Chapter II: The Axioms of Modern Statecraft

Are the foregoing axioms unchallengeable?--Some typical statements
of them--German dreams of conquest--Mr. Frederic Harrison on
results of defeat of British arms and invasion of England--Forty
millions starving.

Are the axioms set out in the last chapter unchallengeable?

Is it true that the wealth, prosperity and well-being of a nation depend upon its military power, or have necessarily anything whatever to do therewith?

Can one civilized nation gain moral or material advantage by the military conquest of another?

Does conquered territory add to the wealth of the conquering nation?

Is it possible for a nation to "own" the territory of another in the way that a person or corporation would "own" an estate?

Could Germany "take" English trade and Colonies by military force?

Could she turn English Colonies into German ones, and win an overseas empire by the sword, as England won hers in the past?

Does a modern nation need to expand its political boundaries in order to provide for increasing population?

If England could conquer Germany to-morrow, completely conquer her, reduce her nationality to so much dust, would the ordinary British subject be the better for it?

If Germany could conquer England, would any ordinary German subject be the better for it?

The fact that all these questions have to be answered in the negative, and that a negative answer seems to outrage common sense, shows how much our political axioms are in need of revision.

The literature on the subject leaves no doubt whatever that I have correctly stated the premises of the matter in the foregoing chapter. Those whose special vocation is the philosophy of statecraft in the international field, from Aristotle and Plato, passing by Machiavelli and Clausewitz down to Mr. Roosevelt and the German Emperor, have left us in no doubt whatever on the point. The whole view has been admirably summarized by two notable writers--Admiral Mahan, on the Anglo-Saxon side, and Baron Karl von Stengel (second German delegate to the First Hague Conference) on the German. Admiral Mahan says:

The old predatory instinct that he should take who has the
power survives ... and moral force is not sufficient to
determine issues unless supported by physical. Governments are
corporations, and corporations have no souls; governments,
moreover, are trustees, and as such must put first the lawful
interests of their wards--their own people.... More and more
Germany needs the assured importation of raw materials, and,
where possible, control of regions productive of such
materials. More and more she requires assured markets and
security as to the importation of food, since less and less
comparatively is produced within her own borders by her rapidly
increasing population. This all means security at sea.... Yet
the supremacy of Great Britain in European seas means a
perpetually latent control of German commerce.... The world has
long been accustomed to the idea of a predominant naval power,
coupling it with the name of Great Britain, and it has been
noted that such power, when achieved, is commonly often
associated with commercial and industrial predominance, the
struggle for which is now in progress between Great Britain and
Germany. Such predominance forces a nation to seek markets,
and, where possible, to control them to its own advantage by
preponderant force, the ultimate expression of which is
possession.... From this flow two results: the attempt to
possess and the organization of force by which to maintain
possession already achieved.... This statement is simply a
specific formulation of the general necessity stated; it is an
inevitable link in the chain of logical sequences--industrial
markets, control, navy bases....[3]

But in order to show that this is no special view, and that this philosophy does indeed represent the general public opinion of Europe, the opinion of the great mass which prompts the actions of Governments and explains their respective policies, I take the following from the current newspapers and reviews ready to my hand:

It is the prowess of our navy ... our dominant position
at sea ... which has built up the British Empire and its
commerce.--London _Times_ leading article.

Because her commerce is infinitely vulnerable, and because her
people are dependent upon that commerce for food and the wages
with which to buy it.... Britain wants a powerful fleet, a
perfect organization behind the fleet, and an army of defence.
Until they are provided this country will exist under perpetual
menace from the growing fleet of German _Dreadnoughts_, which
have made the North Sea their parade-ground. All security will
disappear, and British commerce and industry, when no man knows
what the morrow will bring forth, must rapidly decline, thus
accentuating British national degeneracy and decadence.--H.W.
Wilson in the _National Review_, May, 1909.

Sea-power is the last fact which stands between Germany and the
supreme position in international commerce. At present Germany
sends only some fifty million pounds worth, or about a seventh,
of her total domestic produce to the markets of the world
outside Europe and the United States.... Does any man who
understands the subject think there is any power in Germany,
or, indeed, any power in the world, which can prevent Germany,
she having thus accomplished the first stage of her work, from
now closing with Great Britain for her ultimate share of this
240 millions of overseas trade? Here it is that we unmask the
shadow which looms like a real presence behind all the moves of
present-day diplomacy, and behind all the colossal armaments
that indicate the present preparations for a new struggle for
sea-power.--Mr. Benjamin Kidd in the _Fortnightly Review_,
April 1, 1910.

It is idle to talk of "limitation of armaments" unless the
nations of the earth will unanimously consent to lay aside all
selfish ambitions.... Nations, like individuals, concern
themselves chiefly with their own interests, and when these
clash with those of others, quarrels are apt to follow. If the
aggrieved party is the weaker he usually goes to the wall,
though "right" be never so much on his side; and the stronger,
whether he be the aggressor or not, usually has his own way. In
international politics charity begins at home, and quite
properly; the duty of a statesman is to think first of the
interests of his own country.--_United Service Magazine_, May,
1909.

Why should Germany attack Britain? Because Germany and Britain
are commercial and political rivals; because Germany covets
the trade, the colonies, and the Empire which Britain now
possesses.--Robert Blatchford, "Germany and England," p. 4.

Great Britain, with her present population, exists by virtue of
her foreign trade and her control of the carrying trade of the
world; defeat in war would mean the transference of both to
other hands and consequent starvation for a large percentage of
the wage-earners.--T.G. Martin in the London _World_.

We offer an enormously rich prize if we are not able to defend
out shores; we may be perfectly certain that the prize which we
offer will go into the mouth of somebody powerful enough to
overcome our resistance and to swallow a considerable portion
of us up.--The Speaker of the House of Commons in a speech at
Greystoke, reported by the London _Times_.

What is good for the beehive is good for the bee. Whatever
brings rich lands, new ports, or wealthy industrial areas to a
State enriches its treasury, and therefore the nation at large,
and therefore the individual.--Mr. Douglas Owen in a letter to
the _Economist_, May 28, 1910.

Do not forget that in war there is no such thing as
international law, and that undefended wealth will be seized
wherever it is exposed, whether through the broken pane of a
jeweller's window or owing to the obsession of a humanitarian
Celt.--London _Referee_, November 14, 1909.

We appear to have forgotten the fundamental truth--confirmed by
all history--that the warlike races inherit the earth, and that
Nature decrees the survival of the fittest in the never-ending
struggle for existence.... Our yearning for disarmament, our
respect for the tender plant of Non-conformist conscience, and
the parrot-like repetition of the misleading formula that the
"greatest of all British interests is peace" ... must
inevitably give to any people who covet our wealth and our
possessions ... the ambition to strike a swift and deadly blow
at the heart of the Empire--undefended London.--_Blackwood's
Magazine_, May, 1909.

These are taken from English sources, but there is not a straw to choose between them and other European opinion on the subject.

Admiral Mahan and the other Anglo-Saxons of his school have their counterpart in every European country, but more especially in Germany. Even so "Liberal" a statesman as Baron Karl von Stengel, the German delegate to the First Hague Peace Conference, lays it down in his book that--

Every great Power must employ its efforts towards exercising
the largest influence possible, not only in European but in
world politics, and this mainly because economic power depends
in the last resort on political power, and because the largest
participation possible in the trade of the world is a vital
question for every nation.

The writings of such classic authorities as Clausewitz give full confirmation of this view, while it is the resounding note of most popular German political literature that deals with "Weltpolitik." Grand Admiral von Koster, President of the Navy League, writes:

The steady increase of our population compels us to devote
special attention to the growth of our overseas interests.
Nothing but the strong fulfilment of our naval programme can
create for us that importance upon the free-world-sea which it
is incumbent upon us to demand. The steady increase of our
population compels us to set ourselves new goals and to grow
from a Continental into a world power. Our mighty industry must
aspire to new overseas conquests. Our world trade--which has
more than doubled in twenty years, which has increased from
2500 million dollars to 4000 million dollars during the ten
years in which our naval programme was fixed, and 3000 million
dollars of which is sea-borne commerce--only can flourish if we
continue honorably to bear the burdens of our armaments on
land and sea alike. Unless our children are to accuse us of
short-sightedness, it is now our duty to secure our world power
and position among other nations. We can do that only under the
protection of a strong German fleet, a fleet which shall
guarantee us peace with honor for the distant future.

One popular German writer sees the possibility of "overthrowing the British Empire" and "wiping it from the map of the world in less than twenty-four hours." (I quote his actual words, and I have heard a parallel utterance from the mouth of a serious English public man.) The author in question, in order to show how the thing could come about, deals with the matter prophetically. Writing from the standpoint of 1911,[4] he admits that--

At the beginning of the twentieth century Great Britain was a
free, a rich, and a happy country, in which every citizen, from
the Prime Minister to the dock-laborer, was proud to be a
member of the world-ruling nation. At the head of the State
were men possessing a general mandate to carry out their
programme of government, whose actions were subject to the
criticism of public opinion, represented by an independent
Press. Educated for centuries in self-government, a race had
grown up which seemed born to rule. The highest triumphs
attended England's skill in the art of government, in her
handling of subject peoples.... And this immense Empire, which
stretched from the Cape to Cairo, over the southern half of
Asia, over half of North America and the fifth continent, could
be wiped from the map of the world in less than twenty-four
hours! This apparently inexplicable fact will be intelligible
if we keep in sight the circumstances which rendered possible
the building up of England's colonial power. The true basis of
her world supremacy was not her own strength, but the maritime
weakness of all the other European nations. Their almost
complete lack of naval preparations had given the English a
position of monopoly which was used by them for the annexation
of all those dominions which seemed of value. Had it been in
England's power to keep the rest of the world as it was in the
nineteenth century, the British Empire might have continued for
an unlimited time. The awakening of the Continental States to
their national possibilities and to political independence
introduced quite new factors into Weltpolitik, and it was only
a question of time as to how long England could maintain her
position in the face of the changed circumstances.

And the writer tells how the trick was done, thanks to a fog, efficient espionage, the bursting of the English war balloon, and the success of the German one in dropping shells at the correct tactical moment on to the British ships in the North Sea:

This war, which was decided by a naval battle lasting a single
hour, was of only three weeks' duration--hunger forced England
into peace. In her conditions Germany showed a wise moderation.
In addition to a war indemnity in accordance with the wealth of
the two conquered States, she contented herself with the
acquisition of the African Colonies, with the exception of the
southern States, which had proclaimed their independence, and
these possessions were divided with the other two powers of the
Triple Alliance. Nevertheless, this war was the end of England.
A lost battle had sufficed to manifest to the world at large
the feet of clay on which the dreaded Colossus had stood. In a
night the British Empire had crumbled altogether; the pillars
which English diplomacy had erected after years of labour had
failed at the first test.

A glance at any average Pan-Germanist organ will reveal immediately how very nearly the foregoing corresponds to a somewhat prevalent type of political aspiration in Germany. One Pan-Germanist writer says:

"The future of Germany demands the absorption of
Austria-Hungary, the Balkan States, and Turkey, with the North
Sea ports. Her realms will stretch towards the east from Berlin
to Bagdad, and to Antwerp on the west."

For the moment we are assured there is no immediate intention of seizing the countries in question, nor is Germany's hand actually ready yet to catch Belgium and Holland within the net of the Federated Empire.

"But," he says, "all these changes will happen within our epoch," and he fixes the time when the map of Europe will thus be rearranged as from twenty to thirty years hence.

Germany, according to the writer, means to fight while she has a penny left and a man to carry arms, for she is, he says, "face to face with a crisis which is more serious than even that of Jena."

And, recognizing the position, she is only waiting for the moment she judges the right one to break in pieces those of her neighbors who work against her.

France will be her first victim, and she will not wait to be attacked. She is, indeed, preparing for the moment when the allied Powers attempt to dictate to her.

Germany, it would seem, has already decided to annex the Grand Duchy of Luxemburg, and Belgium, incidentally with, of course, Antwerp, and will add all the northern provinces of France to her possessions, so as to secure Boulogne and Calais.

All this is to come like a thunderbolt, and Russia, Spain, and the rest of the Powers friendly to England will not dare to move a finger to aid her. The possession of the coasts of France and Belgium will dispose of England's supremacy for ever.

In a book on South Africa entitled "Reisen Erlebnisse und Beobachtungen," by Dr. F. Bachmar, occurs the passage:

"My second object in writing this book is that it may happen to
our children's children to possess that beautiful and unhappy
land of whose final absorption (_gewinnung_) by our Anglo-Saxon
cousins I have not the least belief. It may be our lot to unite
this land with the German Fatherland, to be equally a blessing
to Germany and South Africa."

The necessity for armament is put in other than fictional form by so serious a writer as Dr. Gaevernitz, Pro-Rector of the University of Freiburg. Dr. Schulze-Gaevernitz is not unknown in England, nor is he imbued with inimical feelings towards her. But he takes the view that the commercial prosperity of Germany depends upon her political domination.[5]

After having described in an impressive way the astonishing growth of Germany's trade and commerce, and shown how dangerous a competitor Germany has become for England, he returns to the old question, and asks what might happen if England, unable to keep down the inconvenient upstart by economic means, should, at the eleventh hour, try to knock him down. Quotations from the _National Review_, the _Observer_, the _Outlook_, the _Saturday Review_, etc., facilitate the professor's thesis that this presumption is more than a mere abstract speculation. Granted that they voice only the sentiments of a small minority, they are, according to our author, dangerous for Germany in this--that they point to a feasible and consequently enticing solution. The old peaceful Free Trade, he says, shows signs of senility. A new and rising Imperialism is everywhere inclined to throw the weapons of political warfare into the arena of economic rivalry.

How deeply the danger is felt even by those who sincerely desire peace and can in no sense be considered Jingoes may be judged by the following from the pen of Mr. Frederic Harrison. I make no apology for giving the quotations at some length. In a letter to the London _Times_ he says:

Whenever our Empire and maritime ascendancy are challenged it
will be by such an invasion in force as was once designed by
Philip and Parma, and again by Napoleon. It is this certainty
which compels me to modify the anti-militarist policy which I
have consistently maintained for forty years past.... To me now
it is no question of loss of prestige--no question of the
shrinkage of the Empire; it is our existence as a foremost
European Power, and even as a thriving nation.... If ever our
naval defence were broken through, our Navy overwhelmed or even
dispersed for a season, and a military occupation of our
arsenals, docks, and capital were effected, the ruin would be
such as modern history cannot parallel. It would not be the
Empire, but Britain, that would be destroyed.... The occupation
by a foreign invader of our arsenals, docks, cities, and
capital would be to the Empire what the bursting of the boilers
would be to a _Dreadnought_. Capital would disappear with the
destruction of credit.... A catastrophe so appalling cannot be
left to chance, even if the probabilities against its occurring
were 50 to 1. But the odds are not 50 to 1. No high authority
ventures to assert that a successful invasion of our country is
absolutely impossible if it were assisted by extraordinary
conditions. And a successful invasion would mean to us the
total collapse of our Empire, our trade, and, with trade, the
means of feeding forty millions in these islands. If it is
asked, "Why does invasion threaten more terrible consequences
to us than it does to our neighbors?" the answer is that the
British Empire is an anomalous structure, without any real
parallel in modern history, except in the history of Portugal,
Venice, and Holland, and in ancient history Athens and
Carthage. Our Empire presents special conditions both for
attack and for destruction. And its destruction by an enemy
seated on the Thames would have consequences so awful to
contemplate that it cannot be left to be safeguarded by one
sole line of defence, however good, and for the present hour
however adequate.... For more than forty years I have raised my
voice against every form of aggression, of Imperial expansion,
and Continental militarism. Few men have more earnestly
protested against postponing social reforms and the well-being
of the people to Imperial conquests and Asiatic and African
adventures. I do not go back on a word that I have uttered
thereon. But how hollow is all talk about industrial
reorganization until we have secured our country against a
catastrophe that would involve untold destitution and misery on
the people in the mass--which would paralyze industry and raise
food to famine prices, whilst closing our factories and our
yards!