The New York Times Current History of the European War, Vol. 1, January 9, 1915: What Americans Say to EuropeVarious
Philosophy
The New York Times Current History of the European War, Vol. 1, January 9, 1915: What Americans Say to Europe
Various
World War, 1914-1918
What is the reason for this singular unfairness of England toward
Germany, of this incessant attempt to check her and hem her in? Not so
much the existence of a large German Navy as the encroachment upon
English commerce by the rapidly growing commerce of Germany has made
Germany hateful to England. The navy has simply added to this hate of
Germany the dread of Germany. But if there had been no German Navy, and
consequently no dread of Germany, this hate of Germany might have come
to an explosion before now. For the history of the last 300 years proves
that England has habitually considered as her mortal enemy any nation
which dared to contest her commercial and industrial supremacy--first
Spain, then Holland, then France, and now Germany. As long as German
firms, by the manufacture of artificial indigo, keep on ruining the
English importation of indigo from India, and as long as the German
steamship lines keep on outstripping the prestige of the English boats,
there can be no real friendship between England and Germany. Although
England has repeatedly proposed to Germany naval agreements, these
agreements were avowedly meant to perpetuate the overwhelming
preponderance of England's fighting power, so that she would at any
moment be in a position to crush German commercial rivalry for all time.
She apparently thinks that this moment has now come.
That Germany's third implacable enemy, Russia, is clearly the aggressor,
and not the defender of her own national existence, need hardly be
demonstrated. She poses as the guardian of the Balkan States. But is
there any case on record where Russia has really protected the
independence of smaller neighboring countries? Has she not crushed out
provincial and racial individuality wherever she has extended her power?
Is it not the sole aim of her national policy to Russianize forcibly
every nationality under her sway?
In Finland she has gone back on her solemnly pledged word to maintain
the Finnish Constitution, and is ruthlessly reducing one of her most
highly developed provinces to the dead level of autocratic rule. In her
Baltic provinces she is trying to destroy, root and branch, whatever
there is left of German culture. Wherever the Russian Church holds
dominion intellectual blight is sure to follow.
To think, therefore, that Russia would promote the free development of a
number of independent Balkan States under her protectorate is to shut
one's eyes to the whole history of Russian expansion. No, Russian
expansion in the Balkans means nothing less than the extinction of all
local independence and the establishment of Russian despotism from the
Black Sea to the Adriatic.
Why Germany Supports Austria.
Not Russia, but Austria, is the natural protector of the equilibrium
between the existing States on the Balkan Peninsula and their natural
guardian against Russian domination. Austria is their nearest neighbor;
indeed, the possession of Bosnia and Herzegovina makes her a Balkan
State herself.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account