GERMAN 1'HILOSOPHY IN BRINGING ABOUT THE GREAT WAR. 117 



With regard to the passages in this book which have been 

 quoted in glorification of war, it does not appear that Treitschke 

 does much more than assert what seems at least a tenable view, 

 viz., that so long as human nature is radically unchanged, wars 

 will not cease. It would, however, be easy to quote passages 

 from his work wherein this fact is regarded not as welcome but 

 as disastrous ; and when he speaks of war as an ordinance of 

 (rod, this appears to be an inference from the fact that mankind 

 has had no respite from war, or only brief respite, for the period 

 wherein history is recorded. To say that this condition of things 

 is divinely ordained need not be interpreted as a justification of 

 it, or as implying that it is desirable; it follows from Treitschke's 

 belief that a single world-state is impossible, and that separate 

 States must have conflicting interests which can only be settled 

 by war. 



One who takes the trouble to verify the quotations from the 

 politics of Treitschke which are given by Dr. Smith will find 

 that the English writer has weakened his case by quoting 

 unfairly ; though it may be admitted that Treitschke cannot be 

 exculpated completely from the charge of unduly glorifying war. 

 It may also be admitted that he harboured — probably owing to 

 instructions from his government — ambitions which could not 

 fail at some time to lead to European war ; for he openly 

 expresses the hope that Germany may ultimately become supreme 

 at sea, and he holds that Holland must be forced somehow into 

 the German Zollverein, so that the whole Khine may be German. 

 One, however, who reads what Treitschke has to say about the 

 relation between political and civil morality will find little 

 difference between the line which he takes and that taken by 

 other writers who have dealt with this difficult subject. The 

 morality of a State is not the same as the morality of the indi- 

 vidual, and the individual must, according to most systems, 

 subordinate his conscience frequently to that of the State ; the 

 difficulty lies in determining the degree of violation which justifies 

 rebellion or even passive resistance. It may well be the case 

 that Treitschke has permitted the State too much licence, and 

 unreasonably restricted the liberty of the individual. Xor does 

 the reader quite savour the appreciation of Machiavelli with 

 which his system starts. 



We approach more nearly to the field of philosophy when we 

 come to the name of Friedrich Nietzsche. In making him 

 responsible for the war we are confronted at the outset by a 

 difficulty noticed by Professor Muirhead, viz., that his works 

 have probably had as many admirers in England as in Germany. 



