New-York tribune., 1914-11-30


"hypocrisy" would be to be serious IN
the wrong place, and as to the sham"
well, the proof of the pudding is In
the eating, and even now the table is
spread.
But the value Of this exposition OF
the views of "the stern apostle OF
reality" lies in this, that it does give
US an inkling-more than an mixing
of the real offence whereof we are
guilty in Prussian eyes, the gravamen
of their charge, the explanation OF
the holy hatred.
Totally Opposed to Prussian Idea.
Our crying offence Is that we have
not kept the rules for empire making,
the rules as they have been evolved
By Prussian professors and publiclsts.
We have presumed to be successful on
a wrong theory, or without any theory
at all. A lamentable lack Of system
has produced a deplorably successful
result-and this is Immoral" Also
we seem to have won our way ION the
cheap"-it ought to have cost us more.
Our way of leaving things TO indi-
vidual enterprise. and using national
armed force only in the last resort, is
totally opposed to the Prussian con-
ception of deliberately preparing and
organizing national force to open the
path to individual enterprise: The
two conceptions of national policy are
in so sharp an antagonlsm that tne
success of the former is OF necessity
a damaging, if not a destructive, cr'ti-
cism of the latter.
w. II. Dawson, in his "Evoiutlon OIL
Modern Germany" tells US p 500
that Prince Bismarck wished the Ger
man colonies (about which, according
to the new German ideas, he showed an
enthusiasm none too warm to be com
nosad on the English model-to consist
not of bureaucrats. but of traders. But
"tradition proved too strong even Tor
Prince Bismarck, and gradually the
whole system of Prussian bureaucracy
was introduced into each OF the COLO
nies. large and small, and great Berlin
at home was reproduced IN score OF
small Berlins in all parts of Africa
and the Pacific"
There it is! The success OF our
overseas empire is a challenge to Prus-
sian tradition" And such challenge
is invisaged both as an insult and as
menace. Hence their eagerness TO
show that the British Empire is wholly
q sham, wholly rotten" as the stern
APOSTLE of reality" Indignantly pro-
tests. Hence their interest IN proving
that our way is wrong, and tneir IN
dignation at the mere idea that IL may
turn out to be right, and the BRUSH
Empire no sham, after all.
Prussian Tradition Vitally Concerned.
For without a doubt the Prussian
"tradition" is vitally concerned in TINS
matter. and not merely as 1t acts IN
the sphere of international relations.
The criticism, the challenge, the
menace. come nearer home. Great
Berlin is as much threatened by
them as the small Berlins in Africa,
and the Pacific. Both professors ana
generals are up in arms at the chal-
lenge to the tradition OF whlch the
first supply the theory and the secono
enforce the practice. ,.. r
What is this Prussian tradition, OF
which Treitschke constituted himself
the apostle and Of which the Kaiser
NAV stand as the incarnation? The
greatness of ,'russia, the glory OF an
army which is a nation and OF ma
tion which Is an army" That is no"
Professor Cramb summarizes the an
swer; that, he tells US (p:. o9)' is
Treitschke's governing idea" =,
We need not get as angry with IL as
the "stern apostle" got with US. We
need not deny its virtues. 1t produces
a patriotism, which we do and must
admire; a self-sacrifice and sel1-sur-
render of a noble order and bravery
10 which our soldiers bear willing
witness. Neither is il in any way in
consistent with the activity, the IN
genuity, the up-to-dateness" which,
9ccording to the accounts Of experts,
make German manufacturers and trad
ers such formidable competitors. with
Initiative in detail the tradition need
not conflict. But the case is rather
different when an initiative In large
tbinps--an initiative of ideas and con-
ception-is in question.
Let me enter one caveat. l am not
discussing the question OF voluntary
as against compulsory military ser
yice-and no more was Treitschke,
save incidentally A nation must have
an army; how large it shall be and how
il shall be raised. are questions for
nractical statesmen and their military
advisers, subject, in constitutions!
countries, to the ultimate judgment OF
the people itself. A nation must have
an army; that is conceded. But the
Prussian tradition demands that ma
ton shall be an army, which IS very
different thing, and connotes an en-
tirely different conception OF natlonai
life and national discipline. For eX-
ample, the French have compulsory
service on a thorough scale, which ex-
torts the applause OF General Won
Rcrnhardi himself; but would many
Frencbmen to-day indorse Treitschke's
"governing idea? The French army
is great, but La France is something
much greater. In the France OF to-
day at least the military idea does not
invade and dominate civil life. In
Great Britain it never has, and there
Is no reason why compulsory military
training or service should make any
difference in that respect.
Empire What Citizens Make 1t.
The British Empire becomes from
generation to generaticn--nay, from
year 10 year-what its citizens make
II bv the free development of their
IDEAS and the free working of their ac-
tivities. Under the inspiration and
lead of Prussia Germany stands set
pattern, TO the threads OF which her
citizens, whether in Europe or abroad.
whether in Great Britain or in the
small Berlins, must conform. Ger
many. through the mouths OF her mill
tant professors and officers, cries out
that she must progress" and that we
are the great obstacle 70 her progress.
But in truth are we in the question at
ali. il il be rightly put? Can Ger
many. as she is at present conceived
and governed by her dominant men,
nrogress at all? She can grow bigger;
that is true. II she succeeds in the
nresent war she will grow bigger; she
will become more spacious. more nu-