Let us suppose for a minute that the Heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne had not been murdered in June, 1914; and let us also suppose that the Anglo-German negotiations in the Near East and in Central Africa had been brought to a conclusion, as the Germans had hoped. Would, in this case, a stable order of things have resulted? England certainly hoped for such stability, but only as regards an order of things favorable to her own interests. Her calculation was approximately as follows: owing to the accomplishment of her wishes in Asia Minor and Central Africa, Germany would be kept very busy (in an economic sense) for a long time to come. Much money would be invested in the undertakings, and the tendency to spend immense sums for military purposes would gradually disappear in Germany. The new position of ever-growing importance occupied by Germany in the Near East, would rapidly cause the antagonism between her and Russia to increase. England would often have the opportunity of employing Germany to checkmate Russia, instead of having to intervene directly herself. At the same time, French dissatisfaction with Germany would augment. The German Empire, on the other hand, would have full confidence in England’s friendship, and be fully convinced of the latter’s pacific intentions. The new colonial undertakings must necessarily multiply the weak spots in the defence of the German Empire, by increasing the number of points where it could be attacked; in this way would the Empire’s strength of decision, and its determination to risk everything in a war, be weakened. The German nation would become more and more accessible to the argument according to which Germany, having obtained from England’s benevolence all she desired, must in return do her best to show her “good will.” The era of “feverish armaments” would be at an end. Viewed from this standpoint, it becomes evident that England’s policy of “confidential friendship” aimed first of all at unnerving Germany; after which, a reduction of the latter’s military and naval strength must follow as a natural consequence. It would then be all the easier for England’s well-armed Continental vassals, France and Russia, either to obtain the break-up of the Austro-German alliance, and the humiliation of the two Central Powers, by threats; or else to force these Powers on to their knees at the point of the bayonet. Whenever necessary, whenever a grave crisis should arise, England would throw the whole weight of her influence into the balance; and her “advice” would be considered the more acceptable, in the measure that the German people were convinced of the sincerity and disinterestedness of British friendship. The only thing necessary was patience.

All these plans were disturbed by the assassination of the Archduke Francis Ferdinand. Events pursued the course that we all know. As soon as the European situation became dangerously strained, the British Government retreated into the background, made perfidious proposals of mediation to Germany, and advised everyone to remain peaceful. We have here, likewise, a time-honored historical method of British diplomacy. In this way does the latter coin the phrases which, once war has broken out, shall serve to justify the British Government, and to inflame the public opinion of as many countries as possible. In this way does that Government collect “unimpeachable” diplomatic documents for Blue Books. In this way does it wait until the final developments of the crisis engineered by England herself produce the great and decisive “phrase,” which shall be adopted as the British parole during the war. This time it was the phrase about Belgium’s neutrality—a neutrality broken by England systematically for the past nine years. As soon as the great phrase had been coined, England appeared suddenly as the leader of the European anti-German coalition, and proclaimed: Germany must be annihilated, militarily, politically, economically. And, all over the world, deeds immediately followed words. The definitely fixed, carefully planned-out programme had only to be followed. It was followed, and yet are there still to-day people in Germany who maintain that England was led astray by the wicked diplomatists of France and Russia, and was driven against her will into war. Some representatives of this opinion belong to the hopeless category of the believers in an Anglo-German understanding, and even now they blindly refuse to recognise their former errors of judgment; we are not appealing to them. But there are others who have been deceived by the behavior of British diplomacy during the crisis preceding the war. Such behavior is, we repeat, typical. For ten years before the war every single political circle in Great Britain—King, Ministerialists, Opposition—had prepared and organised the European coalition, for the purpose of waging a war of destruction against Germany. The crime of Serayevo brought about the crisis earlier than had been expected. The moment the crisis broke out, the leader of the European coalition retired discreetly into the darkness, made proposals, and preached peace. England maintained that she had not committed herself to either side, that her hands were free, and that she only desired peace. The exchange of diplomatic notes, during the crisis, between London, Paris, and St. Petersburg, was nothing else but an English mise en scène. “Historical documents” they are, but certainly not witnesses to historical truth.

The present war is, as we hope to have shown, a typically English war of destruction waged against a continental rival who was at once envied and feared. The history of the war cannot yet be written in detail. For the purpose of the present book, such a detailed history is not—as we believe to have proved—necessary. But what is necessary is, that the entire German nation should understand where the enemy is and what he wants; it is essential that the German nation should know that this is not an accidental war, but a war carried on with the object of annihilating an economic rival. If England’s economic rival is powerless on land and sea, he can be throttled without a war. That was not possible in the case of Germany. British statesmen had always two programmes in readiness, and clearly defined: peace, if Germany gave way and allowed herself to be humiliated; war, if it should be otherwise. Germany desired only peace, believed only in peace, and was convinced that England would take no part in a war against her, if only the German Empire would promise to make no profit out of a Continental war—that is to say, if it would promise to act like a good boy in conformity with what were wrongly supposed to be England’s wishes. It was only natural that the London Cabinet should not have accepted this point of view; for it was very far indeed from sharing the German ideas, aspirations, and anxieties! It intended to destroy Germany; and its only concern was: how to arrange the final mise en scène which should set the ball rolling.

THE END

TRANSCRIBER’S NOTES

  1. Silently corrected obvious typographical errors and variations in spelling.
  2. Retained archaic, non-standard, and uncertain spellings as printed.