LAND AND WATER 
May 15, 1915. 
repair. I have I'o inaterial (the last supply of tri-pulped 
gramophono records has been exhausted), and, as the Pro- 
fessor is doubtless aware, the effect of the leak is that I havo 
no ri.-en, or at least none worth seriously considering." 
The Profes.'5or blanched; the Commandant reflected. 
" This is more than unfortunate, gentlemen. The gal- 
lant defence cau no longer be continued. The Herr Haupt- 
Tfiann Professor carries in his hands the salvation of our 
country. It is necessary that he leave the fort. It is con- 
venient that we go with him. We have made an ineffably 
brave defence. The twisted and so beautifully coloured corpses 
of our rash enemy testify to it." He pointed to some terrible 
thino.f out on tha glacis. " The savour of our deeds shall 
smell to Leaven for all time. Meanwhile we can count 
upon the uncultured chivalry of a profoundly stupid enemy. 
We will demand the honours of war, the right to leave with 
our weapons, and our little personal possessions — such, for 
instance, as this test-tube, eh, Professor? You, Herr Lieu- 
tenant, will now carry out a flag of truce. You will take al.'-.o 
these tetanoid capsules. Scattered with diKcretion, they will 
no doubt cause trouble later. 
" Engineer, you will, also with discretion, connect an 
emergency tube from the main typhoid battery with the 
prisoners' quarters. 
" Herr Professor, I can leave the wells in your excellent 
hands " 
It was a little later in the day that a Major of Artillery 
of a stupid and guileless race returned to the fort with the 
Lieutenant to discuss the terms of capitulation. They boiled 
down into the granting of a safe conduct to the Commandant, 
the Herr Ober-Professor Hauptmann, the Enginser- 
Asphyxiator, and the Lieutenant of the Typhoid Battery. 
The Major's signature was fixed to the authentic parch'-" 
ment. A sudden faintness overcame him. The Professor 
examined him with professional detachment. " It is un- 
fortunate," said he, " that he will not live." 
" A tetanoid capsule, if I mistake not," said the Com- 
mandant, sniffing cautiously. 
" Precisely," said the Professor. 
" They will always be fools." 
"And we shall never be gentlemen," said the Lieu- 
tenant, not without emotion, as he gave the last salute to the 
inconiparably stupid Major. 
" As this amusing gentleman has so inconsiderat«!y re- 
moved himself," said the Commandant, emitting a cultured 
laugh, " it will hardly be necessary to await the entry of tha 
enemy. We will leave by aeroplane at once." 
BERNHARDI'S VOLTE FACE. 
By ADMIRAL SIR CYPRIAN BRIDGE. 
A SUFFICIENT commentary on this rather 
whining apology of General v. Bernhardi would 
be a comparison of the date of publication of his 
" Gennany and the Nest V7ar " and the date 
of his prefatory letter, of which a facsimile is 
prefixed to the present apologetic volume. 
Bernhardi's " Germany and the Next War " was pub- 
lished, I believe, in 1911. I do not know the date of the 
first publication of the English translation, but everyone is 
aware that the book was reviewed in many English news- 
papers and periodicals long before the present war began. 
The opinion then formed of the meaning of the work was 
virtually unanimous here and identical with the opinion of 
it still prevailing. 
No knowledge of any attempt on General v. Bernhardi's 
part to explain away or apologise for the sentiments expressed 
in the book ever reached the reading public in this country 
or — apparently — in the United States. It was, and still is, 
impossible to escape the conviction that, at any rate until 
after the Battle of the Mai-ne, General v. Bernhardi saw no 
reason why anything that he had written three years earlier 
called for recantation or apology. The change which the 
result of that battle imposed upon German hopes is reflected 
as in a mirror in General v. Bernhardi's new statements. 
The letter in which he asked the Emperor William's permis- 
sion to publish his present recantation is dated November 20, 
1914, by which time even the most stupid and sanguine 
German must have been convinced that the result of the 
Battle of the Marne was not likely to be reversed in a hurry. 
It is, therefore, quite easy to understand why General v. 
Bernhardi found it advisable to try to explain away towards 
the end of 1914 sentiments and statements which he had pro- 
mulgated in 1911, and to which, in spite of unfavourable 
criticism, he had sturdily adhered throughout almost the 
whole of the inter\ening time. The Battle of the Marne, 
following on the heroic and never-to-be-forgotten resistance 
of the Belgians, capsized the whole German strategic plan, 
and General v. Bernhardi's earlier notions went overboard 
with the rest of the Pots-dam prognostications. 
How much of his new statements comes from General v. 
Bernhardi himself? It certainly looks as if the " one or two 
articles," which he asked the Emperor's permission to write — 
a permission on which he counted with confidence — it certainly 
looks as if these " one or two articles," now published in an 
Englisli translation, had been submitted to illustrious inspec- 
tion and been improved by the interpolation of statements 
emanating from or inspired by the highest authorities. 
Tlie reproaches cast at England are in the true Wilhelm- 
strasse-Potsdain style. The intolerable ' tyranny which 
Bernhardi or his inspirer imputes to British policy — especially 
in South Africa and in India— has been rewarded, not as 
those personages expected, by disaffection and revolt, but by 
spontaneous offers of Princes, Feudatory Chiefs, and people 
in India of their property and even their lives for the support 
of that policy; whilst in South Africa hostilities against the 
most important oversea German posaessioa are being con- 
ducted by South Africans on their own part, the General in 
Command and most of them being Boers. 
I do not know v/hcther it is General v. Bernliardi him- 
self or someone else more continuously in touch with tha 
highest German authorities who coined the word " Naval- 
ism." It is, of course, a mere tu quoque to be hurled at 
anyone who speaks of Prussian Militarism. The coinage is 
regarded, in Germancphile circles, as a brilliant specimen 
of Pots-dam wit. The word v.'as exported to the United 
States and distributed widely to be used by interrupters at 
public meetings at which German diplomatic and belligerent 
methods were discussed. 
Of course there is no parallelism between Prussian 
Militarism and so-called British "Navalism." Everybody 
understands the first and knows what it is, and it would not 
be General v. Bernhardi's fault if it was not understood and 
known. His former book makes that quite clear. British 
" Navalism," according to the new German view, is that, 
because the widely-scattered British Empire — with its com- 
ponent parts separated by great tracts of sea — possesses a 
great Navy — not so powerful relatively as the German Army 
is on land — our naval power must be used for the oppression 
or restriction of other countries. Not one word in proof of 
this is attempted. If any were possible we may be sure that 
it would be thrust before our eyes. The truth is the exact 
opposite of what General v. Bernhardi and his inspii-era assert 
or intimate. Here is one sufficient demonstration of it. No 
economic or industrial factor in Germany has been more 
highly developed since the establishment of the Em.pire than 
the German mercantile marine and German commercial 
interests overseas. It would be possible to show " graphic- 
ally " that increase of the British Navy has been accompanied 
by an increase of German mercantile tonnage and in the value 
of German overseas trade. In many parts of the world, down 
to the very outbreak of the war, British naval power pro- 
tected German iiitsveats. Accusations against British 
"Navalism" therefore are but empty and insincere 
vituperation. 
It is hardly possible that General v. Bernhardi can be 
ignorant of the fact that the so-called " convention " between 
Great Britain and Belgium for the defence of the latter little 
country if its neutrality was violated was communicated by 
King Albert to the German ofR.;i;ils and consequently was not 
kept secret. Also it is not "hardly possible," but quite 
impossible, that the so-called "convention" was ever 
entered into. The word " convention " is a forgery of tha 
German Government in a MS. document which contained 
no such word, but did contain the word " couvorsalion," 
for which "convention" was fraudulently substituted. A 
facsimile of the document wan piibli:^hed some months at'o by 
tho Field newspaper, in which German handwriting and tho 
forgery are at once perceptible. Why does not General 
v. Bernhardi tell his readers of this? 
"The New Bernhardi j Hia Latest Views on War." (Londtmi 
Price Is. net.) 
X4« 
