FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   86   87   88   89   90   91   92   93   94   95   96   97   98   99   100   101   102   103   104   105   106   107   108   109   110  
111   112   113   114   115   116   117   118   119   120   121   122   123   124   125   126   127   128   129   130   131   132   133   134   135   >>   >|  
law of Europe by attacking the neutrality of Belgium, but we were ready to fight if they did. A fine cartoon in _Punch_, of August, 1870, shows armed England encouraging Belgium, who stands ready with spear and shield, with the words--'Trust me! Let us hope that they won't trouble you, dear friend. But if they do----' To-day they have; and England has drawn her sword. How could she have done otherwise, with those traditions of law so deep in all Anglo-Saxon blood--traditions as real and as vital to Anglo-Saxon America as to Anglo-Saxon England; traditions which are the fundamental basis of Anglo-Saxon public life all the world over? America once fought and beat England, in long-forgotten days, on the ground of law. That very ground of law--that law-abidingness which is as deeply engrained in the men of Massachusetts to-day as it is in any Britisher--is a bond of sympathy between the two in this great struggle of the nations. To Germans our defence of public law may seem part of the moral hypocrisy of which in their view we are full. What we are doing, they feel, is to strike at Germany, our competitor for 'world-empire', with its dangerous navy, while Germany is engaged in a life and death struggle with France and Russia. We too, they feel, are Machiavellians; but we have put on what Machiavelli called 'the mantle of superstition', the pretence of morality and law, to cover our craft. It is true that we are fighting for our own interest. But what is our interest? We are fighting for Right, because Right is our supreme interest. The new German political theory enunciates that 'our interest is our right'. The old--the very old--English political theory is, 'The Right is our interest'. It is true that we have everything to gain by defending the cause of international law. Should that prevent us from defending that cause? What do we not lose of precious lives in the defence? This is the case of England. England stands for the idea of a public law of Europe, and for the small nations which it protects. She stands for her own preservation, which is menaced when public law is broken, and the 'ages' slow-bought gain' imperilled. (Treitschke's _Politik_, lectures delivered in Berlin during the years 1875 to 1895, was published in two volumes in 1899. General Bernhardi's book, _Deutschland und der naechste Krieg_, was published in 1911, and has been translated into English under the title _Germany and the Next War_. See also
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   86   87   88   89   90   91   92   93   94   95   96   97   98   99   100   101   102   103   104   105   106   107   108   109   110  
111   112   113   114   115   116   117   118   119   120   121   122   123   124   125   126   127   128   129   130   131   132   133   134   135   >>   >|  



Top keywords:

England

 
interest
 

public

 
traditions
 

stands

 

Germany

 
ground
 

America

 

published

 

fighting


English

 
political
 

theory

 

nations

 

struggle

 

defending

 

defence

 
Europe
 

Belgium

 

neutrality


international

 

Should

 

prevent

 

precious

 

August

 
cartoon
 
pretence
 

morality

 
German
 

supreme


enunciates
 

protects

 

General

 

Bernhardi

 
volumes
 

Deutschland

 

naechste

 

translated

 
broken
 

superstition


menaced

 
preservation
 

bought

 

lectures

 

delivered

 
Berlin
 

Politik

 
attacking
 

imperilled

 

Treitschke