Читать книгу: «My Three Years in a German Prison», страница 11
CHAPTER XXXII
THE MILITARISTS AND THE MILITARIZED
To properly understand the German mentality one must turn to the country’s military history. Germany–that is, Prussia and her forty millions of people; a few smaller kingdoms such as Bavaria, Saxony, and Wurtemburg; and some fifteen lesser States–was federated in 1871. In 1864 Prussia made victorious war against Denmark. In 1866 she carried on another victorious campaign against Austria. Then, in 1870, after an exceedingly adroit diplomatic campaign which assured the neutrality of the other great nations of Europe, she, by the falsification of a despatch, inaugurated the Franco-Prussian war. She dragged into it the other German States right under the walls of Paris, and at Versailles founded the German Empire, comprising twenty-six States, with the King of Prussia proclaimed as Emperor.
She was at the zenith of her power. Bismarck the statesman, Von Moltke the soldier, were hailed as demigods after the conclusion of a treaty which wrested from France two of her Provinces and imposed an indemnity of five billions; these two men were held up to the universal admiration of the German people.
The artistic sense and idealism which had impregnated the German soul up to this period, even–which seems impossible now–under Frederic II., now gave way to the new-born Positivism. Bismarck had said: “Might is right,” and “One has only the right that Force can sanction.” These maxims had justified those who framed them in 1864, 1866, and again in 1870. Henceforward for the Emperor, for his entourage, for the hundreds of thousands of officers, war was to be an element, a factor, and the chief author of the nation’s grandeur. This was the spirit which dominated the classes, and it must be introduced to, and spread amongst, the masses. Literature, science and the arts were made to contribute to the work of this new formation. But it was chiefly through education and legislation that the new principle was expounded. Veterans of the war of 1870 became so many tutors who trained the mind of the rising generation. The children were taken regularly to the museums where they were shown the flags and cannons taken from the enemy.
An old officer was showing these trophies to his two grandsons.
“Who is our enemy?” he asked.
“France,” replied the boys.
“We defeated them, did we not?”
“Surely.”
“And we shall defeat all our enemies, present and future,” the veteran declared.
“Yes,” the children agreed.
“You are good and true children of the Fatherland,” their grandfather told them.
The standard reading-books in all the schools were full of stories recounting valiant and successful exploits of the German soldiers–cavalry charges, the taking of cities by storm, epic encounters with swords, all leading up to the exultant conclusion that the glory of German arms had dazzled the world. The intellects of the youth were thus impregnated, saturated, with principles of militarism from the first days at school. And if one dared venture to raise a voice against the “sanctus sanctorum” of the caste born of the spirit of Bismarck and Von Moltke, he was silenced by force. Was not Germany, like Pygmalion, surrounded by enemies who were ever ready to pounce upon and crush her? Therefore all must be prepared to advance every means for self-defence. Everything undertaken to build up the enormous mechanism of the barracks and the munition factories was for protection and self-preservation. Against whom? Against a world of enemies. This was the bogey which the pan-German press paraded before a population stricken with terror. The next war was to be, as appearances were represented, one of defence. Military and civilians of this caste, estimated then at half a million adults, while seeking to hide their real intentions from the rest of the German population, of course from the people of other countries, always invoked the name of Bismarck. He was made the great national hero. And what does Bismarck say? First that “Might is Right,” and then that “War is the negation of order.” Why does he say this? Everybody knows now. It is an old story. Wait. The Man of Iron has a purpose. Read further: “The most efficient means to force an enemy nation to sue for peace is to devastate its territory and terrorize its civil population.”
This new theory, based on the victory of 1870, so obtained, raised very little protest in Germany. It is monstrous, but it is true. And the disciples of Bismarck, having elaborated a finished theory on his guilty words and deeds, first shocked the good people of Germany, but the people soon became reconciled to the new faith. In short, a credulous people allowed themselves to be carried away by this wave of militarism which spread into the remotest corners of the territory.
As for the military caste itself, its members quite believed their prodigious preparedness of forty years was destined to make Germany mistress of the universe. As for the masses, they were led to believe that all the preparations were a means of defence and protection. The sinister designs of the schemers were concealed from the eyes of the credulous, and those of the masses who realized the actual game of the ringleaders in the Empire dared not ask any questions. One is governed or is not governed. And these people were being governed.
Moreover, why trouble one’s conscience? Had not this system justified itself in 1870? These two Provinces, these five billions of moneys, wrested, extorted from France, were they not the two determining factors in the tremendous industrial impulsion which would open the gates to Germany’s commercial preponderance in all the markets of the world? No wonder the masses kept silent.
Intensive militarism, then, became a religion of the State. Philosophers, litterateurs, and historians having done all they could to attain the dreamed-of purpose, others followed their lead. Each and every discovery in mechanics, optics, chemistry was studied and tested by its respective author in the light of the possibility of its practical adaptability and utility in the work of destruction.
The works of art also showed the effects of the enveloping atmosphere.
The Kaiser’s only daughter paraded in the uniform of a Hussar, while her august father talked of “keeping the powder dry.” One day, on his own domains at harvest time, he was seized by mad admiration at the sight of the millions of ears of golden corn.
“They remind me,” he said, “of the ocean of lances of my Uhlans.”
On another occasion, during a hunt near the French frontier, when the Kaiser was surrounded as usual by sycophants and toadies attired in all the resplendence of their military uniforms, the then Most Highest allowed a mysterious word to escape his lips. Having half drawn his sword, he snapped it back into its scabbard and exclaimed:
“They tremble in Europe.”
Then he burst out laughing.
And now came the decade which preceded the world war. Germany rejected Great Britain’s proposal that each side should limit its naval armament and halt for a while. Convinced at this time that her tremendous military machine was not only invincible, but irresistible, Germany applied herself feverishly to a mad rush of naval construction with the object of making her shores intangible. The idea was that in this way Britain would be kept quiet and Germany would be able to proceed to crush the Franco-Russian entente and obtain continental domination. From this to universal control only one step was required.
This was what the German military caste had in mind–that is to say, the Kaiser, the Crown Prince, and the 40,000 or 50,000 officers and civilians recruited from the nobility, high society, from the professions and the educated officials. And the crowd–the masses–would go to sleep each evening blinded to the facts, but convinced that numberless enemies were preparing to pounce covertly on their Fatherland.
The great hope of the German Government from 1908 to 1914 was to get the war started without it being apparent that Germany provoked it.
But as so often repeated to us by that fine Swiss fellow, Hinterman, who was interned with us, the artifices of the Germans are easily seen through. And all the scheming of the events which preceded the invasion of Belgium, however clever it was, will not prevent history from bringing against William Hohenzollern and his entourage a verdict of guilty.
The interview at Potsdam, on July 5, 1914, in which the Kaiser and the Austrian delegates took part; the ultimatum to Serbia; the refusal of Austria to accept the very satisfactory and conciliating answer of Serbia–and this without previous consultation with Germany–does not all this show that everything was decided on July 5, aforesaid? The rejection by Germany of the proposal for a conference made by Sir Edward Grey, British Minister of Foreign Affairs; the hesitations, the subterfuges of Von Jagow towards Monsieur Cambon, the French Ambassador; the entering of German troops into Belgium during the night of July 31–that is to say two days before the ultimatum of former Emperor William to the King of Belgium; the telegraphic correspondence between the Tsar of Russia, King George, and William II., all, indeed, carries on its face the stamp of Germany’s duplicity.
Of the underhand methods of the authors of the plot and murder at Serajevo, impartial history will tell later.
The mass of the German population when apprised of these historical facts disentangled from all pan-Germanic camouflage will not hesitate to stand as accusers of the real authors of the war; of those, finally, who were the cause of the collective aberration of the nation.
The flight of the Imperial family and the high officers to Holland will not prevent them from escaping the abhorrence of the German people. Can there be a more exemplary and a more bitter punishment at the same time than that meted out to a sovereign by his own subjects?
A portion of this industrious and frugal people undoubtedly allowed themselves to be deceived by their rulers who betrayed them on a pretence of defence; another portion yielded to the temptation for gain and conquest; a few of them allowed themselves, perhaps–Oh, human weakness!–to be fascinated by visions of universal domination, but we are willing to believe that the great majority were but blind tools in the hands of an ambitious militarism.
The allied nations have won a complete, decisive, definite victory. The last head of the hydra of militarism seems to have been battered down for all time.
May peace now be restored for ever among men of good will! But in order to obtain this end, the flag to be hoisted on civilization by the League of Nations will have to bear in its folds the words: Justice, Toleration, Magnanimity!
Justice, that is to say, punishment for the guilty, for the criminals, for the authors of the slaughtering and devastation.
Justice, that is to say, restitution and reparation. Justice, that is to say, indemnity for the millions of women and children who are deprived of their main support.
And why, some will ask, should I speak here of magnanimity? Does not the entire people of Germany and of her allies deserve the most severe condemnation?
In uttering here this word “magnanimity,” I only reflect the thought expressed by the leaders of the three great allied countries, on the day following the armistice: Lloyd George, Clemenceau, and Woodrow Wilson.
And as Mr. Winston Churchill declared on the 4th of July last, at Westminster: “We are bound to the principles for which we are fighting. Those principles alone will enable us to use with wisdom and with justice the victory which we shall gain. Whatever the extent of our victory, those principles would protect the German people. We could not treat them as they have treated Alsace-Lorraine or Belgium or Russia, or as they would treat us all if they had the power.”
It is because the population of a country is composed for the most part of women and children, and because we could not, without stooping to the level of the methods employed in Belgium, for example, make war against women, against children, against property.
Justice will have a field of operations large enough, if it wishes, to reach the conscious authors of the war and of the deeds incompatible with humanitarian principles and contrary to international laws.
