GERMAN MINDS AND OTHER MINDS.
IN reviewing lately a book called Bismarck's Pen—the Life and letters of Heinrich Abeken, the Foreign Office official who acted as Bismarck's secretary—we asked the question whether good Germans have an unlimited power of self- deception, or whether they meekly accept the voice of authority as the voice of truth, and consequently go astray in deep but sincere ignorance. For Abeken provided the spectacle of an undoubtedly good man spending his whole life in the con- viction that the blessing of God might fairly be invoked upon the German treatment of Schleswig-Holstein, and on the machinations of Bismarck that led to the Franco-German War. In his case we think that sincere ignorance was the explanation. He accepted as necessarily true whatever version of events Bismarck chose to place before him, and though be. wrote the original text of the Ems telegram he apparently had not enough penetration to see that Bismarck's revised version was—and was intended to be—an intense provocation to the French. Now the same question presents itself to us in a more acute form than ever when we read some of the astonieh- ing documents which have been issued in Germany during the past month for the edification of neutral countries, andppar- tienlarly of the United States. Do the mass of Germans believe these " authoritative " documents ? Do the officials and eminent men who produce them expect Americans to believe them? We can understand a man telling a lie if he thinks that it will serve an immediate purpose, and that the odium of ultimate discovery will not by any means counter- balance the advantages gained in the meantime. Napoleon told such a lie when he tried to inspire false courage in his weakening troops at Waterloo by informing them that rein- forcements were coming. What we cannot understand is that any man should think it worth while to lie when discovery is bound to follow hard upon the dissemination of the lie. German officials apparently think it is worth while, and thus betray once more what we have so often had cause to notice in them—an almost childish faculty for blundering through a failure to understand human nature. And yet this faculty is combined with a superb genius for organization which we cannot but admire. It is as though militaristic methods of thought had rendered it impossible for them to understand how the minds of other people work. To other people it seems an astonishing proceeding to spend tens of thousands of pounds on a campaign that is bound to excite ridicule in neutral countries where the facts are known, or are sure to be known very shortly. The effect in Turkey, of course, might be great, and in the right direction from the German point of view. Again, in Germany concurrence with the official view may be wide and enthusiastic for some time to come. But can this concurrence last ? Is it possible that a cultured and highly critical people will be permanently deceived? But let us to our illustrations. First there is a pamphlet called The Truth about Germany : Facts about the War, which has been compiled in Germany for distribution in the United States. A few copies have reached England, and we have read summaries of it in the Westminster Gazette and in the Daily Chronicle. The Committee responsible for this extra; ordinary production includes Herr Bailin, the famous apostle of the German mercantile marine, Prince Billow, Field- Marshal von der Goltz, Prince Hatzfeldt, Professor Harnack, Herr Siegfried Wagner, Count Reventlow, and many other
well-known men. If such information as this pamphlet con- tains represents the only version of the diplomatic prelude to the war which is available for the ordinary German, it is not to be wondered at that the German people are at one with the German Government. Again, this would account for the fact that persons of very strong English sympathies in Germany of whom we have heard have been carried off their feet by what they believe to be proofs of British determination to go to war in any case. The pamphlet begins with an introductory declaration that the German people are the most peaceable in the world. Germany, we are told, has been forced into war by the Tsa; who " bears before God and posterity the responsi- bility of having allowed himself to be terrorized by an unscrupulous military clique." The writers are " deeply dis- tressed " to see " two highly civilized nations, England and France, joining the onslaught of autocratic Russia." Russia, it is stated, forced on the war because she refused to allow Austria to pacify her southern frontier and punish Servia.
Servia is audaciously said to be responsible for the murder of the Archduke Francis Ferdinand. "Austria-Hungary was able to prove to a shuddering world a few days after the murder . . . that the Servian Government had been cognisant of the plan." We may remind our readers that there was never any proof at all offered to a world shuddering or other- wise. Austria-Hungary announced that she had in her pos- session documentary proofs of Servian complicity, and that she would produce them, but the war began before any foreigner was allowed to see them. And even if documents were produced what value could we attach to evidence thatcame from the same source as the notorious forgeries—admitted forgeries —in the Friedjung trial P Russian preparations for a possible war are spoken of as a malicious wickedness, while the simul- taneous German preparations are said to have been "purely
defensive." The value of the assertion—for, of course, all this is necessarily but assertion where the motives are hidden—
may be tested by the events of the exactly similar situation in 1909, when Germany in " shining armour" successfully coerced and humiliated Russia, and Servia had to consent to seeing her kith and kin pass under Austrian rule. Nothing is said about the impossible character of the Austrian demands on Servia- demands that were plainly meant to be rejected, since no independent country ever consented to such outrageous humiliations since the beginning of the world. The writers of the pamphlet seem to have altogether forgotten that the German Foreign Secretary, as the British White Book says, " admitted that the Servian Government could not swallow certain of the Austro-Hungarian demands." Nothing is said about Russia having urged Servia to comply with nearly all those demands, preposterous though they were. Nothing, again, is said about Russia having agreed to the British suggestion that the Austro-Servian dispute should be settled by a Conference, while Germany refused this offer. What is one to think of the candour of the writers P What is one to say of their contempt for the intelligence of Americans ?
The treatment of the question of Belgian neutrality is, if possible, even more amazing :—
"Before one German soldier had crossed the German frontier, large number of French aeroplanes came flying into our country across the neutral territory of Belgium and Luxemburg without a word of warning on the part of the Belgian Government. At the same time the German Government learned that the French were about to enter Belgium. Then our Government with great reluctance had to decide upon requesting the Belgian Government to allow our troops to march through its territory. Belgium was to be indemnified after the war, was to retain its sovereignty and integrity. Belgium protested at the same time allowing, by an agreement with France, that the French troops might enter Belgium. After all this and not till France and Belgium itself had broken the neutrality, our troops entered the neutral terri- tory Germany wanted nothing from Belgium, but had to prevent that Belgian soil be used as a gate of entrance into German territory. . . . Little has as yet been said of Great Britain. It was Germany's conviction that the sincerity of Britain's love for peace could be trusted. At any rate, Sir Edward Grey and Mr. Asquith asserted again and again in the course of the last few years that England wished friendly relations with Germany and never would lend its support to a Franco-Russian attack on Germany. Nov this attack had been made; Germany was on the defensive against two powerful enemies. What would Great Britain do about it ? That was the question. Great Britain asked in return for its neutrality that the German forces should not enter Belgium. In other words, it asked that Germany should allow the French and Belgian troops to form on Belgian territory for a march against our frontier ! This we could not allow. It would have been suicidal. The German Government made Great Britain in return for its neutrality the following offers: We would not attack the northern coast of France, we would leave un- molested the maritime commerce of France, and would indemnify Belgium after the war and safeguard its sovereignty and integrity. In spite of this Great Britain declared war on Germany, and sides to-day with those Continental Powers that have united for our destruction, in order that Moscovite barbarism may rule Europe. We know that Germany did not deserve such treatment on the part of Great Britain, and do not believe that Great Britain by this action did a service to humanity and civilization."
Here the writers seem to have forgotten that Herr von Bethmann Hollweg frankly admitted in the Reichstag that Germany had done wrong to violate the treaty she had signed guaranteeing the neutrality of Belgium. There is no mention of the fact that Britain required France explicitly to pledge herself to respect Belgian neutrality.
There is no mention of the fact that in 1904 the German General Staff decided that the next invasion of France must
be by way of Belgium, and that for that purpose they built a strategic railway right up to and along the Belgian frontier. There is no mention of the fact that this plan was set forth
in a memorandum by General von Schlieffen, and that in 1909 the German Emperor impressed the memorandum on his officers and gave it his full sanction. The memorandum was published. It is not a secret. Do the writers of the pamphlet really suppose that Americans have never heard of it or of the accompanying argument that necessity knows no law P How can Professor Harnack, Prince Billow, Count
Reventlow, and others who no doubt value their honour, put their names to such stuff ? It is a very interesting psycho. logical study, and we confess that an answer is not very easy to find.
We suspect that the end of the pamphlet was written by another hand than that which represents Germany in the earlier chapters as an angel of peace. For here we find the unexpected assertion—a perfectly true one—that the war of 1870 was deemed " necessary" for Germany because France " did not desire that North and South Germany should unite." Again, we read with an overwhelming sense of the incompati- bility of the passage with what has gone before: "In this war it shall be decided which is the stronger : the organized inertia of the tired and envious or the unfolding of power in the service of a strong and sacrificing life." That reads like Schiemann.
Treitschke, or Delbriick. Perhaps Professor Harnack will direct his famous powers of Higher Criticism to the pamphlet, and say if he cannot detect a double authorship—a Yahvist as well as an Elohistic hand, as it were.
We have not room to do much more than refer to another German pamphlet for American consumption. It is a manifesto by German theologians " To the Evangelical Christians Abroad." Some of the signatories are so widely known as men of piety as well as of powerful intellect that we prefer to believe that their hotch-potch of gross and obvious misstatements is the result of honest ignorance. Probably they have depended for diplomatic information on the German official publications. These, as we know, have suppressed some of the essential facts that appear in the British White Book. We shall quote only one sentence from the manifesto : " With the deepest conviction we must attribute the war to those who have long secretly and cunningly been spinning a web of conspiracy against Germany." This is signed by Professor Eucken, Professor Harnack, and Professor Richter, among many others ! We would give much at this moment to be able to place the White Book in the hands of these Professors, to point out to them Sir Edward Grey's passionate, and at last almost morbid, pleading for peace, and to ask them what they thought after they had read all the despatches of the existence of which they seem at present to be unaware. If they held to their belief in a conspiracy we confess that the workings of the German mind would be even more perplexing to us than they are now.
Previous page
