104 Mr. H. Wickham Steed [May 4, 



Here we come to the root of the difference between the British, 

 or rather the Anglo-Saxon, and the German conceptions of individual 

 freedom. This difference has sometimes been indicated by the 

 saying that, in Anglo-Saxon communities, everything is permitted 

 that is not expressly forbidden ; whereas in Germany, everything is 

 forbidden that is not expressly permitted. Fears have been ex- 

 pressed lest the growing organization and militarization of the 

 community under stress of war, end by imposing upon us the very 

 evil of Prussian militarism which we and our Allies are pledged to 

 destroy. It cannot be gainsaid that there is some danger that 

 extreme organization for purposes of dtfence may tend to crystallize 

 the wholesome fluidity of our ideas and institutions, and to leave the 

 body-politic afflicted hj arterio-sclerosis. It is not that we are ever 

 likely to contract the Prussian fc)rm of the militarist disease, but, 

 unless we are careful, we may develop a malady of our own of which 

 the effects would be singularly pernicious. Thoughtful French 

 writers have defined this war as a conflict between irreconcilable sets 

 of ideas. It certainly reveals, if it is not the direct outcome of, a 

 fundamental difference between Central and Western European con- 

 ceptions of the State and its functions. What may be called the 

 liberal Anglo-Saxon view of the State is that, in normal times, its 

 functions should be limited to a minimum indispensable to the 

 conduct of public affairs, and that it should interfere with the life 

 and liberties of individuals only in so far as such interference may 

 be required in the interests of the community as a whole. Govern- 

 ment is thus regarded as a necessity imposed by the exigencies of 

 public order and national defence, not as an end in itself. The 

 Government, which is the active expression of the State, therefore 

 stands as the servant of the community, and the servants of the 

 State are, in theory if not always in practice, the servants of the 

 community. The German, or at least the Prussian, theory is, on 

 the contrary, that the State is something apart from and higher than 

 the community. The members of the community are the servants 

 of the State. It follows that the officers of the State are not only in 

 practice but in theory the masters of the community, possessing 

 attributes superior to those of the private citizen because they are 

 derived from the State, of which the head is a Monarch governing 

 by divine right and therefore answerable in the last resort to the 

 Creator alone. The pohtical philosophy of Germany, especially since 

 Hegel, teems with mystical glorifications of the State. Treitschke 

 positively deifies the State. In his Politik he refers to "the objec- 

 tively-revealed Will of God as unfolded in the life of the State " ; 

 and calls the State " the most supremely real person, in the literal 

 sense of the word, that exists." And again, " the State is the 

 highest conmiunity existing in exterior human life, and therefore 

 the duty of self-effacement cannot apply to it. As nothing in the 

 world's his()Ory is its superior, the Christian obligation of sacrifice 



