BOOKS.
THE NEW EUROPE.• EvEav European will probably agree that at the close of the present war there ought to be, and, indeed, that there must be, some reconstruction of the map of Europe. And every demo- cratic European will also certainly agree that the basis of that reconstruction must be sought in the more ample recognition of the principle of Nationality. The real difficulty, however, consists, not in the enunciation of the principle, but in finding some method by which practical effect may be given to it. Mr. Toynbee has now republished six thoughtful little essays, originally contributed to the Nation, in which he deals with this question. It cannot honestly be said that Mr. Toynbee elicits any new facts, or that he adduces any arguments with which politicians, who have considered this subject, may not be held to be fairly familiar. Nevertheless, his essays stimulate political thought. They afford a very useful vade-mecum of the principles which should be borne in mind, and, perhaps still more, of those which should be abjured, in treating the question of reconstruction. Moreover, Mr. Toynbee's writings are in no degree marred by the defect very commonly present in those of the school of political thinkers to which he presumably belongs. He does not inveigh against the obstructiveness of officials, the narrow-mindedness of critics, or the wickedness of Imperialists, who are at times credited with entertaining Chauvinistic intentions and opinions of which they are generally quite guiltless. On the contrary, he looks the facts fairly in the face, and expresses himself with commendable judgment and moderation. He recognizes, for instance, that " only a few peoples have grown up to Nationality in the whole course of history, and that the great majority of living populations are undoubtedly unripe for it." In making this admission, he inferentially accords his approval, not, indeed, to all Imperial policy, but at all events to the main doctrine on which the justification of British Imperialism, as at present practised, rests. Neither, save to a limited extent, can Mr. Toynbee be charged with adopting the course which often renders the outpourings of political theorists the despair of practical politicians. The latter complain, and occasionally with much reason, that the former are in the habit of leaving off at the precise point where they might profitably begin ; in other words, that they enunciate principles, which not unfrequently command universal assent, but make no suggestions as to how practical effect can be given to them. Mr. Toynbee, however, in discussing the often con- flicting claims of Nationality and economic interests, indicates a natural and very reasonable basis of conciliation. It is to be found in the adoption of a commercial policy based on the principle of the " open door." In dealing with the question of Federation he is less explicit, and certainly less convincing.
Obviously, the first thing to do, as a preliminary to discussing the question of Nationality, is to obtain some clear idea as to what is meant by a " nation." Many eminent political writers have dealt with this question. When the scholar Casaubon was taken to the great hall of the Sorbonne and was told by his guide that on that spot discussions had been going on for several centuries, he asked: " Qu'a-t-on decide 7" An equally pertinent question may be asked in the present instance without its being possible to elicit an absolutely satisfactory reply. It is, indeed, no easy matter to explain in epigrammatic form an idea so complex as that of Nationality. Definitio est negatio. It is easier to state what a nation is not than to define what it is. It Is certain, for instance, that community of race, religion, and language does not, in itself, suffice to create a common and binding national sentiment. The experience of the world testifies to the accuracy of this statement. To cite a single instance, the inhabitants of Spanish South America were all bound together by close racial and religious ties. They were at one time united in the achievement of a common object—the severance of their connexion with the Old World. Yet, when once that object had been attained, far from uniting, they engaged for a period of many years in a series of internecine struggles with each other. Failing, however, the adoption of any comprehensive description which will not err on the side of embracing either too much or too little, Mr. Toynbee's definition may very reasonably be accepted as sufficient for all practical purposes. Nationality, he says, must involve a " will to
• The New Europe : Some Essays on Reconstruction. By Arnold J. Toynbee. London: J. II. Bent and Sons. lie. ad. net.] co-operate." It is at least true to assert that, where that will is conspicuous by its absence, no Nationality can, in the proper sense of the term, be said to exist. On the other hand, the definition does not afford any useful clue to a practical settlement in the difficult but not uncommon case of a heterogeneous community which contains a large and powerful minority who are unwilling to co-operate.
Mr. Toynbee has no difficulty in proving to demonstration that the German ideas on this subject are not only diametrically opposed to the principle which he advocates, but that they are so wholly incapable of any rational defence that it is amazing that they should have been advanced by people who pride themselves on their high intellectual attainments. We now know more of German aims and intentions than was the case before the cannon on the Belgian frontier awoke a slumbering Europe from its ill-timed lethargy. We know, moreover, that the German policy of the day is no mushroom-growth which has suddenly sprung into existence at the bidding of a few awash- bucklering Generals of the Bernhardi type. Long before their voices were heard, eminent German Professors had boasted that the " whole essence of humanity " was concentrated in the German race, and Hegel, whose sinister and fallacious philosophy struck its roots deep into the minds of his countrymen, has pleaded that all history goes to prove that at various epochs the people who most of all represented what ho called " the world- spirit " must dominate over all others. Of course, he held that, alone of all the inhabitants of the globe, the Germans possessed that spirit. All who did not possess it were rechtlos (devoid of rights). More recently, the German programme has been authoritatively explained, with a precision which leaves nothing to be desired, by Professor Ostwald, who, in 1914, undertook a mission to Stockholm in order to convert the Swedes to German views. He divulged to them " Germany's great secret." It was that the Germans had " discovered the fact of organization." Germany's ambition, therefore, is to " organize Europe," and it cannot be doubted that, when the task of organizing the Old World has been accomplished, the intention is to take the New World in hand. In fact, as other Germans have stated the case, a decadent world can only be saved from complete ruin by a sustained and ruthless process of Germanization. Another Professor (Franz von Liszt) has been even more explicit, and has furnished a greater degree of detailed information than Professor Ostwald. It is essential, he thinks, to found a Central European Confederation under the hegemony of Germany in order to " check the two menacing world-Powers of Great Britain and Russia."
It has, however, been found convenient to mask the arrogant lust for conquest and world-dominion with which Germany is manifestly inspired by throwing over it a transparent veil of pseudo-nationalist principle to hide its crude brutality. The pleas for the extension of the Fatherland vary greatly. They are adapted to the special circumstances of each State. They are largely based on appeals to the history of a remote past, and, as Mr. Toynbee very truly remarks, " wo may almost take it as an axiom that whenever a cause invokes historical sentiment on its behalf, that cause is bankrupt of arguments reasonably applicable to the actual situation." Belgium and Burgundy are claimed for Germany " because the Mediaeval Empire called them its own." As well might King George V. put in a claim to Normandy based on the pretensions of his Plan- tagenet predecessors. Posen, Schleswig, and also—as a supple- mentary argument—Belgium ought to belong to Germany by reason of their proximity. " They are necessary complements to the frontiers of the Fatherland." Flemings and Alsatians must be swept into the net because they speak a Teutonic language. Thus, " patriotic: German atlases fetter to the ' Fatherland' masses of Dutchmen, Belgians, Frenchmen, Italians, and Swiss, who are unshakably devoted to their own nationality." Little attention need be paid to all this sophistry, which, indeed, is scarcely capable of deceiving a child. This aspect of the subject is, however, purely negative. The refutation of the German case, though dialectically a matter of extreme simplicity, does not show what a nation is. It merely indicates what it is not.
The " will to co-operate " may be produced by other causes than those which tend to create national sentiment. It may, as in the case of the Hapsburg Monarchy, be due to geographical necessity and economic interests. The idea of a " natural frontier " is so far reasonable that, for instance, Trieste, though an Italian town, is an absolutely necessary outlet for the trade of the non-Italian inhabitants of Central Europe. Fiume stands in the same relation to Hungary. How, therefore, are the conflicting claims of Nationality and economic evolution to be harmonized ? Not, assuredly, as Mr. Norman Angell seems to suggest, by looking solely to the economic and ignoring the nationalist factor in the situation, but rather by reconstructing Europe on the very reasonable principle advocated by Mr. Toynbee—namely, that of allowing an " economic right of way " to inland States. It has been applied with success in the case of Antwerp, whose trade was allowed free access to the sea through Dutch territory. Mr. Toynbeo cites further cases in point. The principle, which is one of great value and import- ance, is capable of extension.
In dealing with another aspect of the application of the Nationalist principle, Mr. Toynbee's views, though, it may be, academically sound, can scarcely be considered very practical. He admits that many peoples are " unripe " for self-government. Hence, the policy of laissez-faire is impossible. Such peoples must, at all events for a time, be dominated by others. On the other hand, there is a certain potentiality of nation-making in every homogeneous community. To destroy a fully developed nation is, Mr. Toynbee thinks, " murder." To strangle a community which may some day become a nation is " infan- ticide." What, therefore, is the solution ? Mr. Toynbee finds it in Federation, and he points to the example of the United States to justify his proposal. It is, indeed, a fact that, when North America achieved its independence, there was a moment when it seemed probable that the thirteen sovereign States on the Atlantic seaboard might fly asunder. But the " will to co-operate " existed, and Federation ensued. " This concept of a ` Federal Territory' has been the United States' greatest contribution to political thought." It is, however, more than doubtful whether it will be possible to apply a similar principle elsewhere. Mr. Toynbee appears to forget that, in America, Federation was immensely facilitated by the proximity to each other of the different units who federated. Amongst the com- ponent parts of the British Empire the "will to co-operate" exists in a very high degree. Why, therefore, has complete federation not yet taken place, and why does the realization of the idea still present such formidable difficulties ? Obviously, because the several units of the Empire are widely scattered. As to India, Egypt, and other similar territories, it is clear that the differences between their inhabitants and those of North America arc so profound that no analogy based on the precedent of the United States is of much value. In these cases, all that is possible is to continue the policy which has already been adopted ; that is to say, to do nothing calculated to arrest the growth of nascent and legitimate national aspirations, to govern well and wisely, and to watch the further development of
Previous page
