367. The relations between two States must often be termed a latent war, which is provisionally being waged in peaceful rivalry. Such a position justifies the employment of hostile methods, cunning and deception, just as war itself does.—General v. Bernhardi, G.N.W., p. 49.
368. The statesman has no right to warm his hands with smug self-laudation at the smoking ruins of his Fatherland, and comfort himself by saying, "I have never lied"; this is the monkish type of virtue.—H. v. Treitschke, P., Vol i., p. 104.
369. Belligerent States are always and exclusively in a pure state of nature, in which there cannot possibly be any question or right [or law].—E. v. Hartmann, quoted by Ein Deutscher, W.K.B.M., p. 12.
370. How markedly Bismarck's grand frankness in large matters stands out amidst all his craft in single instances.[36]—H. v. Treitschke, P., Vol. i., p. 90.
371. Let it be the task of our diplomacy so to shuffle the cards that we may be attacked by France, for then there would be reasonable prospect that Russia for a time would remain neutral.... But we must not hope to bring about this attack by waiting passively. Neither France, nor Russia, nor England need to attack in order to further their interests.... If we wish to bring about an attack by our opponents, we must initiate an active policy which, without attacking France, will so prejudice her interests or those of England, that both these States would feel themselves compelled to attack us. Opportunities for such procedure are offered both in Africa and in Europe.—General v. Bernhardi, G.N.W., p. 280.
372. When an unconscientious speculator is telling lies upon the Stock Exchange he is thinking only of his own profit, but when a diplomat is guilty of obscuring facts in a diplomatic negotiation he is thinking of his country.—H. v. Treitschke, P., Vol i., p. 91.
373. It is natural, and within certain limits, politically a matter of course, that the German Emperor should have thought that, until Germany had a strong fleet, we must try to keep on good terms with England, and even, on occasion, to make concessions.—Graf E. v. Reventlow, D.A.P., p. 60.
374. No State can pledge its future to another. It knows no arbiter, and draws up all its treaties with this implied reservation.... Moreover, every sovereign State has the undoubted right to declare war at its pleasure, and is consequently entitled to repudiate its treaties.—H. v. Treitschke, p. i., 28.
375. The question of alliances in war is always an open one, for circumstances may at any moment arise such as Bismarck referred to when he said: "No power is bound [or, we will add, entitled][37] to sacrifice important interests of its own on the altar of faithfulness to an alliance!"—Graf E. v. Reventlow, D.A.P., p. 22.
376. It was a most serious mistake in German policy that a final settling of accounts with France was not effected at a time when the state of international affairs was favourable and success might confidently have been expected.... This policy somewhat resembles the supineness for which England has herself to blame, when she refused her assistance to the Southern States in the American War of Secession.—General v. Bernhardi, G.N.W., p. 239.