ANGLO -G ERM A N RELATIONS.
THOUGH we differ profoundly from the ordinary British Radical, we admire him on many sides. His optimism, his confidence that anything and everything can be set right by an Act of Parliament, even his belief that human nature in this age is something different from human nature in the past, have in them an element of goodwill and courage which is encouraging from its hopefulness and want of cynicism. The chief dangers connected with the Radical attitude of mind are to be found in the region of foreign politics. There the British Radical shows a most extraordinary iinpenetra- bility and want of appreciation of facts. He finds it • impossible to recognise that all countries are not governed • by public opinion. Judging others by himself, he cannot believe that the theories of the school of blood and iron really have weight in the world. Therefore, and in spite of rebuff after rebuff, he is always hankering after a limita- tion of armaments. His efforts towards peace and good- will are of course perfectly sincere, but he has not imagination enough to perceive what they look like from the German point of view,—namely, a proposal that our rival is to agree for all time to the per- petuation of the status quo under which we command the sea. Germany is never to call in question what Bacon described so happily as an "abridgement of Empire." The result is that his heav-booted intrusions ' into the region of foreign politics, which are at heart so well meaning, have only the effect of appearing grossly selfish and insulting to the ordinary German. It never seems to occur to the British Radical to think what his feelings would be supposing the Germans were to meet some scheme for Army reorganisation or Army improvement here by telling us that the command of the land was vital to Germany ; that we were committing an unfriendly act by improving our Army.; and that we should be virtually admitting ourselves to be the enemies of peace unless we at once gave up our insane rivalry in the matter of armaments and agreed that German supremacy on land was to the advantage of humanity. If such things were said to us by any school of German politicians the very Quakers here would rise in indignation. Yet our Radicals seem utterly unable to understand why their interference on similar lines should cause annoyance in Germany,—far more annoyance than the quiet and dignified course of not screaming but doggedly and effectively outbuilding our rival, and making our claim to command the sea rest on facts and not on threats and boasts, abstract aspirations, fine words, and noble intentions.
No doubt it will be said that the German Government does not object very greatly to these overtures. But that is only because the German Government is controlled by men of the world and political philosophers who are not easily irritated, and who think that it is quite possible that they may be able to turn these schemes for the limitation of armaments to their advantage. The past week has seen a renewed outbreak of these well-meaning but mischievous proposals for coming to an understanding with Germany in regard to naval rivalry. On Monday the Daily Chronicle published a communication three and a half columns long from a special correspondent at Berlin dealing with Anglo-German relations. We cannot find space to summarise the whole article, but the following headlines will show its contents :—" Sowing the Poison of Preju- dice " ; "German Commercial Expansion " ; "Colonial Transaction " ; "The Bagdad Railway"-; "No Limitation of Armaments without a Political Understanding " ; " Germany's Financial Resources"; "The Stress of War Burdens"; " Is an Understanding Possible ? " The general result of the article is that the special representative of the Daily Chronicle in Berlin, who interviewed a great number of prominent people, was told that England's relations with Germany had grown worse of late ; that the prospect of perfect amity, after five years of Liberal government, was as far away as ever; and that though statesmen in both countries professed to be most anxious to promote friendly relations, no light was seen ahead and no progress had been made along the paths which lead to peace. Commercial rivalry between the two nations, he very truly says, would not in itself engender bad feeling but that the mad race in armaments was creating an atmosphere of hostility, and so forth. No understanding in regard to naval armaments, he was told by a person in a position of some authority, was possible under present conditions. And then came the significant remark which students of our relations with Germany have seen expressed in almost the same words again and again in the course of the armaments controversy :—" No question of the limitation of armaments could be considered unless it is accompanied by a readiness to, come to a political under- standing." On this follow certain reflections which usually arise in the mind of the British Radical when he talks to the skilled diplomats of Germany --
"All this was said more in sorrow than in anger. Nothing would please Germany more than to come to an understanding with England. The workers and the democratic parties have no sympathy with the mad race for armaments. The commercial chases profess the most friendly feelings towards England. The dominating military caste are, of course, always ready for war, and in this sense are anti-British. But militarism while it pervades the whole empire, is subject to the will of the Kaiser. The Kaiser is steeped in militarism himself, but he is also full of spirituality. While he is quink to defend German interests, he is also sincere in his desire for the maintenance of peace. And there is every reason to assume that lie would welcome an understanding with Great Britain. The irritation in some official circles against England is great. 'The deplorable fact is,' said one gentleman to me, the British diplomatic service is honeycombed with hostility towards Germany and her interests. We meet it at every turn : there is an undercurrent of suspicion and jealousy in every quarter, even when it is not open opposition.' "
What does all this mean when it is brought down to the commonplace of fact ? What is there behind all this talk, and what do the Germans really mean when they tell us that "no question of the limitation of armaments could be considered unless it is accompanied by a readi- ness to come to a political understanding " ? What is the nature of that political understanding ? We dislike more than we can say writing anything which may seem to tend towards the promotion of illwill in international affairs ; but unpleasant as the task 'is, it is absolutely necessary to speak quite frankly on this subject, and to insist upon the British public knowing the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. What the German statesmen mean by this talk of a political understanding is exactly what they meant a year or two ago when they told us in even more threatening language that we were attempting to "hem Germany in, that they would never stand it, and that any Power who dared to try to hem Germany in should feel the weight of the mailed fist,—and so on and so forth. This talk of hemming in, and the assertion that limitation of armaments can only be obtained by a political understanding with Germany, if translated into plain words, amount to nothing less than this. Britain can only have the kind of understanding with Germany upon which a limitation of naval armaments can be based on condition that she gives up the understandings arrived at with France and Russia,—understandings the effects of which, though the British Government have shrunk from putting them into such simple terms, are as follows. If either France or Russia, or both, should be attacked by Germany and her allies, we shall go to their assistance, for we dare not allow Germany to dominate the Continent and have Europe at her mercy. There is the whole thing in black and white.
As Germany, or rather the ruling caste in Germany, wants to dominate the Continent and have the European Powers at her mercy, though not necessarily to conquer them, she is naturally very much annoyed at the stiffening which we have given to those Powers which are not already within the sphere of German domination. We are the obstacle to the success of German ambitions and aspirations, just as we were the obstacle to the success of the Napoleonic aspirations. We are, that is, once again the make-weight in Europe. But the German ruling caste are logical and practical, and, like other practical and logical people, they try to remove obstacles from a path which, foolishly or wisely—very foolishly, we think—they have marked out for themselves. Hence what they desire, to speak quite frankly, is partly to bribe and partly to bully us out of being the make-weight of Europe,—the check on their far- reaching ambitions. That being so, they adopt a very natural and obvious piece of strategy, and pretend that it is we who are endangering the peace by the wicked and cynical way in which we have encouraged France and Russia to reject the reasonable, moderate, and friendly overtures of Germany. Exactly in the same way the wolf in the fable was furious at the tyrannical and aggressive spirit shown by the lamb who would foul the water. When the lamb explained his position, he was told that he made matters worse by his insulting and aggressive talk, which was a positive incentive to ill-feeling and unfriendly relations. In truth, the attitude which the ruling people in Germany take up when they talk to the earnest and philanthropic Radical, though the Radical in question does not see it, is this Unless you will consent to be our brothers, we shall most reluctantly be obliged to knock you on the head. Of course if you will be our brothers, you will find everything go smoothly and pleasantly. You will be relieved of a great burden, and you will also have the priceless consolation of having pre- served the world from war. Germany, though she objects to being hemmed in, and may be obliged to demand her rights occasionally in somewhat peremptory terms (as happened when she had to speak firmly to Russia the other day), has no desire to go to war with anybody if she can get what she believes to be her rights without it.' That is what the rulers of Germany really mean when they tell us that there can be no limitation of armaments without a political understanding with Germany. In fact, there can be no limitation of armaments unless we enter the sphere of German influence, and bind, ourselves to stand aside while Germany does what she likes on the Continent. That, we venture to say, is a price which even the most peace-loving Radical will refuse to pay when he clearly understands what is being asked of him.
Previous page
