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
Each nation looks with envy on the prosperity of its neighbor and acts
upon the assumption that its neighbor is a rival, and that its own
commerce and wealth can be built up only at the expense of its rival.
New York is quite willing that the harbor of Boston should be improved.
Bremen is quite willing that the harbor of Hamburg should be improved.
The west coast of England does not object to harbor facilities on the
east coast of England. But Germany envies England's harbor facilities,
and England and Germany are both resolved to prevent if possible Russia
from getting harbor facilities on the Mediterranean Sea. Not every
individual German, Austrian, Frenchman, and Englishman holds this
opinion, but the policies of these nations are governed by this spirit
of international rivalry.
A striking illustration of this spirit, perhaps the most striking
illustration in modern international life, is furnished by the military
party in Prussia. Gen. Bernhardi, in a volume entitled "Germany and the
Next War," has given what may be regarded as a semi-official
interpretation of German militarism. He holds that life is a struggle
for existence, with a survival of the fittest, and the strongest is the
fittest; that a military organization constitutes the true strength of a
nation; that there is no higher power in human life, certainly none in
international life, than the power of physical force; that only the
strong nation has a right to exist, and he objects to international
arbitration because it recognizes the right to life of a small nation.
In this volume he calls on Germany to establish a "world sovereignty" by
force of arms, and he indicates what should be the twofold purpose of
Germany in the next war, namely, to crush France and to establish such
world sovereignty of Germany.
Militarism to Blame.
It was this spirit which led Germany into the present war; this spirit
which denied that Belgium had any rights which Germany was bound to
respect; this spirit which inspired the military party in Germany to
regard its treaty with France and England guaranteeing the neutrality of
Belgium as only a "scrap of paper," and this spirit which could not and
apparently still does not comprehend why Belgium should be bound in
honor to defend her neutrality, or why England, with no very direct and
immediate interests to protect, should feel herself bound to come to the
defense of her weaker neighbor.
The delay of the German Army, which is likely to prove disastrous to her
designs, has demonstrated in her own chosen field that there is a force
in national honor and national conscience which can put up a very
efficient resistance to Krupp guns.
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