Germany and the Next War | Page 8

and civilization each people must play its own
part and promote its own ends and ideals. If in doing so it comes into
conflict with the ideals and views of other States, it must either submit
and concede the precedence to the rival people or State, or appeal to
force, and face the risk of the real struggle--i.e., of war--in order to
make its own views prevail. No power exists which can judge between
States, and makes its judgments prevail. Nothing, in fact, is left but war
to secure to the true elements of progress the ascendancy over the
spirits of corruption and decay.
It will, of course, happen that several weak nations unite and form a
superior combination in order to defeat a nation which in itself is

stronger. This attempt will succeed for a time, but in the end the more
intensive vitality will prevail. The allied opponents have the seeds of
corruption in them, while the powerful nation gains from a temporary
reverse a new strength which procures for it an ultimate victory over
numerical superiority. The history of Germany is an eloquent example
of this truth.
Struggle is, therefore, a universal law of Nature, and the instinct of
self-preservation which leads to struggle is acknowledged to be a
natural condition of existence. "Man is a fighter." Self-sacrifice is a
renunciation of life, whether in the existence of the individual or in the
life of States, which are agglomerations of individuals. The first and
paramount law is the assertion of one's own independent existence. By
self-assertion alone can the State maintain the conditions of life for its
citizens, and insure them the legal protection which each man is
entitled to claim from it. This duty of self-assertion is by no means
satisfied by the mere repulse of hostile attacks; it includes the
obligation to assure the possibility of life and development to the whole
body of the nation embraced by the State.
Strong, healthy, and flourishing nations increase in numbers. From a
given moment they require a continual expansion of their frontiers,
they require new territory for the accommodation of their surplus
population. Since almost every part of the globe is inhabited, new
territory must, as a rule, be obtained at the cost of its possessors--that is
to say, by conquest, which thus becomes a law of necessity.
The right of conquest is universally acknowledged. At first the
procedure is pacific. Over-populated countries pour a stream of
emigrants into other States and territories. These submit to the
legislature of the new country, but try to obtain favourable conditions
of existence for themselves at the cost of the original inhabitants, with
whom they compete. This amounts to conquest.
The right of colonization is also recognized. Vast territories inhabited
by uncivilized masses are occupied by more highly civilized States, and
made subject to their rule. Higher civilization and the correspondingly
greater power are the foundations of the right to annexation. This right
is, it is true, a very indefinite one, and it is impossible to determine
what degree of civilization justifies annexation and subjugation. The
impossibility of finding a legitimate limit to these international

relations has been the cause of many wars. The subjugated nation does
not recognize this right of subjugation, and the more powerful civilized
nation refuses to admit the claim of the subjugated to independence.
This situation becomes peculiarly critical when the conditions of
civilization have changed in the course of time. The subject nation has,
perhaps, adopted higher methods and conceptions of life, and the
difference in civilization has consequently lessened. Such a state of
things is growing ripe in British India.
Lastly, in all times the right of conquest by war has been admitted. It
may be that a growing people cannot win colonies from uncivilized
races, and yet the State wishes to retain the surplus population which
the mother-country can no longer feed. Then the only course left is to
acquire the necessary territory by war. Thus the instinct of
self-preservation leads inevitably to war, and the conquest of foreign
soil. It is not the possessor, but the victor, who then has the right. The
threatened people will see the point of Goethe's lines:
"That which them didst inherit from thy sires, In order to possess it,
must be won."
The procedure of Italy in Tripoli furnishes an example of such
conditions, while Germany in the Morocco question could not rouse
herself to a similar resolution.[C]
[Footnote C: This does not imply that Germany could and ought to
have occupied part of Morocco. On more than one ground I think that it
was imperative to maintain the actual sovereignty of this State on the
basis of the Algeçiras Convention. Among other advantages, which
need not be discussed here, Germany would have had the country
secured