GERMANY AND AMERICA.
[To ma Emma or ma ..Smormos.”1
Son —I enclose a letter received from a German-American acquaintance and a copy of my reply, which I think may "December 10th, 1914.
Dawn. —,—May I call your attention--and solicit the consideration of your friend.. — to an essay on Garman Stateiwaft, which appears in tho current issue of the Outlook of December 9th P It is a reply to the criticism which is being hurled so volubly and so relentlessly against the German cause in the present European conflict from sources often biassed and ill-informed. It attempts an analysis of the situation from a viewpoint, though not impartial, yet competent and sufficiently detached to allow of proper perspective. During my several visits to this country I have always been anxious to enlarge my understanding of the relationship and exchange, political, social, and industrial, between Germany end the United States. To its scientific interpretation and literary presentation I have already devoted many years of comparative study and research. It has been my privilege to discuss the various problems, as they present themselves in the various departments of activity, with many men of eminence, and I feel certain that I would profit greatly if I were allowed to meet you, besides on the grounds of business, on the premises of general intellectual exchange.g Hopin that you will pardon this rather sadden assault upon your leisure, which, I realise, is one of the few things a successful man in this country does not possess in abundanee, and thanking you for any thought or enlightenment which you may bo willing to bestow upon the subject, I am, yours very truly, — —."
"December 19th, 1914.
Dime —,—I have delayed replying to your letter of the 12th of December, calling my attention to an article in the current issue of the Outlook, until I had time to read the article, and to give your -letter the consideration which no important a subject deserves.
First, let me compliment you upon your letter, which I found much more tactful and felicitous than the many communications which have been sent me during the pant three or four months from German sources.
As for the main issue, I do not believe that there ever will be, and I hope there never can be, a complete understanding between our country and Germany so long as the latter country is domi- nated by the ideals which seem to me to be the basis of its manifold activities. So far as I read the situation, wo and the Germane look at life from different standpoints. It is a common- place to refer to the hopelessness or the Western mind under- standing the subtleties and idiosyncrasies of the Chinese mind. It has very lately become apparent, however, that almost as wide a chasm separates the point of view of the average German from that of the average Frenchman, Englishman, or American. I believe that it is not merely a question of a different opinion about methods, but that it is a radically different standpoint with respect to principles; that there is a moral question involved, and about a moral question—or, as some would say, a spiritual principle —there is never any hope of reconciling opposing views. We believe that the minds of the German race have been saturated with the thoroughly pernicious teachings of Nietzsche, of Ilneckel, of Von Hartmann, of Treitsehke, and of your other materialistic philosophers, until they hold a point of view towards life and towards what is fitting and proper in the conduct of life that is reprehensible, selfish, and wicked. It is net a question of arguing; it is not a matter which we can dispute. It is a question of fact. If the Germane think that might makes right; if they think that the end justifies the means ; if they think that necessity knows no laws; if they think that their future and their welfare justify war, justify the viola- tion of Belgian neutrality, justify any other breaking of the ordinary rules of honour and of morality—and I judge from your article, and from scores of others which I have seen, that the Germans as a whole do think all these things—then all I can say is that the rest of the civilized world hold a diametrically opposite view and that no reconciliation is possible. You yourself, in your article, say that the issue has been beclouded by endeavouring to bring into it a moral question. You say that morals have nothing to do with war. You seem to have more or less contempt for some of the English publicists, and perhaps for some of our American newspaper writers, for mixing up these two subjects, which from your standpoint should be kept separate. Of course I think you are wrong, and that war is as much subject to moral considerations and to the other rules that govern proper human conduct, as any other human activity. So what is the use of talking about it P When there is a dispute between people that involves fundamental principles, the only thing that they can do is to fight it out; and the iood always prevails in the long run. Germany has suffered ever since the time of Frederick the Great, and particularly during the last fifty years, from the com- plete divorce between politics or statesmanship and religion. If the influences of religion are removed from the policies that guide the destinies of a nation, and if they are replaced by purely materialistic motives of self-interest and self-aggrandise- ment, that nation may have &temporary career of great brilliance, but is bound sooner or later to come in conflict with those forces in the world which make for righteousness, and to meet defeat. I suppose you think it nonsense to talk about religion in politico— that that is something that went out of date several hundred years ago. I also suppose you think that England and France have been just as selfish and have worked just as hard—but nano efficiently —for their self-interest and self-aggrandisement as Germany has. I would agree with you with this difference—and it is a great one. England and France and America are full of faults. They bays
been ruthless, cruel, arrogant, selfish, anything you like, but they have been these things because they are human, or composed of faulty human units, and not as a national policy. They have been bad because to be bad is human, not because they had a bad ideal. On the contrary, they had a good ideal. They admire and reverence what is best in human conduct and effort and desire to emulate it, and so fight on the aide of the angels. They fail for the same reasons all human beings fail in attaining their ideal. Germany, on the other hand, shapes her conduct deliberately on principles which the non-Germanic world repudiates as pernicious and wicked. She fights on the side of evil.
I am afraid you will not be able even to understand what I am talking about. Therefore I repeat what! have already said in this letter, that I do not think there is any use of talking—or writing —about it I think that the only sensible thing to do is to go on fighting about it, as it does not in the least matter how many people are killed, or how much property is destroyed, or what sacrifices are required, if an evil influence in the world is destroyed and one of the fundamental spiritual principles is vindicated.— Yours truly,
[Our correspondent represents, we are sure, the tries America—the America which not only speaks English but
thinks English; the America of Washington, of Lincoln, and of Grant; the America which stands for freedom and humanity, not merely when it pays commercially, but when adherence to those ideals demands a sacrifice.—En. Spectator.]
Previous page
