Without her entry into the War, the latter would have been a completely unthinkable phenomenon.
The German can ponder this with or without bitterness. It is important to learn from history, especially if its teachings speak to us in such a compelling way.
Thus the belief that through a prudent, reserved neutrality vis-a-vis the developing conflicts in Europe and elsewhere, one can some day reap the benefits thereof as a laughing third one, is false and idiotic. In general, freedom is preserved neither by begging nor by cheating. And also not by work and industry, but exclusively by struggle, and indeed by one’s own struggle. Thus it is very easily possible that more weight is attached to the will than to the deed. Not seldom, in the framework of a wise alliance policy, nations have achieved successes unrelated to the success of their arms. But fate does not always measure a nation which boldly stakes its life according to the dimensions of its deeds, but rather, very frequently, according to the dimensions of its will. The history of Italian unification in the nineteenth century is noteworthy for this. But the World War also shows how a whole number of States can achieve extraordinary political successes less through their military accomplishments [successes] than through the foolhardy boldness with which they take sides and the doggedness with which they hold out.
If Germany wants to put an end to her period of enslavement by all, she must under all circumstances actively try to enter into a combination of powers in order to participate in the future shaping of European life in terms of power politics.
The objection that such participation contains a grievous risk is correct. But, after all, does one really believe that we will achieve freedom without taking a risk? Or does one think that there has ever been a deed of world history which was not linked with a risk? Was Frederick The Great’s decision, for instance, to participate in the first Silesian War, not linked with a risk? Or did Germany’s unification by Bismarck entail no dangers? No, a thousand times no! Beginning with man’s birth up to his death, everything is questionable. Only death seems certain. But for this very reason the ultimate commitment is not the worst for the reason that one day, in one way or another, it will be demanded.
Naturally it is a matter of political sagacity to choose the stake in such a way that it yields the highest possible gain. But not to stake anything at all for fear, perhaps, of picking the wrong horse means to renounce a Folk’s future. The objection that such an action may have the character of a risky gamble can most easily be refuted by simple reference to previous historical experience. By a risky gamble we understand a game in which from the outset the chances of winning are subject to the fate of chance. This will never be the case in politics. For the more the ultimate decision lies in the darkness of the future, the more is the conviction of the possibility or impossibility of a success erected on humanly perceptible factors. The task of a nation’s political leadership is to weigh these factors. The result of this examination, then, must also lead to a decision. Thus this decision is consonant with one’s own insight, and is sustained by faith in possible success on the basis of this insight. Hence I can just as little call a politically decisive deed a risky gamble, just because its outcome is not one hundred percent certain, as an operation undertaken by a surgeon the outcome of which likewise will not necessarily be successful. From time immemorial it has always been in keeping with the nature of great men to execute deeds whose success is even doubtful and indefinite with the utmost energy, if the necessity thereof as such lay before them, and if after a mature examination of all conditions this very action alone could be considered.
The joy of responsibility in the framing of great decisions in the struggles of nations will, of course, be all the greater the more the actors, by observation of their Folk, can conclude that even a miscarriage will not be able to destroy the nation’s vital strength. For in the long run a Folk, inwardly healthy at its core, can never be effaced through defeats on the battlefield. Thus insofar as a Folk possesses this inner health, with the prerequisite of a sufficient racial importance, the courage for difficult undertakings can be the greater since even the failure of the same would not, by far, signify the downfall of such a Folk. And here Clausewitz is right, when in his principles he asserts that, with a healthy Folk, such a defeat may repeatedly lead to a later resurgence, and that, conversely, only cowardly subjection, that is, a supine surrender to fate, can lead to ultimate destruction. The neutrality, however, which is today recommended to our Folk as the only action possible, is really nothing but a volitionless surrender to a fate determined by foreign powers. And only therein lies the symptom and the possibility of our decline. If, on the contrary, our Folk itself had undertaken abortive attempts to achieve freedom, a factor that could be beneficial to our Folk’s strength would lie in the very manifestation of this attitude. For let it not be said that it is political sagacity which holds us back from such steps. No, it is a wretched cowardice and a lack of principle which in this case, as so often in history, one tries to confuse with intelligence. Obviously a Folk under the duress of foreign powers can be forced by circumstances to endure years of foreign oppression. But the less a Folk can seriously do outwardly against overpowering forces, the more, however, will its internal life press toward freedom and leave nothing untried that could be suitable for changing the momentarily given condition one day by staking such a Folk’s entire strength. One will then endure the yoke of a foreign conqueror, but with clenched fists and gritted teeth, waiting for the hour which offers the first opportunity of shaking off the tyrant.
Something like this can be possible under the pressure of conditions. But what presents itself today as political sagacity, however, is as a matter of fact a spirit of voluntary subjection, of unprincipled renunciation of any resistance, indeed the shameless persecution of those who dare to think of such a resistance and whose work obviously could serve their Folk’s resurgence. It is the spirit of inner self disarmament, of the destruction of all moral factors which one day could serve a resurrection of this Folk and State. This spirit can really not give itself the airs of political sagacity, for actually it is a State destroying dishonourableness.
And, to be sure, this spirit must hate every attempt at an active participation of our Folk in future European developments, because the necessity of a struggle against this spirit indeed lies in the mere attempt at such a participation.
If, however, a State leadership seems to be affected by this corrupting spirit, it becomes the task of the opposition which perceives, represents and thus espouses a Folk’s real vital forces to inscribe the struggle [the education] for national resurgence, and through it for national honour, on its banners. And it must not let itself be intimidated by the assertion that foreign policy is the task of responsible State leadership, for there has not been such a responsible leadership for a long time. On the contrary, it must adhere to the conception that, besides the formal laws of momentary governments, there exist eternal obligations which compel every member of a nation to do what is perceived as necessary for the existence of the Folkish Community. Even if this stands a thousand times in opposition to the intentions of bad and incompetent governments.
Hence precisely in Germany today the highest obligation should devolve on the so called National Opposition, in view of the unworthiness of the general leadership of our Folk to establish a clear foreign policy aim, and to prepare and educate our Folk for the execution of these ideas. Primarily, it must launch the sharpest war against the hope, widely spread today, that our fate can be changed somewhat by active cooperation with the League Of Nations. In general, it must see to it that our Folk gradually realises that we must not expect an amelioration of the German situation from institutions the representatives of which are the interested parties in our present misfortune. Further, it must deepen the conviction that all social aspirations are Utopian promises devoid of any real worth without the regaining of German freedom. It must further bring our Folk the knowledge that, for this freedom, one way or another, only the staking of its own strength can be considered. And that, consequently, our whole domestic and foreign policy must be such that by virtue of it our Folk’s inner strength grows and increases. Finally, it must enlighten the Folk to the effect that this staking of strength must take place for a really worthwhile aim, and that for this purpose we cannot go forward to meet our fate alone, but will need allies.
Chapter 11
GERMANY AND RUSSIA
The size of the possible military commitment as well as the relation of this means of power to those of the surrounding States is of decisive importance for the question of the future shaping of German foreign policy, apart from the inner power of our Folk, of its strength and assessment of character.
I need not express myself further on the moral inner weakness of our presentday Folk in this work. Our general weaknesses which are in part grounded in a matter of blood, and in part lie in the nature of our present governmental organisation, or must be attributed to the effects of our poor leadership, are perhaps less familiar to the German public than, unfortunately, they are to the rest of the world, which knows them well. Most of the
