COUNT KALNOKY AND COUNT VON CAPRIVI.
German Chancellor and the Austro-Hungarian Minister of Foreign Affairs describe the Euro- pean situation in very different tones. Count von Caprivi and Count Kalnoky alike speak of the peace- fulness of the immediate prospect. Each declares that the relations of his Imperial master with the other Great Powers are excellent. Each proclaims his con- viction that peace is the one end which every Euro- pean Sovereign keeps most steadily in view. It is when they come to prophesy, to deal not with pre- sent facts but with future contingencies, to trace the eventual working of forces still in their infancy, that the difference between them becomes visible. Count von Caprivi's language has long been familiar to us. Europe, he says in effect, is constantly confronted by two dangers,—a war of revenge on the part of France, a war of aggrandisement on the part of Russia. Of each Govern- ment it may be said : " Their words are smoother than oil, and yet be they very swords." No matter what professions they may make to the contrary—it must be admitted that they make very few—France has her eyes fixed on Alsace-Lorraine, Russia has her eyes fixed on Constantinople. Each Power aims at putting into the field, when the time comes, every man who can bear arms ; and so long as this remains true, the members of the Triple Alliance can only follow their example. This is what Germany is doing, and what—we may imagine Count von Caprivi adding under his breath—the other members of the Triple Alliance ought to do likewise. Count Kalnoky, on the other hand, looks at the brighter side of the prospect. With him, whatever danger there is of war is present danger. It is daily growing less, and eventually it will altogether disappear. The old difficulties are still there ; in Bulgaria, in Servia, affairs are not per- fectly settled ; and the very fact that all the Continental Powers think it incumbent on them to maintain their military preparations on so vast a scale shows that there are still grounds of disagreement between them. But everywhere there is progress towards a different state of things. Things are going better in Bulgaria, better in Servia ; and whatever differences of policy may exist between Austria and Russia, the relations between the two Governments are increasingly friendly. And then, encouraged by these reflections, Count Kalnoky projects himself into the future, and ventures to look for- ward to a time when the existing military tension will be relaxed, and the Continental Powers will be relieved from the strain of military preparation. Not, indeed, as he explained two days later, that what is called a general disarmament is possible under existing circumstances. But arrangements falling very far short of disarmament may yet be well worth having. It would be a material gain, for example, if the armaments could remain as they are, if the Powers could come to an agreement not to increase their present forces. Of course, in a matter of this tremendous importance, the Austro-Hungarian Government cannot act alone. Austria-Hungary, like her neighbours, must provide for the military efficiency of the Empire. But even this duty must be discharged with proper regard to the financial resources of the Empire. Count Kalnoky means to make the Army all an Austrian Army should be, but he hopes to do this out of the money that the War Department has already in hand.
A very fair case may be made out for either of these forecasts. It is certain that the strain of military prepara- tion will not always be what it is, and there are only two ways in which an end can be put to it. The Powers can agree to leave the map of Europe what it is, or they can go to war in order to reconstruct it on lines more favourable to a lasting peace. Count Kalnoky's hopes point in the former direction. He dreams of a time when the great Powers shall first ask themselves, and then ask one another, whether this armed truce is the only form of peace that is possible for Europe. When that time comes, may they not say to one another : ' Each of us has all that belongs to him, and not one of us wants anything that is not rightly his. Consequently, what is the need of all this preparation ? Our relative strength would be the same if each of us had only half the army he now possesses ; and, after all, it is relative, rather than positive, strength that counts in a European war. Let us begin, then, by proclaiming the status quo in arma- ments. By-and-by, we may go a step further, and consider whether the status quo does not exceed our real needs.' Count von Caprivi's forecast, on the other hand, starts with the assumption that to the rule that every European Power has all that belongs to it, there are two conspicuous exceptions,—two instances in which the nations interested take a quite different view of their rights. France holds that Alsace and Lorraine were torn from her by a war in which she was taken unawares and ill-prepared, and by a peace imposed by force upon an unwilling population. Russia holds that the desire, natural to every great nation, to reach the open sea, and the duties which belong to her as the natural protector of the Christians still subject to the Turk, make Constantinople the ultimate goal of her policy. These are the ideas which possess the nations as distinct from the rulers, and they may con- sequently be taken to embody permanent states of mind. The superficial aspects of European politics may change from year to year and from month to month, but the hopes and aspirations of thirty-six million Frenchmen, of sixty million Russians, do not travel with the sun or vary with the clouds. They are permanent factors in the European problem, and, so long as they are not eliminated, they re- present permanent dangers to European peace. Thus Count von Caprivi's view may be regarded as the romantic view, Count Kalnoky's as the common-sense view. The latter assumes that men will in the end be guided by rational self-interest. France would not be really the better for getting back Alsace-Lorraine ; Russia would not be really the better for replanting the Cross on St. Sophia. Is it likely that either of them will provoke a war in which defeat may mean annihila- tion, and victory can bring no solid advantage ? Yes,' Count von Caprivi might reply, it is quite likely. Wars are waged nowadays by peoples, not by Sovereigns ; and so long as a whole people chafes and frets under existing limitations, there can be no certainty that it will not fight to get rid of them. If all men were trained politicians, your estimate of probabilities would be perfectly accurate. It is inaccurate in so far as they are swayed by desires which politicians have outgrown.'
One point deserves to be noted in this pacific speech of Count Kalnoky's, and that is the effect it may possibly have in a direction unfavourable to peace. Whether we think his prediction or Count von Caprivi's stands more chance of being realised, we shall agree that the main- tenance of the Triple Alliance is the true safeguard against a European war. If it is not an absolute protection, it is by far the best that has yet been devised or that can be conceived of in the present condition of Europe. Now, the Triple Alliance, like all other alliances, requires hearty and intelligent co-operation of all the partners. If any one of them begins to prefer his own interests to those of the firm, the stability of the partnership is at once en- dangered. With one, at least, of those who compose it, it has become a secondary instead of a primary object. So long as Germany, Austria, and Italy have an iden- tical policy, which they are prepared to carry out by identical means, all goes smoothly. From the moment that individual advantage takes precedence of the general advantage, occasions of friction are likely to present them- selves more and more frequently. Is there not some suspicion of this change attaching to Count Kalnoky's speech ? We can understand that to a Minister in his position it is a matter of great importance to be able to speak hopefully of peace, and still more to assure the Delegations that no more money will be wanted for the purposes of the Alliance. But if Count Kalnoky had had the interests of his German partner as near his heart as the interests of the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy, it is per- missible to suppose that he would have found some later opportunity of talking about disarmament. He would have remembered that the German Emperor has demanded additional troops from his Parliament ; that, on being refused them, he has appealed to the German nation ; and that the one conclusive reason in favour of giving him the men he asks for is the permanence of the conditions which make war probable. It is not a friendly act in the Minister of another of the allies to treat these conditions as likely to disappear. If this were so, there would be no need for the proposed change in the peace-footing of the German Army. It will need years for that change to take effect ; and, according to Count Kalnoky, before those years are over, the European Powers may be reducing their armaments. His speech is an excellent brief for the German Opposition ; but is it the part of the First Minister of Austria-Hungary to give the German Opposition a brief P
Previous page
