On June 1 Prussia declared to the assembly of the Bund that she would at once disarm if Austria and Saxony set the example. Against that came a direct accusation from Vienna that Prussia had for a long time been planning, in concert with Italy, an attack on Austria, and on that account the latter now desired to call the whole Bund to arms, in order to request it to undertake the decision of the case of the duchies. She desired at the same time to call the Estates of Holstein to cooperate.
Against this declaration Prussia lodged a protest—inasmuch as it overturned the Gastein treaty. That being so the position reverted to the Vienna treaty, i.e., to the common condominium. The consequence was that Prussia had also the right to occupy Holstein—as on her side Austria was permitted to occupy Schleswig. And the Prussians at once moved into Holstein. Gablenz withdrew without sword drawn, but under protest.
Bismarck had previously said in a circular letter: “We have found no disposition at all to meet us at Vienna. On the contrary, expressions have fallen from Austrian statesmen and councillors of the emperor which have reached the ear of the king from authentic sources (tritsch tratsch), and which prove that the ministers wish for war at any price (to wish for public slaughter, what a fearful accusation!), partly because they hope for success in the field, partly to get free of internal difficulties, and to eke out their own shattered finances by contributions from Prussia (statecraft).”
The Press was now completely warlike, and of course (as the patriotic custom is) sure of victory. The possibility of defeat must be entirely left out of view by every loyal subject whom his prince summons to the battle. Numerous leading articles pictured Benedek’s entry into Berlin, and also the sack of that city by the Croats. Some even recommended to raze the capital of Prussia to the ground. “Sack,” “raze to the ground,” “ride over spurs in blood”—these are expressions which do not indeed any longer express the popular conception in modern times of what is right; but they have, since the days of our school-studies of the ancient histories of war, been always clinging to people; and they have been so often recited in the histories of battles learned by heart, so often written down in our essays in German, that if a man has to write an article on the subject of war in a newspaper, such expressions drop from his pen spontaneously. Contempt for the enemy cannot be too strongly expressed—for the Prussian troops the Vienna newspapers had no other term than “the tailors.” Adjutant-General Count Grünne expressed himself thus: “We shall chase off these Prussians with a flea in their ear.” That is the kind of way to make a war quite “popular.” That sort of thing strengthens the national confidence.
June 11. Austria proposes that the Bund shall take action against Prussia’s helping herself in Holstein, and mobilise the whole army of the Bund. On June 14 this proposition is put to the vote, and by nine votes to six—accepted! Oh! those three votes! How much grief and how many shrieks of pain have made groaning echo to those three voices!
It is done—the ambassadors have received their dismissal. On the 16th the Bund requested Austria and Bavaria to go to the assistance of the Hanoverians and Saxons, who were already attacked by Prussia.
On the 18th the Prussian war manifesto appeared, and at the same time the manifesto of the Emperor of Austria to his people, and the proclamation of Benedek to his troops. On the 22nd Prince Frederick Charles published his orders to his army, and thus commenced the war. I copied the four original documents at the time. Here they are:—
King William says:—
Austria will not forget that her princes were once the rulers of Germany, and will not regard modern Prussia as a copartner, but only as a hostile rival. Prussia, it is held, must be opposed in all her efforts, because whatever profits Prussia injures Austria. The old unblessed jealousy has again burst out into a fierce flame. Prussia is to be weakened, destroyed, disinherited. With her no treaties are to be any longer in force. Wherever we look in Germany we are surrounded by foes, and their war-cry is “Humiliation for Prussia.” Up to the last moment I have sought for and kept open the way to a friendly solution. Austria refused.
On the other hand, the Emperor Francis Joseph expresses himself thus:—
The latest events prove incontestably that Prussia is now setting open force in the place of right. Thus has the most impious of wars—a war of Germans against Germans—become inevitable. To answer for all the misery it will bring on individuals, families, neighbours and districts, I summon those who have brought it about before the judgment-seat of history, and of the Eternal and Almighty God.
“The opposite party” is always the one that wishes for war. The “opposite party” are always charged with setting up force in the place of right. Why, then, is it anyhow possible, consistently with public law, that this can happen? An “impious” war, because it is one of “Germans against Germans.” Quite true. The point of view is a higher one, which, beyond “Prussia” and “Austria,” raises the wider conception of Germany. But take one step more and we shall reach that still higher unity in the light of which every war—men against men, especially civilised men against civilised—will necessarily appear an impious fratricide. And to “summon before the judgment-seat of history”—what is the use of that? History, as it has been managed hitherto, has never pronounced any other judgment than a worship of success. When anyone comes out of a war as conqueror the guild of historical scribblers fall in the dust before him, and praise him as the fulfiller of his “mission of educative culture.” And “before the judgment-seat of Almighty God.” Yes; but is
