CROSS-CURRENTS IN GERMANY.
SEVERAL cross-currents have appeared lately in the domestio life of Germany, and they are well worth examination. We must not overstate their importance, for we know only too well that strong movements in the Reichstag, widespread popular uprisings, and the opposi- tion of high-placed persons to the actions of the Govern- ment have a way in. Germany of producing no result. The authorities, who are not responsible to the country, snap their fingers, send some eminent person below Latches, and carry on as before. At the same time, the quarrel—for it is nothing less—between the German Chancellor and the head of the German Navy is something quite unlike what has happened in Germany before. We fancy that this time there may be some results. Then, again, the Socialists are stirring themselves, and it is pretty clear that strong pressure is being applied to the Socialist leaders in the Reichstag to end their docile obedience to the Government. But we will describe first the very curious quarrel between Herr von Bethmann Hollweg and Grand Admiral von Tirpitz. It directly affects the relations of Germany and the United States, and thus it may have a very important influence on the course of the war.
A short time ago an official organ of the German Foreign Office, the Lokalanzeiger, published an unexpectedly reasonable article, in which it was pointed out that the British blockade of German trade was a justifiable measure of war, such as Germany would be only too glad to apply to Britain had she the means to do so. It was also admitted that American firms were within their legal rights in selling munitions of war to Britain, and that the protests of German newspapers wore therefore mis- directed and unwise. This sudden word from German diplomacy was not merely an exercise in candour : it was the discreet act of men whose business it is to keep Germany as far as possible right with the rest of the world. Nevertheless, it gave away the whole case for the German submarine campaign. There was no actual starva- tion of Germany ; there wore no women and children being brutally done to death by British naval measures ; and consequently there was no sort of excuse or pallia- tion for the German policy of murder by submarine. The Lokalanzeiger did. not put it in those words, but Grand. Admiral von Tirpitz was quick to see that its arguments amounted to that. Ho instantly rallied the newspapers he inspires, and they thundered against the Lokalanzeiger—in other words, against the German Foreign Office. But the Deutsche Tageszeitung com- mitted a tactical blunder, and went too far in its abuse. It published an article by the notorious Count Reventlow in which he said that the Government wore thinking of abandoning submarine warfare against merchant shipping merely for the sake of peace with America. In his view, it did not matter in the least whether America made war on Germany or not. And he ended up by saying that it was just as impossible to apply obsolete international law to the new submarine weapon as it would be to derive any public good from the clinging to office of an inefficient statesman. The last thrust was plainly directed against the Chancellor. The Chancellor at once responded. He temporarily suppressed the Deutsche Tageszeitung.
Nor is this newspaper warfare the only evidence of a grave disagreement between the Gorman Foreign Office and the naval authorities. Any careful observer of German actions at sea may have noticed that the honeyed words which the German Foreign Office has used in negotiating with America were several times made to look extremely foolish by a most inopportune fresh act of frightfulness against neutrals. Evidently Grand Admiral von Tirpitz said in effect to the Foreign Office : "It is your business to talk, but it is mine to sink ships. You do the talking, and I'll do the sinking. After all, diplomacy is mere eye- wash. So don't let me interrupt you ; but don't, on the other hand, interrupt me. Our departments need have no concern with each other. Say what you like, and help the Fatherland as far as you can. But understand that in no event can I give up the submarine warfare against merchant vessels." Now, who is likely to win in this very direct and fundamental conflict between German diplomacy and the German Navy ? From a superficial point of view. the Grand Admiral was the first to cry" Touche" when the article of his henchman, Count Reventlow, was suppressed. But can the Chancellor keep the upper hand ? Or, rather, can the Emperor keep the upper hand—if we may assume that the Chancellor did not suppress the Deutsche Tages- zeitung without the Emperor's consent ? We must look at the matter from the point of view of the Emperor's personal pride and of his dynastic security. He cannot, we think, afford to leave out of account the certainty that if Germany should lose the war (a prospect which can hardly be absent from his mind) the Grand Admiral would be able to retort : " But we could have won the war if only we had stuck to our submarine warfare. I showed you the way to win, but you preferred to please America." The Emperor would find it extremely difficult to answer that taunt. We venture to believe that it haunts him so unpleasantly that Germany will not abandon the essential principles of submarine warfare against merchantmen, however much the German Foreign Office may try to soothe American indignation by minor concessions or by a Thyestean banquet of claptrap."
The suppression of the Deutsche Tageszeitung was not singular. The Chancellor also temporarily suppressed the Socialist Vorwarts for suggesting that now was the time for Germany to make peace. But more important than the breaking away of the Verwarts was a Socialist manifesto which has just been suppressed by the military commander of the Mark of Brandenburg. The manifesto, according to an account of it which appeared in the Manchester Guardian of Thursday, was a remonstrance addressed to the Executives of the Socialist Party and of the Socialist Parliamentary group protesting against the alliance with the Government, and demanding an immediate agitation in favour of peace and against the policy of annexations. It was signed by some five hundred Socialists, men and women in responsible positions—viz., by ninety-five party secretaries and chairmen of party electoral organizations, twenty-six editors, fifteen members of the Reichstag and the Prussian Diet, eighteen Trade Union officials, and so forth. Those included Dr. Liebknecht and the editor of Vor- warts. It should be remembered that the term "Socialist " in Germany covers persons of far more moderate opinions than are professed by British Socialists. In a country governed by an autocratic bureaucracy the Socialist Party contains most of those who are in earnest about securing representative institutions. The present movement in Germany, therefore, has rather more importance than a, Socialist agitation would have here. The manifesto ended with a demand that the Parliamentary group should at last " renounce the party-truce, open all along the line the class-struggle in accordance with the Parliamentary programme, and begin the fight for peace."
Previous page
