FRIENDLY ASSURANCES.—THE GERMAN MTINACE.
[TO THE EDITOR OP THE " SPECTATOR1
Sin,—The clearly argued leading article on the former of the above in last week's Spectator must have been perused by your many readers with as much pleasure as satisfaction. The outcome of it, however, stops short of a complete conclusion as to what the broader policy of our country should be, what are its interests, and what are the true interests of the several countries which are chiefly concerned in this most momentous question of the times,—a question which for our country, beyond all others, is one of both danger and anxiety.
It will be conceded by your readers that, conditions being such as they have been allowed to become, Germany must be judged by her deeds, not by her words, and that we have to interpret German action by Naval Estimates, and certainly not by friendly assurances. You make this abundantly clear by showing that German policy bristled with friendly assurances to Denmark "before the hour struck," to Austria up to 1866, and to France up to a few years later, and that, indeed, the tendency to friendly assurances is the normal condition of diplomacy. On the other hand, happily the great majority of our countrymen who go with you all the way in regarding these arguments as incontrovertible rightly " hate war," and are horrified at the waste of national resources involved in the- vast naval expenditure,—an expenditure three times as great as was found sufficient not so many years ago.
Why has this vast expenditure, not only here, but in Germany and America, become necessary? You explain why,—that Germany is a growing Power which evidently and naturally desires a development in oversee possessions. You do not, however, put ourselves in their place and admit that this development overseas is not only a natural but a necessary desire for the very dense and very quickly growing population of the German Empire, that they are being tightly hemmed in in a small space no larger than one of the greater of the two dozen United States in America, which is an intolerable and impossible position for one of the three most powerful countries of the world. This great and efficient German people have not the room for expansion which they apparently must have sooner or later, and which they could have without doing any one any harm, but on the other hand consistently with the general good, if the dog-in-the-manger Monroe doctrine—which might have suited the policy of one hundred years ago, but which is not suited for the present time—were altered to the extent of handing over an almost totally unpopulated and undeveloped country like Brazil to Germany on certain conditions, one being the limita- tion of her Navy, as a great Navy would then become unnecessary for her, for she would then be, as you point out she cannot be now, contented with the status quo. If America is willing to fight Germany to keep her out of Brazil, would it not be our wiser policy to indicate to America and to Germany both that we were not going to join America in the policy of saying that although neither America nor Great. Britain wants any of the unoccupied territory in South America, Germany shall not have any portion of it ? Is it worth our while to incur an extra expendi- ture of twenty-five millions sterling every year to keep Germany out of what in all fairness between luau and man she is entitled to,—viz., the same natural room for the expansion of her people as the Americans have, and as we have P Is it just or is it right ? If we think so, we support the wrong at the above annual cost, to which is to be added the imminent danger of a great war. What is the present policy of our statesmen, if we have any, which is doubtful, as they all seem to be merely party politicians P It is to sit on the safety- valve of a great and explosive Power, putting on as the weight the additional expenditure on our Navy of twenty-five millions a year. Looking back on history, is it not seen that there is a Nemesis of nations P Are we not in this matter preparing for ourselves a punishment to " fit the crime " ? We did the right thing with our French fellow- subjects in Canada and our Dutch fellow-subjects in South Africa. Is what we are continuing to do with regard to the support of the dog-in-the-manger doctrine either right or fair ? Particularly is it wise, as we, and not the 'United States, have to carry the dangerous weight of it, and we shall have to bear the main brunt of it both every year as we are doing now, and also to a much greater extent if it expands into a ruinous war ?
Is the beginning of our Nemesis to be in having a Press and other leaders of public opinion who mislead and misinform their countrymen, inflaming their minds against a people like ourselves, who have the same aspirations, and surely the same rights, to have space to live on, and with whom we ought to be on the closest of friendly relations P—I am,
[We sympathise with our correspondent's desire that Germany should obtain a sphere of expansion. We should have liked to see her, with the general consent of the Powers, take over the Congo. We must, however, condemn altogether the idea of buying off German animosity by setting her at loggerheads with America by changing our policy as regards the Monroe doctrine, and by inviting her to plunder Brazil or any other of the South American Republics,—States whose independence is as dear to them as ours is to us. Such Machiavellism never brings prosperity to those who practise it. We trust the Americans will build a strong enough Fleet to enforce the Monroe doctrine single-handed; but if they should want our support, we must not forget that " blood is thicker than water." German expansion in uncivilised Africa is another matter.—En. Spectator.]
Previous page
