The war and the coming peace; the moral issue

Front matter

HB| fcE

S^B

Class Book

Contents

I THE WAR AS A MORAL ISSUE ... 17

II THE PROBLEM OF PEACE 93

" Politically, the young are old, and only the old are young. The love of liberty, in the English sense, is to be found in Germany only among men of the generation which, within ten years, will have disappeared.

Part I The War And The Coming Peace

THE WAR AS A MORAL ISSUE I

There are two ways of looking at the great conflict. We may have regard to the issues that lie at the surface, or we may endeavor to probe to the deeper significance of the war, for there is always an undercurrent to surface events. On the surface, wars reveal race antagonisms, religious dissensions, political ambitions or economic rivalries as the more immediate causes, but a closer analysis will generally show an undercurrent that will enable us to reach a better understanding of the real issues involved. At all events, a consideration of the present war's deeper significance will set forth the issue in a clearer light.

In the case of a conflict like the present one, involving actively almost four-fifths of the entire world and affecting the remaining fifth, the presumption is that there must be some undercurrent of so fundamental a character as to lead to the varied and confusing manifestations on the surface. It ought to be possible to resolve the surface complications into a formula that will account for the many-sided phenomena presented by the war. It will be my endeavor in these pages to show that the essential issue involved in this war is not political nor economic, but moral, and it is perhaps best to set forth, at the outset, the thesis to be established by the discussion, that the moral issue involved in this war is the recognition on the part of the world that an attempt to carry out national policies through the appeal to force, or even by the threat of force, is a cardinal sin against the moral conscience of mankind. A Hebrew prophet voiced the

message over 2000 years ago, when he re- 20 minded those who stood for force and violence in his day, " Not by might and not by strength, but by my word, says the Lord of Hosts." The word is the idea, and ideas must make their way through their inherent strength and their direct appeal. We kill the idea when we attempt to force it upon the world, and this applies to the realm of religion as much as to that of political ambition.

This, then, is my theme — that we are fighting an attempt to propagate a national policy through military force, and that this issue is a moral one.

By way of approach to the subject, it will be well for us briefly to recall the aspect presented by the war at its outbreak in 1914, and to contrast that with the situation at the present time. For a decade at least preceding the outbreak the scene was being set in Europe for a gigantic struggle. The air was becoming increasingly heavy from year

to year, and as the chief cause, though not 21 necessarily the only one, for the laden atmosphere we must set down Germany's aggressive policy in seeking domination in the East. The trend towards the East had become the watchword of an expansionist movement in Germany that had its logical outcome in the definite program of Pan- Germanism, and of which the Bagdad Railway project, inaugurated at the beginning of the century, was the visible expression. Behind the railway stood a strongly entrenched military government whose ambitions were for domination. 1 Since Europe had inherited from the middle of the nineteenth century the policy of the " Balance of Power " between the European nations as the sole means of preserving the peace, the military and political growth of Germany led to an alignment of France, Russia and England as forces to counteract the -growing ap-

1 This subject has been fully set forth in Chapter III of the author's recent work on " The War and the Bagdad Railway" (Philadelphia, 1917). 22 proach between Germany, Austria-Hungary and Turkey. As an offset to Pan- Germanism a Pan- Slavonic policy was pursued, looking to a union of the Slavic States of the Balkan Peninsula under Russian control. The situation was further complicated by the movement inaugurated by Greece for a combination of Balkan States against Turkey, followed by a break in the combination that was quite as serious as the shortlived union. Growing economic rivalry between England and Germany was another disturbing factor, and since under the historical traditions which have dominated Europe for many centuries, war is always imminent when relations between European nations become strained, the outbreak in 1914 had all the appearance of being a struggle between rivals for the position of supremacy in European affairs. The balance of power was upset or in danger of being upset. It is indeed amazing to see how many problems were confronting the European world in 1914, any one of which was capable of leading to an ordeal by battle. 2 To us in this country, living under skies which normally make for peace, war is the last resort, but Europe has for so many centuries been living under the shadow of war, that a long era of peace is abnormal rather than normal. Despite the unquestioned leadership of European nations in the arts and sciences, Europe, chained to hide-bound traditions, is nearer to the barbaric instinct to make a test of rival claims through the appeal to arms. It was a mere chance that the war did not break out in 1911 over the Agadir incident, as it was a chance that it came in 1914 through the firing of a pistol at an Austrian Archduke. But what thus appeared to be at the outset a struggle for supremacy among European nations soon revealed itself as a contest

2 For a convenient and lucid survey of these problems, see G. Lowes Dickinson, " European Anarchy " (New York, 1916). 24 of an entirely different order. When a few days after the opening of the war, Germany broke a solemn obligation and passed into Belgium as a short-cut to France, the step foreshadowed the passing of the war from a struggle for supremacy into a moral issue. The world was at first startled by the announcement, and then grew indignant on realizing the full significance of this act. Those who, while condemning the act, yet clung to the Germany of their ideals, who kept in their hearts memories of a Germany that had given the world so much that was of value, hoped that some satisfactory explanation might still be forthcoming, some explanation of an act so contrary to the traditions of faithfulness — " Deutsche Treue " — that had found a tender expression in German folk-songs, and an impressive one in the ethical systems of her great thinkers. The frank confession of the German Chancellor in his first utterance on the subject, that the step was wrong, and the assurance that it was prompted by urgent necessity of selfdefense, held out the hope that at least from this point of view the step would be not justified, for wrong cannot under any circumstances be justified, but at least given a less hideous aspect. That confession, however, remains to this day an isolated utterance, and its sincerity is necessarily questioned by the brutal acts that followed. In the light of these acts it is now seen that the confession of the Chancellor, involving the admission of not hesitating to commit a wrong, was merely a cold-blooded statement of a policy which stopped short of nothing, and which had been determined upon long before the outbreak of the war.

Germany's ruthless treatment of Belgium, involving a category of crimes almost unparalleled in human history, revealed in all its hideousness the dastardly plan, long prepared, to terrorize the world into subjugation to the will of a military monster. Germany, like the Rome of Caesar's days, had enthroned power as her god, and ruthless power at that. Through this deity the national ambitions were to be carried out. That is the real significance of the fatal step taken on August 3rd; and Germany's conduct of the war from that time to the present, involving the application of all the cruel refinements of modern science to warfare, has helped to clarify the moral issue as it has united the greater part of the civilized world in the determination to stamp out a spirit and a policy which has brought upon mankind the bloodiest conflict in history. All other issues which appeared to be contributing causes for the outbreak of the war have receded into the background. The one figure that has stood out for almost four years against an angry sky is the man in " shining armor," determined at all hazards to carry out forcibly national ambitions. A new Constantine has arisen who sees, instead of a Cross in the heavens, a sword in hoc signo vinces — " By this sign conquer."

THE WAR AS A MORAL ISSUE II

The issue has been resolved through the policy followed by the German government in the conduct of the war into a moral one. It is a struggle of the civilized world against the systematic plan of that government to oppose the currents of the age by the exhibition of force. The German government claims to be waging a defensive war. That is true. But what that government is defending is not the boundaries of the country or the existence of Germany as a nation, but a policy that can only be carried out by military strength, a system of terrorization that if successful will spell the moral downfall of the world, as well as its submission to a Moloch of brute power. For this reason the civilized world, with the exception of the nations whose interests are for the time being so closely bound up with Germany that they cannot cut loose, or whose geographic position forbids a participation in the conflict — with these exceptions, the entire civilized world has risen almost instinctively against the glorification of power. This rebellion is not due to hostility towards a people, nor does it arise from a desire to inflict an injury on a great country, but solely from the recognition of the fact that the resort to power in enforcing a national policy is an immoral act, fraught with danger to humanity and to humanitarianism. This is the real issue in the war as it has gradually shaped itself during the past three years. The war has become a crusade for saving the world from the domination of force.

That Germany with her noteworthy record of achievement in art, in science, in philosophy, in literature, in music, and in so many other domains should thus have become a menace to the world is a matter of bitter regret and profound disappointment to the many who from direct knowledge had learned to appreciate all that the older Germany stood for. But facts must be recognized, no matter how painful such recognition may be. Nor can personal attachment deter us from realizing the full significance of the moral issue, as also the necessity, for the sake of Germany as well as for the world, of fighting it out until the causes that have brought about the issue shall have been removed. No truer and no more penetrating word was ever spoken than the insistence by the President of this Republic, on various occasions, upon the distinction to be made between the German government and the German people. On the surface, to be sure, no such distinction exists or can exist, for in fighting this moral issue, our forces are necessarily directed against the people who constitute the armies of Germany. It must also be admitted, as will be shown further on, that the system of government which has created the moral issue has affected the mental calibre of the people living under such a system and their outlook on life, but the recognition of this fact furnishes merely further proof for the contention that if we probe beneath the surface we will find the ultimate reason for the conflict to lie in the character of the government and not in the character of the people, for it is this government which stands out as the embodiment of material power, and not the people.

It is this government that by placing force behind national ambitions has directly created the moral issue. It is a fact, therefore, that what we are really fighting are the evil forces let loose through the system of government prevailing in Germany. It is this system which has by a logical sequence led to Germany's conduct of the war in defiance of all humanitarian considerations, as well as frequent disregard of the postulates of international law. This system spells force ; it translates the policy of a people into terms of force. It is a system which does not reason or argue; it points to the sword as its first and last appeal. Such a system naturally mocks at all moral considerations. It brushes them aside as the sickly fancies of impractical dreamers. A system which is symbolized by a military machine, perfected to do its work with unerring precision, recognizes no law except that underlying its own being. Germany's conduct of the war is in consistent accord with the system ; and when I speak of her conduct, I do not mean merely — though I do mean primarily — the recourse to such mediaeval practices as the taking and shooting of hostages, and such primitive barbarities as wholesale deportations — the favorite policy of the old Assyrian conquerors — and all the varied barbarities in her method of warfare. I do not mean merely terrorizing the inhabitants of invaded districts by wanton acts of destruction to serve as warnings. I include also the elaborate spy system so carefully organized that its branches, like the net-work of an ugly spider, reach in all directions. I include the insidious propaganda, which has assumed enormous dimensions; I include the sinister intrigues and the rhetorical camouflage of the military and diplomatic policy, until the atmosphere becomes so thick with insidious deception that when an official utterance comes from Germany the world no longer takes such an utterance at its face value but seeks for some hidden meaning. It almost takes for granted that when Germany speaks through her Chancellor, she does not mean what she says, but something else. All this is a direct outcome of the system, and an inherent part of it ; and it is evident that the condition of affairs thus called into being removes the basis for any understanding between Germany and the other nations. It intensifies a hundred-fold the definition of the diplomat of the old school, who was described as a person sent abroad to lie for his country. The world cannot breathe freely in such an atmosphere, poisoned by the asphyxiating gases of dissemblance and deception. Cruelty and dishonesty thus become the corollary expressions of a system of government which finds its

3 33 sole support in force — and cruelty and dishonesty are immoral forces that must be removed at all hazards before the world can again pursue the even tenor of its way.

The present conflict, therefore, I urge, is primarily a moral issue, a determination to strike at the root of the evil which has produced the present calamitous condition of the world. That root is a system of government out of keeping with the stage of moral development that the world has reached. In saying this, one is far from implying that the other nations of the world, including ourselves, have a clean bill of moral health. In fighting for the moral issue that I am trying to define, we are not putting ourselves on an eminence, with a claim to moral perfection, nor are we assuming the attitude of a supreme judge sitting in judgment over a nation. We are simply giving voice to the present-day conscience of humanity — a voice that is also heard in Germany, though not as yet with sufficient strength — a voice which is determined to abolish a system for which there is no room, even in a world like ours, so far removed as yet from moral perfection. Aye, just because we recognize how far we still are from the goal of more perfect justice, towards which one hopes that mankind is aiming and striving, do we feel the supreme importance of fighting for the triumph of the cause which has carried us into the war.

For I hold that it is this moral issue which has led us, step by step, until the time seemed ripe to take the final leap which landed us into the midst of the conflict. There are those, probably many, who feel that this step should have been taken earlier. But here again, if we have regard for the undercurrents instead of being carried away by sole consideration for surface events, there seems to have been a good reason why we entered the war at the time that we did and not earlier. The moral issue was foreshadowed, as has been pointed out, by Germany's breaking her solemn obligation given to Belgium. From the point of view of 1917 that becomes perfectly clear, but the moral issue was not crystallized until the war had proceeded far enough to reveal the aim of the military clique in control in Germany, in all its danger to the safety of the world. The significance of our entrance is all the greater because it came at a moment when the original aspect of the war had been entirely changed, and it had definitely become what it is to-day, a fight against the evil forces let loose through the military system, dominant in Germany. Even the vengeance for a wrong inflicted, which may prompt a people to rise in its wrath, is given a higher sanction when it is put in the service of a great cause affecting all mankind.

Our entry as a mighty people, bound by its traditions to peace and not to war, a nation pacifist by nature and by its convictions, solemnizes the war because of the moral issue involved. The spirit in which we have entered the war further illustrates that issue. Think of the thousands of men and women who have left their ordinary tasks, many at considerable sacrifice, to devote themselves to humanitarian service — to carry the wounded from the battle-field, to win them back to health, or to give them such aid as is possible in their dying hours ; to assist in restoring what the engines of war have destroyed, to maintain the morale and the courage of those facing the dangers and hardships of the trenches. Even before we formally entered upon the war, these volunteers by the hundreds and thousands came from every side, inspired in most cases bjr the deathless courage of France and Belgium — because France and Belgium stood up for the moral issue and faced annihilation at the hands of a strong, almost invincible, foe rather than yield to a system which refused to be bound by moral considerations. These volunteers, many of them entering as soldiers into the armies of a nation not their own, were the advance guards of the large force which is now being gathered to swell the ranks of those who are taking their stand as the bulwarks against the encroachment of power — to hold the line that means the safeguarding of liberty and of civilization. This enthusiasm, more particularly for France, which is as marked as it is sincere, is a symptom of the recognition of the moral issue involved in the war.

It is not prompted merely by gratitude for what France did for this country during our struggle for liberty and independence, for only a few of those who volunteered can be directly conscious of any such feeling. Nor is it merely love for France, strong and deep as that feeling is in this country, for many of the volunteers have never known that country, nor prior to the war had any special relations with it. No, the movement was, primarily, a response to the aroused conscience of mankind to bring about the triumph of the moral issue involved in the war. Men and women have been moved to come to the aid of France in this war from the same feeling that led idealistic Frenchmen to come to our aid 140 years ago. In both cases the moral issue was the impelling factor, and that factor dominates the readiness to selfsacrifice shown by all classes of citizens throughout the countiy — aye, the anxiety of all to help, each in his or her way, in the great cause which has so completely transformed the life of this country within the short span of a year. The business man, from the magnate to the clerk, has left his office; the lawyer has closed his desk; the doctor has given up his practice; the teacher his class-room; the clergyman his pulpit — all to give themselves up to public service. Thousands upon thousands had volunteered their services in the army and navy before the draft was promulgated. Women of all ranks and women everywhere have abandoned thoughts of self to throw themselves into relief work. Their hands are busy from morning to night to provide comfort for the fighters and aid for the wounded.

Let us not underestimate the meaning of this remarkable demonstration, nor in a cynical spirit pick out instances of selfish interest or the love of adventure that in some cases may have been contributing factors. We are witnessing a great movement and a movement that needs to be interpreted by a worthy motive. Is it patriotism? Yes, but not that alone. Back of patriotism — perhaps unconscious to many — is the feeling of the higher cause involved in the war, a cause higher than mere preservation of self, higher even than mere preservation of one's country. That deeper cause animating the entire movement of the war can be no other, it seems to me, than the aroused conscience of mankind, not to take vengeance, not to crush or destroy a nation, but to crush and destroy a system that represents an evil force — a force that is destroying the nation that it holds in its grasp, destroying and crushing that nation as effectively — aye, even more so — than the armies of the world drawn up against the monstrous alliance between power and national policy. We are fighting for a principle, for the overthrow of a system that links national policies with power as the means of carrying them out. That principle needs to be established not merely to insure our own safety, but to insure the world against another outbreak such as the one that has now plunged mankind in deepest grief and suffering for almost four years. The moral issue involved in this war against the abuse of power offers the strongest support to the cause in which we are engaged, and the firmest assurance, also, of its ultimate triumph.

Ill

But the question may well be raised as a challenge to this proposition: Have not all the nations of the past and present, including our own, been made by war, by the exercise of power? Has not the world always been dominated by force? Is there any great nation that has not pushed its way by the exercise of material power, often brushing aside the weaker which stood as an obstacle in the way? This is undoubtedly true. But note the verdict of history on all attempts to carry the policy of force beyond very definite bounds. " Die Weltgeschichte ist das Weltgericht," says Schiller. History is the supreme judge that has invariably pronounced the doom when even what is right makes a definite alliance with might, and depends upon power to carry out its aims.

Let us take, as perhaps the most striking example, the imperialistic policy of Rome. At the outset of her career the spirit of Rome was inherently opposed to the idea of conquest. Rome grew by natural expansion, and the fundamental principle of that expansion was not domination over increasing territory, but the extension of the scope of Roman citizenship. Even when Rome passed beyond her natural borders, and stretched her grasp over lands lying outside, to the Spanish Peninsula on the West, to Africa on the South, to the Greek cities and to Asia Minor on the East, it was done in part, as the Carthaginian wars show, in selfdefense against hostile and insidious neighbors, and in part in response to appeals of weaker nations and states to Rome, to come to their support against encroachment on their domain on the part of ambitious and stronger enemies. Recent investigations of Roman imperialism 3 have shown that it is not until we reach the days of Julius Caesar, when Rome had already become mistress of the eastern world by her broad and unselfish policy, that the spirit of domination by forcible conquest replaces the earlier policy of logical and natural expansion under the guiding principle of extending the scope of

3 See the admirable and splendidly written work of Prof. Tenney Frank, " Roman Imperialism " (New York, 191 4).

Roman citizenship, without crushing the independent spirit of those nations that came under Rome's jurisdiction. Caesar marks the beginning of a new era, the attempt to force the Roman idea upon the world; but Cassar also points to the beginning of Rome's decline, which Gibbon significantly dates from the accession of Augustus. The new Rome succeeds in dominating the world, but at the cost of becoming, by virtue of her policy of forcible conquest, a menace that leads by the logical force of events to the division of the Empire, and eventually to the formation of independent states in northern and southern Europe. The underlying theory of the Roman Empire and the idea upon which it rested was a magnificent and inspiring one, to confer the benefits of Roman citizenship, " the heir of all the ages," upon the whole world. It actually did confer many of those benefits, despite the spirit of domination which set in, but when Rome enthroned power as the permanent head of the pantheon she committed the cardinal sin which led to her own undoing. Napoleon, only a century removed from our day, furnishes an equally striking illustration of the theme. That great and illustrious figure comes forward as a liberating force in Europe. As his armies swept through Europe, they carried with them the ideas of the French Revolution, the establishment of the sovereignty of a people in place of the domination of an autocratic group over a people. The Russian campaign, disastrous as it was for Napoleon, laid the seed for the movement that in our own days germinated in the liberation of Russia, first from serfdom and recently from official thraldom; and yet Napoleon, yielding to the temptation to join might with right, and making this combination the very foundation of his policy, became the greatest danger to the freedom and to the free life of the European nations, who were forced to combine against him for his overthrow. The issue in the Napoleonic wars was at bottom likewise a moral one.

But, someone will object, how about Great Britain? Has she not also followed an imperialistic policy? Now, imperialism as it actually appears in the world's history is not all of one color. Its shades vary from the dark hue of the Assyrian-Babylonian policy, to dominate the world by crushing the independent life of the nations subdued, to the brighter shade of the humane policy of the Persian kings led by Cyrus. Cyrus reversed the process and granted a large measure of autonomy for the unfolding of national life among the peoples over whom he exercised a supervisory control. Persian imperialism approached the idea of a federation of nations under a unit control, though naturally it was far removed from the modern aspect of such a federation. It was Assyria whose example was followed by the later Babylonian empire that introduced the cruel principle of deporting the best and most useful elements of a conquered population, so as to prevent a resuscitation of the national spirit. S argon, the Assyrian, and Nebuchadnezzar, the Babylonian, as the representatives of dominating imperialism, deported the Jews to the Euphrates Valley and elsewhere. C} r rus permitted them to return as an expression of his more liberal imperialistic policy. Greek imperialism, associated with Alexander the Great, was largely a cultural movement, bringing about an exchange between Greek and Oriental ideas that led, as one of the results of this commingling, to Christianity. Rome in her earlier days followed along the path mapped out by Cyrus and Alexander the Great, while Great Britain may be instanced as an illustration of carrying on an imperialistic policy which, while it does contain features that cannot endure the strict ethical test, has nevertheless avoided the pitfalls which Roman and Napoleonic imperialism encountered. England's expansion, prompted by her position as an island power, has not been carried on under the protection of an elaborate military system. It could not, of course, have been carried on without power, but that power has been kept within bounds. 4 England's policy has generally been tempered by a readiness to preserve the national life of those who came under her domina-

4 Lord Acton in one of his letters, recently published, " Selections from the Correspondence of the First Lord Acton," vol. i, page 249, shows the distinction to be made between Navalism used by an island power as a means of defense and retaining control of possessions, and a military system which by its very presence spells domination. " A fleet with an army is an instrument of militarism. A fleet without one is not." It is a significant index of the aggressive character of Germany's military Imperialism, that in addition to already having the most powerful army, she was also determined to have a powerful navy. This meant Navalism plus Militarism, and naturally helped to bring on the crisis by increasing suspicion of Germany's ulterior designs. Lord Cromer, in his penetrating analysis of "Ancient and Modern Imperialism " (London, 1910), points out the general agreement between British Imperialism and the earlier policy of Rome. 48 tion. She went beyond legitimate bounds in two instances and paid dearly for it. One was her treatment of Ireland, the result of which has cost her such infinite trouble, and the other was the fatal mistake that she made in endeavoring to force her will upon the American colonies, and which cost her the allegiance of these colonies. But, on the other hand, Great Britain has in two recent instances furnished a notable example of an imperialistic policy conducted along higher lines, that form a parallel to Persian and to the earlier Roman imperialism before it became pure conquest and domination. In South Africa she has given a pledge of good faith by according to the Boers the fullest measure of political liberty; and in Egypt by the exercise of a wise protectorate she has brought about a marvelous transformation in economic conditions in that country, suggesting the resuscitation of the great prosperity that characterized the Nile Valley in ancient times. British imperialism