the difference between the two conceptions: the Bellicist
says: "Force alone can settle these matters; it is the final appeal;
therefore fight it out. Let the best man win. When you have
preponderant strength, impose your view; force the other man to your
will; not because it is right, but because you are able to do so." It is the
"excellent policy" which Lord Roberts attributes to Germany and
approves.
We anti-Bellicists take an exactly contrary view. We say: "To fight it
out settles nothing, since it is not a question of who is stronger, but of
whose view is best, and as that is not always easy to establish, it is of
the utmost importance in the interest of all parties, in the long run, to
keep force out of it."
The former is the policy of the Turks. They have been obsessed with
the idea that if only they had enough of physical force, ruthlessly
exercised, they could solve the whole question of government, of
existence for that matter, without troubling about social adjustment,
understanding, equity, law, commerce; "blood and iron" were all that
was needed. The success of that policy can now be judged.
And whether good or evil comes of the present war will depend upon
whether the Balkan States are on the whole guided by the Bellicist
principle or the opposed one. If having now momentarily eliminated
force as between themselves, they re-introduce it, if the strongest,
presumably Bulgaria, adopts Lord Roberts' "excellent policy" of
striking because she has the preponderant force, enters upon a career of
conquest of other members of the Balkan League, and the populations
of the conquered territories, using them for exploitation by military
force--why then there will be no settlement and this war will have
accomplished nothing save futile waste and slaughter. For they will
have taken under a new flag, the pathway of the Turk to savagery,
degeneration, death.
But if on the other hand they are guided more by the Pacifist principle,
if they believe that co-operation between States is better than conflict
between them, if they believe that the common interest of all in good
Government is greater than the special interest of any one in conquest,
that the understanding of human relationships, the capacity for the
organisation of society are the means by which men progress, and not
the imposition of force by one man or group upon another, why, they
will have taken the pathway to better civilisation. But then they will
have disregarded Lord Roberts' advice.
And this distinction between the two systems, far from being a matter
of abstract theory of metaphysics or logic chopping, is just the
difference which distinguishes the Briton from the Turk, which
distinguishes Britain from Turkey. The Turk has just as much physical
vigour as the Briton, is just as virile, manly and military. The Turk has
the same raw materials of Nature, soil and water. There is no difference
in the capacity for the exercise of physical force--or if there is, the
difference is in favour of the Turk. The real difference is a difference of
ideas, of mind and outlook on the part of the individuals composing the
respective societies; the Turk has one general conception of human
society and the code and principles upon which it is founded, mainly a
militarist one; and the Englishman has another, mainly a Pacifist one.
And whether the European society as a whole is to drift towards the
Turkish ideal or towards the English ideal will depend upon whether it
is animated mainly by the Pacifist or mainly by the Bellicist doctrine; if
the former, it will stagger blindly like the Turk along the path to
barbarism; if the latter, it will take a better road.
[Footnote 1: "Turkey in Europe," pp. 88-9 and 91-2.
It is significant, by the way, that the "born soldier" has now been
crushed by a non-military race whom he has always despised as having
no military tradition. Capt. F.W. von Herbert ("Bye Paths in the
Balkans") wrote (some years before the present war): "The Bulgars as
Christian subjects of Turkey exempt from military service, have tilled
the ground under stagnant and enfeebling peace conditions, and the
profession of arms is new to them."
"Stagnant and enfeebling peace conditions" is, in view of subsequent
events distinctly good.]
[Footnote 2: I dislike to weary the reader with such damnable iteration,
but when a Cabinet Minister is unable in this discussion to distinguish
between the folly of a thing and its possibility, one must make the
fundamental point clear.]
CHAPTER III.
ECONOMICS AND THE BALKAN WAR.
The "economic system" of the Turk--The Turkish "Trade of Conquest"
as a cause of this war--Racial and Religious hatred of primitive
societies--Industrialism as a solvent--Its operation in Europe--Balkans
geographically remote from main
Continue reading on your phone by scaning this QR Code
Tip: The current page has been bookmarked automatically. If you wish to continue reading later, just open the
Dertz Homepage, and click on the 'continue reading' link at the bottom of the page.