's _in re_ the alleged inherent
antagonism between Europe and America on the one side and Asia
and Africa on the other: "Absurd! If we are to be good Europeans
we must first of all be good world citizens. The Asiatic is as
much our brother as is the Belgian or the American."

It is not the case that England has checked Germany's Colonial
development. Germany has herself to blame--herself and destiny.
But I must say that Germany had to some extent right on her side
in the Morocco dispute.

The Germans ignore the fact that wherever we British go we throw
our ports open to the commerce of the world.

In the autumn of 1914 my son read General von Bernhardi's book,
"Germany and the Next War." In his notes on this book he drew
attention to Bernhardi's frequent self-contradictions and his false
philosophy. From these notes the following excerpts are taken:

Here Bernhardi flatly contradicts the biological argument he uses
earlier in the chapter. Biology knows nothing of States; it sees
only human beings.

Look at the intimate connection between Darwinism and the
political and economic views of the Individualist Radicals of the
mid-Victorian era.

Bernhardi assumes that mere material existence is always to be
man's destiny. But the perpetuation of existence beyond the
immediate present cannot be guided by the instinct of grabbing.

The modern theory is that good and bad as abstract considerations
do not exist, but that they are what experience shows to be best
for us in the end. The animal knows this subconsciously; man
consciously to a certain extent.

Emphatically No; mere brute force is not the law of the universe.

Bernhardi may as well talk of conquering the moon as of
conquering the U.S.A.

Man's true development consists above all in the negation of his
selfish elements for the good of humanity.

Bernhardi's proposition, "Only the State which strives after an
enlarged sphere of influence can create the conditions under
which mankind develops into the most splendid perfection," Paul
counters by asking: "How does this theory fit in with the case of
the Greeks, who, politically so weak, were yet intellectually so
great that to-day, after 2,000 years, their influence in Europe
is as great as ever? Which would you rather have been, tiny