictates of moral and
international law, by breaking Germany's word of honour, had occupied
Luxembourg and entered Belgium. The two incidents are drastic, concrete
illustrations of the gulf which separates British and German conceptions
of right and wrong.
Furthermore, there are two questions of a disciplinary nature arising
out of this incident which "the man in the street" has a perfect right
to raise. Assuming that Sir Edward Grey exercised his discretion and
concealed the "infamous proposal" from the Cabinet, which of his
colleagues afterwards betrayed the fact and from what source--German or
English--did he obtain his information?
Full knowledge on these points would probably be of great assistance in
destroying the "trail of the serpent" (_i.e._, German influence and
intrigues) in the political and national life of Great Britain.
Professor Oncken praises German disinterestedness in offering to
guarantee the integrity of French continental and colonial territories
in case Germany gained a victory in the war. Sir Edward Grey's refusal
to guarantee British neutrality in return for this promise, the
professor considers supreme and final proof that Britain was bent on
war. The nation has rightly approved of this policy and the point need
not be argued in this place; but Professor Oncken in the seclusion of
his German study would do well to weigh two problems:
If Germany had gained a victory--and in August, 1914, she was absolutely
convinced that France and Russia would succumb if they faced her
alone--then Germany would have obtained the long sought upper and "free
hand" in Europe. What earthly powers could have compelled her in that
moment to respect her promise in regard to French territories? Certainly
Germany's sense of honour could not be counted upon to do so.
The second problem refers to the bull and the china-shop. Presuming that
the bull could talk, would Professor Oncken advise the guardian of the
proverbial china-shop to accept the bull's promise to respect the
_status quo ante_ of his property, before letting him (the bull) run
amock amongst the china?
Lastly, readers are advised when studying the German "case" to remember
that Germany never offered to respect the integrity of French
territories _and_, the neutrality of Belgium. Although German
writers--with malice aforethought--seek to give that impression. Yet,
had this combined offer been made, the author submits that in spite of
such a promise, it would still have been ruinous to British interests to
stand aside and see Germany gain the upper and "free hand" in Europe.
Having obtained that, all else would have followed to the desire of
Germany's heart.
CHAPTER XII
THE LITERATURE OF HATE
"The English are wretched scoundrels."--_Frederick the Great_.
"It must come to this, that not even a German dog will accept a piece of
bread from an Englishman."--_Heinrich von Treitschke_.
"England, the Vampire of Europe," by Count Reventlow.
"Down with England," by Admiral Valois.
"England, our Enemy in the Past, Present and Future," by Erich von
Kabler.
"A German Victory, Ireland's Hope," by Dr. Hans Rost.
"England, the Scourge of Humanity," by Germanicus.
"The Poisonous Press," by Germanicus.
"England against England," by Mathieu Schwann.
"A Woman's War Letters," by L. Niessen-Deiters.
"Albion's Death Struggle," by Eugen Detmolder.[208]
[Footnote 208: Written by Detmolder (a Belgian) during the Boer
War.--Author.]
"How John Bull recruits his Hirelings," by Dr. Herbert Hirschberg.
"Advance on England! The Destruction of Britain's World Power,"
Anonymous.
"In English Captivity," by Heinrich Norden, late missionary.
"British _versus_ German Imperium," by an Irish-American. Introduction
by Sir Roger Casement.
"Lousyhead goes on Lying." The latest war news of Messrs. Grandebouche
(France), Lousyhead (Russia), and Plumpudding (England), by Karl
Ettlinger.
"England and Germany," by Houston Stewart Chamberlain.
"Cable Warfare and the Campaign of Lies," by Dr. Meister, Professor in
Muenster University.
"England and Continental Interests," by Captain H. Schubart.
"The Annihilation of England's World Power," Essays by twenty-three
different authors, including Professors Haeckel, Eucken and Lamprecht;
State Secretary Dr. Dernburg; Dr. Sven Hedin, etc.
"German Misery in London," by Carl Peters.
"The English Face," by six university professors; Frischeisen-Koehler
(Berlin); Jastrow (Berlin); von der Goltz (Greifswald); Roloff
(Giessen); Valentin (Freiburg); von Liszt (Berlin).
"Starvation, England's Latest Ally," by Friedrich Simon.
"England and the War," by Professor Lujo Brentano.
"Against France and Albion," by A. Fendrich.
"The Land of Unlimited Hypocrisy," by Spiridion Gopevi.[209]
[Footnote 209: Probably the most scurrilous and vulgar work of its type;
but the writer of it is not a German.--Author.]
"England"; "England and America," _Sueddeutsche Monatshefte_ (South
German Review) for January and May, 1915.
"England's Tyranny and former Supremacy of the Seas," by Admiral
Kirchoff.
"England's Blood-Guilt against the White Peoples," by Woldemar Schuetze.
"The Greatest Criminal against Humanity; King Edward VII. of England. A
Curse-pamphlet," by Lieut.-Col. R. Wagner.
"England, tremble!" by J. Bermbach.
"England as Sea-Pirate State," by Dr. Ernst Schultze.
"In the Pillory! Our Enemies' Campaign of Lies," by Reinhold Anton.
"London's Lie Factory: Renter's Office," by A. Brand.
"England's Wicked Deeds in the World's History," by A. Kuhn.
"Our Settlement with England," by Professor Hermann Oncken.
"England's Betrayal of Germany," by M. Wildgrube.
"England's Guilt," by Gaston von Mallmann.
"English Character," by Professor Arnold Schroeer.
"England and We," by Dr. J. Riessner, President of the Hanseatic League.
"How England prevented an Understanding with Germany," by Professor Th.
Schiemann.
"God Punish England," published by _Simplicissimus_.
"Perfidious Albion," by Alfred Geiser.
"Our Enemies among Themselves," Caricatures from 1792-1900 collected by
Dr. Paul Weiglin.
"Words in Season," Poems, including the "Hymn of Hate," by Ernst
Lissauer.
About sixty-five other titles might be added to those given above, but
the author has restricted the list to books in his possession. Some of
them are scurrilous and obscene, deserving no further attention than a
record of their existence. Yet the fundamental idea running through
these works is identical, differing only in the mode of expression.
Hate in itself is a confession of weakness, to a certain extent an
admission of defeat. The presence of hate in a nation or an individual
may be explained as resulting from the desire to remove or destroy an
obstacle, which has proved to be immovable and indestructible. A
healthy, well-balanced mind admits defeat and endeavours to make a
compromise--to adjust itself to the inevitable.
But assuming other conditions--a false sense of honour, a morbid
conception of self-importance--then hate seems to be a natural, although
unhealthy result. Unfortunately there is evidence that these factors
influence modern Germany. One of the roots of tragedy is to be found in
the inequality between the will and power to perform. In its
helplessness the will recoils upon itself, turning to gall and
bitterness, or seeks a solution in self-destruction.
It is noteworthy that some thirteen thousand individuals commit suicide
every year in Germany. Unwilling or unable to adjust themselves to the
phenomena of life, they choose death in preference to the
compromise--life. A leaning towards the tragic characterizes the German
of to-day; an inclination not to compromise, not to admit defeat,
thereby admitting the "will" to be incapable of transformance into
actuality.
Between Germany and Britain fate has placed such a rock of destiny,
_i.e._, this country's position in the world, above all, her naval
supremacy. Germany has held that this rock hinders, even endangers, her
just and historical development in the world. With wonderful energy,
perseverance, self-sacrifice and heroism, Germany has endeavoured to
surmount or destroy the obstacle. The united will of the nation was
expressed in the momentum of the onslaught--in vain. And as no
reconciling influences are at work, no tendency to accept the
inevitable--Germany hates.
Outside Germany there is, probably, no one who doubts the invincibility
of the British Navy and the unchangeable will of the British
(strengthened by the danger of the past year) to maintain its supremacy.
Yet even to-day responsible Germans are appealing to their nation to
fight till "modern Carthage" is finally destroyed.
"In spite of the publications of our enemies, we in Germany, from the
highest to the lowest, will believe unto all eternity that this war was
caused by England alone. All Germany replied to England's declaration of
war with a cry of indignation. The hate for the hypocritical island
kingdom was so bitter that it took the form of demonstrations against
the British Embassy, while the representatives of the other enemy
countries were able to depart unharmed.[210]
[Footnote 210: Admiral Valois appears to be unaware that both ladies and
gentlemen from the Russian Embassy were beaten with sticks, fists and
umbrellas before leaving Berlin.--Author.]
"Up till then political England was little known in Germany, but now the
bitter hate which reigns throughout the land characterizes her as the
incarnation of all that is base and vile. It brings back to our minds
the saying of the old Hanseatic towns:
'England, thou land of shame,
Why hast thou, Satansland,
The name of Angel-land?'
"No sacrifice and no effort will be too great, for us to drag her from
her imagined height into the dust. By force of arms, starvation and the
power of lies, they hoped to force us back to unimportance, and now the
issue is: Whether the categoric imperative of the East Prussian Kant, or
the hypocrisy of British cant, shall gain the victory.
"We are unalterably convinced that England is our mortal enemy, and that
all endeavours to find a _modus vivendi_ will be in vain. Still our
present naval forces are unequal to the task of overthrowing her. This
will make it easy for the German Government to obtain even the greatest
sums from the Reichstag in order to increase our fleet. Every other
aim--no matter what it is--must be laid aside, till this one is
attained: Down with England!
"It is to be hoped that this attempt on England's part to get rid of a
competitor will be the last. We Germans anticipate the future with an
unshakable belief in victory. Possibly sooner or later, England's
present allies will see that in reality they are serving English
interests. When this unnatural alliance has crumbled to pieces under the
might of our blows, then we shall at last stand face to face with
England--alone!
"Our life-work will then begin--to settle up with the pioneers of
hypocrisy so that they shall never again cross our path! If at any time
this high endeavour seems to slacken, then think of East Prussia!
Remember that a third of the province was laid waste; that men, women
and children were murdered and violated; that the lists of the missing
contained the names of nearly fifty thousand fellow-countrymen. And all
this had to happen so that every Englishman might become a few pounds
richer.
"Think of it as long as you live, and pass it on to your descendants as
an inheritance. Give all your strength and your last farthing to
increase our fleet and any other necessary means to attain our goal:
Down with England!"[211]
[Footnote 211: Admiral Valois: "Nieder mit England!" ("Down with
England!") p. 5 _et. seq_.]
"Truly it is no longer necessary either in this assembly or in all
Germany to create popular opinion for the cry 'Nieder mit England!' It
re-echoes daily from the lips of every German. But still we must
continue to point out its necessity--it is a commandment which must
banish every weak inclination to yield, and make us strong to hold out
to the bitter end.
"To some it may appear 'one-sided,' but yet it is a moral duty to
emphasize and strengthen our hate for England. Not only because we
_will_ hate, but because we _must_. Hatred ennobles when it is directed
with full force against the evil and bad. And what is the evil? For an
answer consider how the English pedlar-spirit with cunning and lies, has
subjugated the world and holds it in bondage.
"Even in the upper classes (English), ignorance reigns supreme. In their
famous schools, _e.g._, Eton College, the young people--besides sports
and so-called gentlemanlike behaviour--learn exceedingly little. Except
in regard to purely English affairs most Englishmen possess an almost
inconceivable ignorance of history and geography. The view held by so
many Germans that the majority of the English nation, especially the
so-called 'upper ten,' have enjoyed a thorough education--is utterly
false. But in spite of this, English conceit and unexampled pride leaves
little to be desired."[212]
[Footnote 212: Vice-Admiral Kirchhoff: "England's Willkur" ("England's
Tyranny"), p. 1 _et seq_.]
All German naval writers whine in unison concerning the "protection of
private property in naval warfare." The shoe appears to pinch at that
point, but the complaints sound hollow when made by a nation which has
shown so little respect for private property in land warfare.
"Turkey was compelled to hand over Cyprus; in return she received an
assurance of protection from England. What the latter understands by
'protection' we have learned from her recent actions. The behaviour of
England's last naval commission in Constantinople speaks volumes. The
very men who were in Turkey's pay, destroyed the weapons (ships, _i.e._,
cannon, machinery, etc.) entrusted to their care."[213]
[Footnote 213: Ibid., p. 31.]
Besides Kirchhoff, several other writers charge the British naval
officers who were in Turkey's service before the outbreak of war, with
acts of _sabotage_. Another writer (Heinrich Norden, late missionary in
Duala, German Cameroons) sinks a little lower and states that English
officers were guilty of thieving when Duala was captured.
"Indeed, it is not saying too much when I maintain that the true
historical purpose of this war, is only half fulfilled if we do not
bring England to her knees--cost what it may in blood and treasure. That
much we owe to our children and their children. We will not only be
victorious, victory is only half the work; we must annihilate the power
of our enemy.
"All our dearly-bought victories in East and West will be of no avail
if, at the conclusion of peace, we have not conquered and compelled
England to accept our terms. There can never be justice or morality on
earth, or keeping of treaties, or recognition of moral international
obligations, till the power of the most faithless, hypocritical nation
which ever existed, has been finally broken and lies prostrate on the
ground. So long ago as 1829 Goethe said to Foerster: 'In no land are
there so many hypocrites and sanctimonious dissemblers as in England.'
"We must wait in patience and with confidence in our leaders for the
final settlement which the future will bring. The men in our navy are
burning to imitate the deeds of their comrades on land. Whenever an
opportunity has arisen, they have shown themselves equal to the enemy.
Our navy knows, and that is a consolation for the men during inactivity,
that the lofty task of breaking England's power will fall to their
share. The men know that the final purpose of this world war can only be
attained with their help, they know what is before them, and that the
enormous stake demands and deserves all they have to give.
"In this time of trial we can best help by waiting in patience. The
fleet's turn will come; the fleet created by our Kaiser will fulfil its
mission. Everyone of us recognizes that a well-thought-out plan is
behind all this; even the enemy has premonitions of it.
"In regard to England's downfall there can, may, and must be only one
opinion. It is the very highest mission of German _Kultur_. Our war,
too, is a 'holy war.' For the first time England's despotic power is
opposed by an enemy possessing power, intelligence and will."[214]
[Footnote 214: Ibid., p. 37 _et seq_.]
Another of the fundamental reasons for German hate must be sought in the
different conceptions of life and its duties in the two nations. In its
chief results this has found expression in two totally different beings.
Professor Engel (Berlin) once wrote that from the cradle to the grave,
the German is "on the line," or, in other words, the State directs his
every action.
Probably it would be more correct to look upon the German State as a
Teutonic Nirvana--with this distinction, that it is a negation of
personal individuality, but at the same time a huge, collective
positive. The individual German fulfils his life's mission by absorption
into Nirvana and by having all his activities transformed in the
collective whole for the benefit of the State. The will of the State is
supreme; individuals exist in, through, and for, the whole. And, above
all, the State's motto has been thoroughness and efficiency in every
department of its manifold life; knowledge and power its aims.
Britain's development has been along other lines; the widest possible
room has been left to the individual, and the ties binding him to the
whole have been loose in the extreme. German discipline is replaced by
British liberty, with its advantages to the individual and corresponding
disadvantages for the State. Liberty implies the right to rise by honest
endeavour, but does not exclude the possibility of a wilful surrender to
slothful inactivity, _e.g._, the human flotsam and jetsam of British
cities, the casual ward and similar institutions. These and other
phenomena of life in our islands have aroused bitter contempt among
Germans. Contempt has been succeeded by envy and hatred. Rightly or
wrongly the German has argued that the people who prefer sport to
knowledge, self-will to a sense of duty to the community, selfishness to
sacrifice,[215] wire-pulling and patronage to efficiency--this people is
no longer worthy of the first place among the nations. By right of
merit, morality and efficient fitness--that place belongs to Germany.
[Footnote 215: An article by the present writer on "Some German Schools"
in the _Times_ Educational Supplement, October 5th, 1915, gives some
faint idea of the unprecedented sacrifices made by German schools.
During the war all classes of the population have voluntarily renounced
a part of their earnings for war charities. In the _Fraenkischer Kurier_
for October 13th, 1915, the Burgomaster of Nuremberg announced that the
voluntary reduction of salaries agreed to by the municipal officials of
that city had resulted in 264,000 marks (L13,000) going to charitable
funds. The author could cite dozens of similar instances, but it would
interest him most of all to know whether any town in the British Isles
can show a better record than Nuremberg, with a population of 350,000.]
Unfortunately the present war has brought many proofs that there is no
small amount of truth in this indictment, and most unfortunate of all,
neutral countries too accept Germany's version that Britain is
unorganized, self-interested, inefficient and effete. And to just the
same degree they are convinced that Germany is thorough. They love
Britain's humanitarian idea, but admire German efficiency--although they
fear the latter's militarism.
Still when they are driven to choose to whom they shall confide their
vital interests, _i.e._, future existence, they prefer to lean on
successful German thoroughness, than on Britain's humanitarianism
unsupported by the strong arm. At the moment of writing there is wailing
and gnashing of teeth throughout the British Empire at the diplomatic
failure in Bulgaria and the previous fiasco in Turkey. Sir Edward Grey
has dealt with the question in Parliament, but he has not mentioned the
true reason.
The true reason is that this country has fallen into the habit of
sending diplomatic representatives abroad who have not been keen enough
to obtain a mastery of the language, or a full knowledge of the feelings
and national aspirations of the peoples to whom they were accredited.
Instead of being living ambassadors of the British idea, they have often
been concrete examples before foreign eyes of British inefficiency. An
example of the language question which came under the author's personal
notice, deserves mention.
In the spring of 1914 there seemed to be a danger that a German would be
appointed British Consul in Nuremberg, and in order to prevent this the
author wrote to a British Minister stationed in Munich. He was greatly
surprised to receive a reply--the latter, of course, was in
English--addressed on the outside to:
"Dr. T. Smith,
"_On the top_ of the University of Erlangen."
That is to say, the German preposition _auf_ was employed instead of
_an_. A mistake which even an elementary knowledge of German should have
made impossible. In the British Legation at Munich there was a
German-British Consul--a Munich timber-merchant. If readers imagine that
Munich was an unimportant city in the diplomatic sense, then they are
recommended to study the French Yellow Book, which contains final proof
that an efficient French Minister was able to make important discoveries
at the Bavarian Court.
British prestige, confidence in British efficiency and power among
neutrals has gravitated dangerously in the direction of zero, while
admiration for Germany has correspondingly risen. That there is only too
much reason for the change, the course of the war has given ample proof,
and therein lies the hope of Britain's future. The war will reveal to
the British both their strength and weakness, and if the war does not
destroy the dry rot in the land, then it is merely the precursor of
Britain's final downfall.
There can be no greater mistake than closing one's eyes to the good
points in a resolute enemy. As far as this war is concerned they can be
summarized under two heads: (1.) The German Board of Education, which
has developed and mobilized the last ounce of German brains and directed
them into the service of the Fatherland.[216] (2.) The German War
Office, which has mobilized Germany's physical and technical forces.
[Footnote 216: Five years ago the present author wrote in the September
number, 1910, of Macmillan's _School World_:--"Educational reforms and
plans must come from the schoolmen; they never spring of themselves from
out of the people; and this is perhaps the most deplorable admission of
all, that modern England has no great educationist or statesman capable
of formulating a national system of schools which shall develop the
intellectual material of the nation to its highest powers, and direct
those powers into the best channels. For several decades school
inspectors, etc., have visited continental countries to study their
educational systems, and have returned home with innumerable fads--but
no system. Everything of the fantastic has been copied, but no
foundations have been laid; with the result that England's educational
system to-day resembles a piece of patchwork containing a rich variety
of colours and a still greater variety of stuff-quality. It were better
for us to have done with educationists who preach about 'the rigid
uniformity of system which is alien both to the English temperament and
to the lines on which English public schools have developed.' The said
public schools have hopelessly failed to meet the necessity of a
national system of education, or to form the nucleus from which such a
system could or can develop itself. That the Falls of Niagara, however,
dissipate untold natural forces is just as true as that England wastes
immeasurable intellectual force because her forces are allowed to
dissipate through not being disciplined and bridled by a fitting
educational mechanism. Therefore let England turn to the prosaic work of
organising!"]
No other State possesses institutions to compare with them. They are the
foundation of Germany's strength, and the present author's only regret
is, that the overwhelming forces obtained by bridling the Teutonic
Niagara of brains and muscle, have been directed by a false patriotism
into the wrong channels. Still that is what Britain is up against, and
Britain can only secure an honourable victory by surpassing them. And
this much may be admitted even at this stage of the struggle: one part
of the "German idea" is certain of complete victory along the whole
line--German thoroughness and self-sacrifice.