Chapter XII

DIGNITIES AND HONOURS—THE _DEUTSCHE REVUE_—GERMANY AND ENGLAND—WORLD SUPREMACY OR WAR

Roscoe’s services to science and to the cause of education were widely recognized. He was an honorary graduate of many universities at home and abroad, and an honorary or corresponding member of many foreign scientific societies. He was a D.C.L. of Oxford; and LL.D. of Cambridge (1883), Dublin (1878), Glasgow (1901), and Montreal (1884); and D.Sc. of Aberdeen, Liverpool, and Victoria. On the occasion of the eighth jubilee of the foundation of Heidelberg University he was made an honorary M.D.

He served as a member of the jury for chemical products of the English section of the French Exhibition of 1878, and was made an officer of the Legion of Honour, and in 1889 a corresponding member of the French Institute of the Academy of Sciences. He was an honorary member of the American Philosophical Society of Philadelphia and of the New York Academy of Sciences; of the Chemical Society of Berlin; of the Bunsen Gesellschaft, of the Verein für Naturwissenschaft of Brunswick, and of the Physikalische Verein of Frankfort; a corresponding member of the Bavarian Academy of Sciences of Munich, of the Royal Society of Sciences of Göttingen, of the Royal Accad. Lincei of Rome, and of the Academy of Natural Science of Catania; a member of the Leop. Carol. Akad. of Halle, and of the Physiogr. Sällsk of Lund. He was an honorary member of the Royal Irish Academy, and of the Literary and Philosophical Society of Manchester. In 1912 the Franklin Institute awarded him the Elliott Cresson Gold Medal.

He was sworn of the Privy Council in 1909—an honour which he accepted not only as a personal distinction but as a recognition of the claims of Science.

But of all the distinctions and marks of appreciation he received in the course of his long and busy life, none afforded him a truer or more heart-felt gratification than the action taken by his old pupils in celebrating the fiftieth anniversary of the date—March 25, 1854—on which he took his Heidelberg degree. The warmth and cordiality with which the idea of commemorating his jubilee was received, not only by his former students but by every teaching institution, academic body, and scientific society with which he was or had been connected, was a striking testimony to the regard and esteem in which he was universally held. The University of Heidelberg renewed its diploma of Doctor Philosophiæ Naturalis, and accompanied it by an address from the Grand Duke of Baden, Rector of the University, the Pro-Rector, Senior Dean, and the other professors of the Philosophical Faculty. Addresses were also sent by University College, London, the Victoria University, and the Universities of London, Liverpool, Birmingham, Wales, Scotland, Montreal, Melbourne, New Zealand, and Tokyo; King’s College, London, the Yorkshire College, and the University Colleges of Sheffield, Newcastle, and Dundee; the Royal and Chemical Societies, the Society of Chemical Industry, British Association, the Lister and Pasteur Institutes, and a number of the academies and scientific societies of Germany, Italy, Holland, and America. In addition a large number of congratulatory letters and messages were received from distinguished friends, chemists, and physicists throughout Europe, America, and the British Dominions beyond the Seas.

The celebration was held on April 22, 1904, in the beautiful Whitworth Hall of the Victoria University in the presence of a large and enthusiastic gathering of former students and colleagues, and of friends who had journeyed to Manchester to present addresses.

Of all these addresses, the one, he says in his autobiography, that touched him most nearly was that from his former pupils. It ran as follows:

We, the undersigned, all of whom have the honour to number
ourselves among your pupils, desire on the occasion of the
celebration of the Fiftieth Anniversary of the date of your
graduation as a Doctor of Philosophy of the University of
Heidelberg to offer you our hearty congratulations, and to
express our pleasure that you are able to be with us in health
and strength to receive this testimony of our gratitude and
esteem.

The half-century which has elapsed since the day of your Doctor
promotion _summa-cum-laude_, has witnessed an extraordinary
development in that branch of natural knowledge to which you
have particularly devoted yourself. We recall with pride in
how large a measure your own labours have contributed to that
growth—by your work as an original investigator, by your
literary productions, by your remarkable and almost unexampled
success as a teacher, by the influence you have exerted in
the organization and direction of societies concerned with
Science, by your unceasing and well-directed efforts to
secure for Science its due position in the scheme of National
Education and the fuller recognition of its relations to the
well-being of civilized communities. It was your good fortune
at the outset of your career to come under the influence of
illustrious chemical philosophers—Graham, Williamson, Bunsen.
Your good fortune has been our great gain. You have not only
worthily upheld the traditions associated with such names, but
you have inspired others by your example. Your influence is
to be seen in the creation of the great School of Chemistry
in which you have laboured for thirty years, and in which you
taught hundreds of pupils; it is equally felt in the many
similar places throughout this kingdom which are modelled upon
the lines you indicated, and which are to-day actuated by your
method and example.

We gratefully recall the obligations that we are under to
you as our teacher, and we cherish the memory of the signal
services you have rendered to the Institution of which we
are proud to be members. You came to it in the days of its
precarious infancy, you assisted to rear it into a vigorous
youth, sharing its aspirations, and stimulating its endeavours;
you behold it now of age, and entering upon a great career.

That you should have lived to see and enjoy this fruition of
your labours is a matter of special gratification to us, as it
must be to you. Blessed with continuing health and happiness
may you long be spared to witness its growth in prosperity and
usefulness.

To this address he replied:

Of all gratifying and far too flattering addresses which I am
to-day receiving, none come so near my heart as that signed by
three hundred of my former students.

What can a teacher value more than the sympathy and good
opinion of his pupils, and this you have given me in full
measure.

If I succeeded in forming a School of Chemistry at Owens, it
was because, in the first place, I learnt from Bunsen how the
foundations of such a school must be laid; secondly, because I
fortunately secured the co-operation in the task of good men
and true, like Schorlemmer and Dittmar; and last but not least
because I was surrounded by an ever-increasing band of young
men imbued with the true scientific spirit, able and anxious to
devote themselves to the study and to the advancement of their
science.

Well aware of my own deficiencies, and recognizing the gulf
which lies between promise and performance, I yield to none
in the personal interest which I take in your progress and
welfare, and in the affectionate remembrance in which I hold
each and all of you. Many, many thanks.

In his later years, and when the physical disabilities of age kept him more and more indoors, Roscoe occupied himself in contributing short articles to the _Deutsche Revue_ on academic or educational subjects. Thus in his first article he recalls his Heidelberg experiences, and dwells upon his friendly relations with German men of science, dating from the early ’fifties of the last century. In a second article he describes the rise of the English Universities—ancient and modern—their characteristics and the differences in constitution and methods between them and the German Universities. In 1908 an article entitled “An English Man of Science on the Friendship of the German Emperor for England and upon the relations of England and Germany,” indicates a certain feeling of anxiety at the growing unrest he perceives in reference to Germany’s intentions in so rapidly increasing the strength of her fleet. He follows this up with a longer article on “The Peace Mission of the Sciences,” in which he expands a favourite theme to which, to our grief, circumstances have now given the lie direct. In quick succession he writes letters to the editor on “A few words concerning England and Germany”; “International Understanding”; “No more War in Europe”—in which he strives to remove misapprehension, and to make clear to German readers that there is no widespread feeling of animosity in this country towards the Fatherland.

The following letter to the writer refers to this matter:—

… Has Anschütz sent you his pamphlet on Couper? It is very
interesting, and places C. on a level with Kekulé.… I am
languishing for some scientific converse. I fear no chance of
seeing you at present. But I should like to!

As a _Zeitvertreib_ I have written a political diatribe
entitled “Es soll in Europa kein mehr Krieg seyn” for the
_Deutsche Revue_. The Powers will tremble when they read
it—which they won’t! But the editor is pleased and calls me—or
rather, I fancy, his daughter does—“Dearest Sir Henry”!

Under the title of “King Edward VII the Peacemaker” he contributed to the same review a short article written a few weeks after the King’s death, in which he dilated on his high personal qualities, his merits as a ruler, and his love of order and peace. His last communication on “Germany and England” the editor declined to print, but it was published in _Nord und Sud_, an old-established and well-known fortnightly review of good repute. The article is so characteristic of the good sense and right feeling of its author that it is well worthy of reproduction, apart from its interest in relation to the one supreme topic of the time.

GERMANY AND ENGLAND.

I write neither from the point of view of a diplomatist nor
of a politician, but simply as a scientific man who, being
a _Menschenfreund_ and _Deutsch-gesinnt_ and anxious to
see differences between the nations as between individuals
disappear, asks himself the questions, who are the people who
are stirring up all this discord; what do they mean; what do
they want; what is their power? We in England call these men
Jingoes. In Germany, I believe, they are termed Pan-Germans or
All-Deutschen. In France they are “Revanchistes,” and in Italy
“Irredentisti.”

What they mean is clear enough; they mean mischief. What
they want is not so plain, for they do not tell us in simple
language; indeed, I doubt whether they know themselves. That
their language, whether spoken or written, is more or less
dangerous to the peace of the world everybody admits. What is
their power, and how far that danger goes, is another question.
Nobody believes that their wish to set the nations by the ears
is shared by the mass of mankind. The general good sense and
honesty of the people of every nationality is a strong bulwark
against Chauvinism. And if the true opinion of the British and
of the German peoples could be obtained who can doubt that
it would be in favour of peace and good feeling rather than
of hostility and war? But to err is human, and to be misled
is easy, so that it behoves those who love progress and hate
all that opposes progress to use all efforts to denounce
and destroy Chauvinism in every country and in every form.
In England Jingoism has practically no power. In Parliament
certainly none—witness the speeches lately delivered in both
Houses—not one note of ill-feeling towards Germany was heard.
On the contrary, the warmest expressions of appreciation of
goodwill and friendship fell from the lips not only of the
members of the present Government in Lords and Commons, but
also from the leaders of the Opposition in both Houses, and
the wish for an understanding with Germany was universal and
emphatic.

In the British Press, with a few dishonourable and unimportant
exceptions, the same thing may truthfully be said. The working
classes have never been infected by anti-Germanism. Our
commercial men, who are brought into intimate trading relations
with the Germans, desire an Anglo-German understanding beyond
all other aspirations in the sphere of foreign policy.

To believe that England now wishes, or is likely ever to
wish, to go to war with Germany is a delusion in which only
the insane can indulge. What on earth, may well be asked, can
England gain by commencing war with Germany? Suppose, for
instance, the British fleet could bombard and destroy Hamburg;
in what way would such an act of vandalism benefit us? In no
possible way; on the contrary, we should be cutting our own
throats, for is not Hamburg one of our best customers, merely
to look at the transaction from a monetary point of view?

Let me pull down another idol. It has been said, and is still
believed by many persons who ought to know better, that England
is jealous of the rising, or risen, world-wide trade of
Germany, and is determined to stop it in defence of her own.
That such a view has been expressed by certain of my countrymen
is, of course, a fact. But surely this is a totally false view.
Imagine, if you can, Germany reduced to the condition of half
a century ago, poor, disunited, with little or no world-wide
trade. Would English commerce be more flourishing than when, as
now, Germany is rich, united, and trading the wide world over?
Certainly not. The richer our neighbours and competitors become
the more will our own trade benefit. A man with sixpence in his
pocket is not much good as a buyer. With a handful of gold he
is a welcome customer! What the trade between the two countries
was worth fifty years ago I don’t know, but it must have been
a mere fraction of what it now amounts to, namely, over 100
millions sterling a year.

Is there any other point of view from which the notion that
England can personally gain by making war on Germany can be
urged? I do not know of one, and perhaps our Jingoes may even
admit this. But say they: “If we do not declare war Germany
is certain to do so. Is it not better for us to choose our
own time and occasion rather than allow our enemy to take the
step when the conditions are most favourable to them?” This
conclusion is sound provided the premises are also sound. Does
Germany intend to declare war or so to act as to bring about
a war with this country? What is the evidence? Certainly if
we are to accept the statements of the All-Deutschen party
as representing the opinion of the nation at large there are
good grounds for believing that war is inevitable. But surely
every one who knows anything of Germany and German opinion is
certain that the All-Deutschen have even less power to bring
about war than our own Jingoes have, and that their utterances
represent public opinion in Germany to a less extent than those
of our Jingoes represent the English opinion. The debates in
the Reichstag, the speeches of your Ministers, the expressions
in the more responsible organs of the German Press, and the
outspoken opinion of the German working classes, all tell the
same tale, “We do not want war.”

Still there remains in Germany a strong and widespread feeling
of animosity—not to use a harsher term—towards England.
Upon what is this feeling based? What has England done, is
doing, or is going to do that should create such a feeling of
mistrust and enmity? I have never been able to answer this
question, and I believe it arises out of a misunderstanding
and misconception; a sort of revival of the old French cry of
“_Perfide Albion_.” Can these All-Germans point to any one of
the many Anglo-German agreements which have been arrived at
from the time when Germany began to expand down to the present
moment which has not given Germany every opportunity to take
her place in the sun?

Let me come to the point. Has England interfered with German
trade? If she has, she has failed egregiously, for in spite
of England’s supposed efforts German trade has increased
and is increasing by leaps and bounds. But what signs of
interference has England shown? Can your Pan-Germans point to
a single instance? It is easy to write fiery articles, and to
attribute ill-feeling or jealousy, to say Germany cannot come
out in the sun because Britain “rules the waves,” to assert
that Englishmen dislike and despise the Germans, and that we
are jealous of German prosperity. This is not only foolish
and unfriendly talk, but it is false from beginning to end.
Instead of endeavouring to limit German trade our policy of
the open door has had the effect of expanding it enormously.
All our ports at home and in foreign waters, all our offices,
shops, and industries are open, and educated Germans have
taken great advantage of our policy both to their own and to
our immense benefit. Wherever British industry or commerce
flourishes there German merchants or manufacturers are found,
and there they remain. In our own great cities, in those of our
oversea dominions, as well as in our most distant settlements,
the ubiquitous German flourishes, and is a welcome strength
to the community. What more can England do to assist German
trade and industry than she has done and is doing? How can it
with any truth be said that England stops Germany from coming
out into the sun? “Yes,” these Pan-Germans may say, “we grant
that you are very kind, and give us a helping hand. That is,
however, not good enough for Germany. We must stand alone. We
insist upon having a Colonial Empire, an Oversea Dominion, a
_Deutschland über See_, as you have in Australasia, Canada, and
South Africa.”

Well, if these views were those of the German nation instead of
that of a somewhat insignificant clique, and if Germany were
to determine that at all hazards this wish must be fulfilled,
the question would at once become of grave importance, because
that would mean certain war with Britain, and probably with
the United States. And for this reason England being a long
consolidated great Power (_Welt Macht_), and having had the
command of the sea, and her people having the faculty of
successful colonization, has, for the last four hundred years
at least, sent forth peaceful armies to annex and dwell in the
most fruitful and habitable—but uncivilized—parts of the world.
To such an extent has this movement been successful that nearly
all the areas of land not already occupied by civilized man,
and capable of being made a permanent home by Europeans, have
been taken over by Englishmen or Americans, so that little
space of the kind is left for the young and aspiring German
nation to annex. Whether for good or for evil she has come too
late for this game of grab, unless, indeed, she is so rash
as to try to take land from those now in possession. This,
of course, entails war, and war the damage of which—even if
victorious on her side—no amount of land or gold could even
in a small degree repay. As to the truth of this statement,
consult the Credit Bankers of Berlin, and ask them what would
be the condition of the Berlin Exchange the day after war was
declared between Germany and England. I, for my part, do not
believe that Germany or its people are gone mad, or likely to
become so, and therefore I do not believe that Germany will
ever try to wrest from England her Oversea Dominions or to
invade the New World with the millions of armed men necessary
to establish a Fatherland in the West.

Much has lately been said about Germany being over-populated.
Her people increase by nearly one million souls yearly. “Some
outlet for these millions must be found,” say the All-Deutsch.
Is this so clear? The population of Germany is not nearly
so dense as that of our own country or that of Belgium, and
in both these countries the conditions of life are quite as
favourable as those in the Fatherland. Moreover, is it not true
that to-day thousands of workers from other lands are flocking
to fill new posts created by the ever-increasing demand for
labour in the German industries?

No! the high and glorious aim and true function of the German
nation is not to try to conquer by the “mailed fist” either
on land or sea, but to show how the world may be dominated
by proving to mankind the grand results which accrue to
civilization when a nation has both the power and the
determination to carry out its high ideals. No other nation
in either the Old or the New World possesses these ideals in
such high degree, and is, therefore, so fully able and so well
fitted to take the lead in this new departure as the German.

The old game of war is played out. It has become a disgraceful
instead of a glorious one in the eyes of twentieth-century
men. We look to Germany to show how a modern state is to be
carried on for the greatest good of its own people so as to
become an example to the rest. Take the opinions of your great
men of Science—men of the stamp of Helmholtz—men who looked
forward instead of backwards, and be guided by them. Ask them
in what is national glory to consist in the coming centuries.
Do not pin your faith on those who, like Treitschke, argue that
because war has been, it must continue to be, men who preach
the false doctrine that its influence is a purifying one, and
a saving grace. These views are those of the past. They do not
represent the present, still less the future opinion of mankind.

The time is now ripe, for has not Dr. von Bethmann-Hollweg
said on the part of the German people that the national slate
is clean? It will be the greatest wickedness and folly of both
nations if this appeal to the better feelings of the peoples is
not welcomed and acted upon.

Let Germany pursue her ideals, and her actions will rule the
world, because those ideals and actions make for peace and
progress.

That there was a section—and a not inconsiderable section—of the German public to whom this appeal was not in vain was manifested by the publication in Stuttgart of a remarkable article on “World Supremacy or War,” written under the _nom-de-plume_ of “Nostradamus.” This so impressed Roscoe that he translated it for the British-German Friendship Society—a society of influential persons who strove to stem the rising tide which broke down all barriers on that fateful day of August 1914. The purport of the article was to point out that the true policy of Germany was to seek an alliance with England. The writer admitted that we were the first to offer the hand of friendship, but that under Bülow’s _régime_ it was declined. He further shows it was this circumstance that led England to seek alliances elsewhere—an action that was not only natural but essential to our well-being, and wholly due to the short-sighted policy of Germany. The pamphlet is too long to be quoted in full, but a few extracts, read in the light of what is happening, may be of interest.

WORLD SUPREMACY OR WAR.

… We have often enough declared that we never mean to attack
England. Does any one imagine that a prudent nation will
trust to such words when it comes to a question for her of to
be or not to be? What is it those Britons see who have been
following with interest for twenty years the events which have
taken place in our country? A steady and continuous increase
of armaments; a fleet born and growing each year more and more
rapidly; a ruler who is restlessly active—now in the saddle,
now on the captain’s bridge; his palace only used for sleeping.
Wherever the Kaiser goes his forces are in the forefront.
Exercises, manœuvres, mobilization of the fleet, war games,
conferences, and speeches quickly follow one another. His
speeches refer oftener than needful to the grip of the sword,
and at the same time he sedulously endeavours to negotiate
personally with his neighbouring States. Such things as the
Kruger telegram and the expedition to Tangiers look like froth,
but they really hide personal wishes and inclinations. Thus do
the English see us. What can they, what must they think of it
all? We are grown to be neighbours and yet we arm and arm. Our
trade is protected, and for offensive purposes a fleet will
arouse little sympathy. Have not both Holland and Belgium a
large trade and yet no one thinks of wresting it from them.

Against what is Germany arming if not against England’s command
of the sea? Must not every Englishman think so? Has not their
mistrust been fostered by our policy, by the utterances of our
men of mark, by the opinions of our Press, and last but not
least by the propaganda of our Navy League?

How can a clear-headed people like the English entertain
friendly feelings for us in view of these evident proofs of our
mistrust? We have driven England into the Double Alliance. “He
who is not with me is against me.” Should we not do exactly the
same? We carry on a sentimental policy, play the injured party,
whilst suspicion prevents us from being open-minded.

The German Empire ought therefore only to have a fleet
sufficient for her real needs, able to defend her coasts, to
act as maritime police in the areas of smaller States, and
to perform convoy duty for our troop-ships to our colonies.
A larger fleet is in fact either a luxury or it is directed
against England. Such logic is inexorable. For our centre
of gravity—otherwise than is the case with England—lies at
home. We are not dependent on the importation of foodstuffs;
the 5 per cent. of what is not grown on our own soil must be
sacrificed in war.

As to our commerce, there will be no dispute. In the countries
where our goods are sold the German merchant is not only a
necessity but valued as an indispensable friend and educator.
The merchant who is not able to create such a position is not
worth having battleships near him to back up his weaknesses.
Only the excellence and tastefulness of the wares he has to
sell and the tact and ingenuity of the seller, coupled with a
full knowledge of local requirements, can ensure the prosperity
of our commerce; never the mailed fist! This cannot be repeated
too often or too emphatically.

Up to now the agreement with France and Russia has guaranteed
England’s safety. Now England sees that France, relying on the
military convention with her two friends, is working seriously
for war. She knows that in Russia the voice for war against
Germany is increasing. Such a war would weaken England’s Navy;
it would throw a hundred and fifty thousand Englishmen on the
battlefield;[30] it would mean heavy demands on the country’s
finance and her colonies might make threatening movements
against her sovereignty. She would also lose her best buyer and
seller. Europe’s predominance would be imperilled!

These are the weighty reasons why the English Government are
trying—even at the eleventh hour—to prevent this war.

Many object that the psychological moment will not arrive for
this war. Internal conditions will tend to promote it. Never
have the opportunities been so favourable for the French
and Russians to cross swords with us, and to endeavour to
annihilate our position as a leading Power of the Continent.

France sees her population going down year by year. In the same
ratio the prospect is dwindling for France to regain Alsace
Lorraine and thereby increase of dominion, population, and
prestige. The hatred of the conqueror continues to blaze; they
have long since lost all respect for us, and they are longing
to measure their strength with ours. Newspapers and leaflets
stir up the flame and preach _ceterum censeo_.

The Republic undoubtedly binds the people together more
closely, and will provide more means and men for their
armaments than is the case with us. And the call will not be in
vain, neither are Alliances nor Military Conventions. Russia’s
Army and England’s fleet, plus 150,000 men, are guaranteed to
France. Italy is tied up in Tripoli, the North Sea Canal is
unusable, a third of the German voters have shown themselves as
enemies of the State, and party disputes have demoralized the
nation. When will such a concatenation be repeated?

And what is the outlook for Germany?

Do not let us fear to look the matter straight in the face. A
war on three sides. Our Navy against three Navies, and a triple
superiority. Victory at sea is impossible. However much we may
harm our opponents we are certain to lose many colonies. On
the mainland fighting on two flanks. Of course we cannot deny
it and must look at the future coolly. It is idle to waste
words about such a war; let us leave talk to others. Let us
look at a favourable solution: the defeat of both opponents.
What would peace bring us? Annexation of more French or Russian
possessions? No rational being could think of such a poisoned
gift.

And what about overseas and colonies? In foreign parts we shall
have nothing more to say, for our mercantile and naval fleet
will be almost entirely destroyed. And as for money indemnity,
even in case we conquered our opponents we cannot hope for
heavy terms. We shall be glad after this blood-letting to
embrace peace and to receive a portion of our war expenses. We
should have to fight hard, and only through rivers of blood and
by straining every nerve can we hope to keep our Empire intact.
In the 1870 war against the French Empire in nearly every case
our victories were bought with superior losses. And how dear
these victories cost us!

But not numbers, nor weapons, nor careful preparations in
times of peace are going to conquer in the war of the future.
_Esprit_ alone will turn the scale, and to quote the words
of Frederick the Great, “The _esprit_ of an army lies in its
officers.” Those officers will have the best influence on their
men who have the most hardened physique and who are trained
each one according to his particular bent, and are able to do
without comforts and have the natural gift of comradeship with
the common soldier combined with strict discipline. They must
evoke the soldiers’ esteem and dependence and the blind trust
which the unselfish care of their men will produce. This can
be brought about only by placing the well-being of the troops
in the forefront, and without the slightest consideration on
the officers’ part for their own advantage, unselfishly sinking
their personality, rising to every situation with courage, and
bracing up every weakling or coward under their care by their
example. That corps which possesses these qualities to the
fullest extent will carry victory with their colours, and only
such a set of officers can be our salvation.

Do not let us underestimate our opponents.

On the west we have the French Army with a lurking desire
for revenge, its material intelligent and full of soldierly
qualities. The sons of the Republic will fight with the same
courage they did in the 1870-1871 campaign but under better
generalship. The French have learnt a great deal; may we not
admit this to-day?

And how is it with us?

An admission must be made at a critical moment. That moment has
arrived. In the course of time the sober and earnest speech and
thought of the old Prussians has become remote. Let us beware
of overconfidence in ourselves. We have a forty years’ peace
behind us, which is not very good for the German Army. So much
for us.

And what will victory bring us?

The loss of our Navy and our Colonies, and our own destruction
only avoided by a sea of blood. What will happen when the
people return home, awakened as to their own character and
chastened by a fruitless fight? We speak of a favourable
result. And if this does not occur? If Germany does not win in
the next war shall we be bled to death? Bismarck said this, and
let us admit it openly: “In this war we have nothing to gain
and everything to lose.”

He who brings about this war and who does not try to obviate
the danger is perpetrating the greatest outrage on the German
nation. He is endangering the creation of Bismarck and his
King; he is playing with loaded dice.

Here was a voice crying in the wilderness—a prophet without honour in his own country! But how true are his words!