1916-17.] Darwinism and Human Civilisation. 157 
then Russia, and then Britain, before their enemies had time to bring their 
combined forces into action. 
(3) Britain was a non-progressive nation in the world’s history, and 
hence, in the interests of civilisation, she ought to be deprived of her vast 
colonial possessions, so as to give place for Germany’s expansion as the 
coming world-Power. 
(4) To rectify the current policy of the Triple Entente, which kept the 
Germans hedged in and circumscribed on all sides — a policy inspired by 
jealousy of the rapid strides they were making in wealth, commerce, and 
social culture — a European war was a necessity on political grounds. It 
was therefore the imperative duty of all the Germanic races and peoples 
to utilise every available means to counteract the hypocritical machinations 
of her enemies, and protect her legitimate interests. “ Might was right,” 
and war was to decide the destiny of mankind under the beneficial sway 
of Pan-Germanism. 
(5) England is described as Germany’s principal enemy ; but as a 
decrepit, decadent Power she could be easily overpowered after France 
and Russia had been disposed of. Meantime, the highest aim of 
diplomacy was to keep the British people neutral in the coming 
Armageddon. 
Notwithstanding the vast importance and significance of these astound- 
ing revelations by a highly placed general in the German army, they were 
utterly ignored by the rulers of this country till the actual outbreak of 
hostilities opened their eyes to the reality of Bernhardi’s lucubrations. 
The striking parallelism between his recommendations as to how the war 
was to be carried out and the actual methods by which it has been con- 
ducted, together with the cynical frankness with which the downfall of 
Britain is prophesied, leaves no doubt as to the sources from which the 
Germans derived their present war policy. No argumentative evidence 
is required to show that the real responsibility for this deplorable war lies 
at the door of the Kaiser and his military advisers. 
The plea of the War Lord and his outwitted diplomatists, now so 
frequently reiterated since the failure of their original plan of campaign, 
is that they are the innocent victims of a long-hatched conspiracy on the 
part of the Entente — a plea so manifestly false that it hardly requires any 
contradictory comments. In submitting their grievances — whatever these 
may have been — to the arbitrament of war so gigantic as that now raging 
throughout Europe, it is evident the authors are conscious of having 
stupidly blundered. Now their underhand diplomacy and lack of real 
statesmanship are unfavourably criticised by the neutral Powers all over 
