‘Germany and Austria-Hungary have crushed Serbia. They alone will decide what disposition is to be made of King Peter’s former realm.’
There can be no illusion here. The formula ‘peace without annexations and indemnities’ cannot apply to Serbia, which is the keystone of Pan-Germany.
We now see that, even if the withdrawal of Germany from the territories of Belgium, France, and Russia now held by her were to take place, Central Pan-Germany would remain essentially intact; and her commercial competition alone would suffice to bring about the economic ruin of France, England, and Russia. The last-named countries would be staggering under their colossal war-debts, with no offsetting compensation, whereas Germany, thanks to six great elements of advantage, would find her war-losses more than counterbalanced by her profits. What chance would the Allied powers, exhausted by a deadly peace, have against the thirty million soldiers of Pan-Germany, when Berlin, refreshed by a short respite, should choose to renew her hold over those western territories which she had temporarily relinquished?
Is it not plain what depths of deception lie beneath that formula, ‘peace without annexations and indemnities,’ which the Russian Socialists, ignorant of the vast advantages accruing to Germany from the war, have adopted at the suggestion of Berlin’s Leninist agents? Let us look at the facts, not at the words. If the formula ‘peace without annexations and indemnities’ is acceptable to the Germans, it is simply because this formula, in the opinion of Berlin, will assure the maintenance of Central Pan-Germany, which, in turn, pledges to Germany the domination of Europe and the fulfillment of all other elements of the Pan-German scheme.
Now, if Central Pan-Germany were to survive, thus assuring to Germany all its vast attendant advantages, and leaving the Allies to face their incalculable war-losses, could such a peace properly be called a ‘white peace’? Could a peace which gave Germany the domination of Europe be called a ‘drawn game,’ a ‘peace without annexations or indemnities’? What sort of ‘limping peace’ (paix boiteuse) would permit Prussian militarism to hold sway over the 150 million people of Pan-Germany instead of the 68 millions of 1914, and put 30 million soldiers at Berlin’s disposal? What one of the exhausted states of Europe could lift a hand under such conditions? This would be no paix boiteuse; it would be the peace of slavery.
If the Allies are to understand the crucial situation which lies before them, they must realize that, as Lloyd George said, ‘The security of civilization is directly involved in the independence of Serbia.’ But the independence of Serbia can never be assured so long as Germany practically exercises hegemony over the 50 million people of Austria-Hungary, for the Austro-German unit of 118 million inhabitants, all subject to Berlin, is geographically the mistress of the Balkans. The pledge of Serbia’s independence, therefore, does not lie in Serbia, but north of the Danube. This pledge involves the liberation of the peoples under Hapsburg domination,—the Poles, Czecho-Slovaks, Jugo-Slavs, and Roumanians,—which alone can permit the creation of a barrier sufficiently strong to block the Hamburg-Persian Gulf line, and, at the same time, annul the vast advantages that the definite establishment of the formidable economic and military Pan-German scheme would assure to the Kaiser and his people.
Now it is much easier to devise the destruction of Pan-Germany than is generally supposed. This fact will become plain as soon as the Allies as a whole realize that the freedom of the nationalities subject to the Hapsburgs should not only be an object of the Entente victory, but also a means to that victory. This, however, is a matter which needs greater elaboration than I can give it at this point. It is discussed at length in the concluding chapters of this volume.
In a word, the solution of the Central European problem means everything for the Allies. So long as it shall remain unsolved, victory will be out of their reach. On the other hand, when this one point has been settled, all the other special war-aims of each of the Allies can be fulfilled with ease.
Assuming now that the problem of Central Europe has been solved, could it be said that the resulting peace would be ‘without annexations and indemnities’? Plainly not: for this peace, if it is to break up forever the autocracies of the Central Empires, must, for reasons of nationality, change the existing frontiers, which have made Austro-German imperialism possible. It might involve also certain legitimate reparations. Can it be said that peace on the terms of the Allies would be a ‘white peace’—a ‘drawn game’? Again we must say no; for such a peace would bring incalculable benefits to the world: the end of Prussian militarism, together with the possibility of organizing the society of nations under other and better conditions. Neither could it be called a ‘paix boiteuse,’ for the destruction of Prussian militarism would insure to the world a long term of rest after the present awful struggle.
The formulæ ‘peace without indemnities or annexations,’ ‘white peace,’ ‘drawn game’ and ‘paix boiteuse’ have therefore no more connection with reality in the event of an Allied victory than in that of a German victory. The truth in a nutshell is that, by virtue of the prime importance of the Central European problem, either the Allies will win victory through the destruction of Pan-Germany, or else the Germans, thanks to Central Pan-Germany and its economic and military advantages, will reduce all Europe to slavery. These are the two phases of the dilemma.