GERMANY V. ENGLAND.

Dominion, Volume 2, Issue 522, 1 June 1909, Page 8

GERMANY V. ENGLAND.

AND THE DEFENCE OF NEW ZEALAND,

(By E. Bohghetti, M.D.)

11. [Tho viows expressed in this nrtlole are the personal opinions of the writer, and tins paper is .not in any way committed to thorn. They are sivpn spaco in our columns bccaußo wo believe that it will bo of interest and of yalno to our readers to havo ploccd before them . the observations and conclusions. of a gentleman' who has been for many years resident in Europe, who has made ■ a study of the conditions ■ eristine in some of the countries of which ho writes, and who in stating: his car-c is uninfluenced by any sentimental regard for British prestigo. His conclusions may be unpalatable to many, but if they assist to a bettor and broader understanding of our national responsibilities, they will not have been without some good effect.!

In my previous contribution upon tiie above subject,. I have endeavoured to demonstrate that the nations at the periphery of Europe—England, Spain, Turkey, Franco, and Russia —after attaining their' national unity began that expansion abroad which brought under their control the best land m the world, i.e., all the lands where the white man can live and prosper. Hence tho anomalous fact, which is becoming even more apparent in our days, that tho nations at tho periphery have the land, but not the population, whereas those of the centjo havo the population but not the land. This alone is more than sufficient to create an antagonism between tho centre and the periphery.

Causes of Antagonism. But there are other factors which, if carefully considered, will show that this antagonism is deeper still than it would appear at first sight.. If we go through history, we will see that, not satisfied with _ oxpanding abroad boyond tho sea, tho nations at the periphery wanted to expand near home, too, at the expense of their neighbours of the centre. This they conld do without risk to themselves, on account of that protection which naturo affords them, and we know how often they have carried merciless wars to the heart of Europe only to satiate their ambition for'power, their religious fanaticism, and their thirst for blood. History is there to show that this is the truth. Naturally those peoplo on whoso territory tho .wars were carried on, boing constantly interfered wrth, could not work . out their salvation 'in' (be same easy way which has been permitted to thoir oppressors, and'this explains why in their present stato of evolution the peoplo of Central Europe differ so much from their kinsmen at the periphery. It is useless to blink the fact. There is a cleavage between the oentro and the, periphery, and this cleavage finds its explanation in the surroundings and its confirmation in history. To different surrptradinss, different history, and also different civilisation, henoe the antagonism. Naturally this cleavage and this antagonism must bo more marked in the case of the two extremos—England and Germany—because England is situated at tho extreme of tho periphery and Germany >&e vory heart of tho Continent; England is protected all round by the sea, whereas Germany is open,on all sides to the attacks of most powerful onomies. . By this eimplo fact we may guess that the history, i.e.,. tho lines along which these two nations havo evolved, must b<) quito opjiosite. And in fact what can there bo more in contrast than the peaceful expansion of tho British peoplo. in tho world, ajid. Germany's struggle for life or death against her powerful enemies? England's history Is the history of the British nation alono, that of Germany is the history of all Europe.

How Britain Has Prospered. ■To different surroundings, different history, and also different civilisation, 'i'p understand this last part of the sentence,we should remember that in her development the British nation offers two phases: one of internal growth from the time of'her national unity in the eleventh century up to the great revolution which culminated in Charles ll.'s doath: and anothonof external growth; (decentralisation) up to our days. From the time tho British people have started on their seoond phase, the phase of'their'expansion abroad, they have been so' successful that an opportunity ever since has been offered to every indmdnarto work himself up to the extent of his ability, in tho Navy, m the 'Army, in the practico of the professions, in tho industries, or iu.the trado at home; or abroad in the exploitation of the mines, or of new lands. England - on. account of her tremendous expansion m-.tho world, has boon in a position to give satisfaction to all individual efforts, as well as to all individual ambitions. This in the end t-ought homo to the British people the idea that the highest good for the nation could bo reached only through free individtial effort, and, that success in life, 1 i.e.: tho acquiring of wealth, must' be the standard whereby to judgo of man's fitness or superiority in the struggle for life. This doctnne of unlimited competition, of the most intense individualism, and of the widest cosmopolitanism,'by ferco of which Chinese labour was admitted into tho Transvaal, has beon expounded, . among others, by Herbert Spencer, J., S. Mill, and Adam Smith, and so it is that by force of these surroundings England has .becomo tho representative of a civilisation which centres the highest good—tho individual, and has wealth as a standtrd to judge man by. ' Cermanys Different Development. Quito different is the result Germany has arrived at in consequence of tho different surroundings which Nature* has assigned to her. To begin with, that very -national unity which has oost the British peoplo nothing to _ bring about—they owe it;to their surroundings—to tho Germans its accomplishment lias .been, the mfeans to evolve, through incredible suffering, . a new civilisation based on the duty of tho .citizen towards his fellow and toward tho community. To understand this we must realise that national unity is to a nation what birth is to a man: Le., coming into being, and that there.is a gap of eight hundred years between England's national unity in tho eleventh century and Germany's, which is a feature of our days.' It is during this long gap of eight hundred years that the two nations have been perfecting their civilisation, which is individualism for England and nationalism for Germany. Individualism and nationalism are antithetic, i.e., directly ' opposed, because whilst the former centres the highest good in the free efforts of the individual, independent of his fellow, the latter submits all individual efforts to a high ideal of common good. And again, whilst individualism has individual rights as a starting point, and wealth as finality, nationalism has social duties as a starting point and science as a finality. No wonder then if, after moving for eight centuries in opposite directions, these two nations, on meeting as thoy do now on tho field of .competition for success in life, find that they are antagonistic. And antagonistic thoy are, for the Gonnans consider individualism an immoral doctrine which can lead only to tho gratification of individual selfishness,; to the detraction of the home life and* to the multiplication of tho unfit; whereas tho German point of view that the rights of the individuals should be sacrificed to the community must appear to tie, average Briton something like a heresy implying a transformation of human nature impossible to obtain and lxm-coliducivo to the best in lifo. Which of the two civilisations squares with tho,law of evolution, and is therefore dostinedv to survive? We will see later on. For the moment let us record hero that in conse-, qucnco of her surroundings Germany has been compelled to shift tho fulorum of civilisation from tho individual to tho nation, henco the antagonism with England. I will call this antagonism Germany v. England, although it would be moro proper to call it Nationalism v. Individualism. 1

Tho Spirit of Nationalism. Nationalism means co-oporation among peoplo akin in blood, language, and religious creed for their mutual defence. Whore Nature herself provides that defenoo, as is tho case with England, individualism is the rulo. This is well expressed in tho English proverb: "Each for himself and tho' uovil take tho hindmost,"! but where Nature does not provide that defonco'people must see to it themsolves. This is tho case with the nations of Central Europe.. All evolution is .the result of suffering, and with regard to the people of Contra! Europe thoro is no doubt that it was tho hard experience of repeated invasions'which brought homo to them 'tho knowledge that individual cf&rts are of no

use to oust an enemy from tie oountry or to ward hiiA off if ho wishes to step in. Another knowlodgo tho same suffering brought home to them was that if they subordinated their own interest to that of cominuiiity each in tho end would receive moro than ho gave. Since tho millions of Contral Europo have booome oonvincod of this they, too, have attained that national unity which Ims been so profitable to tho nations at the periphery. But with thom, .much more than with tho nations at tho periphery, national unity means real co-operation, i.e., strength, and as strength and ambition go hand in hand, it is not to bo wondered at if, now that they are strong, they, too, want to havo their share of the wealth of tho world in tho way of - expansion—expansion of population and expansion of trauo. They need it,, and l they will have it, because thero is nothing that can. resist the pressure • from millions of energies bent upon their legitimate satisfaction: Naturally this spirit of national co-operation win not bo found standing so high elsewhoro as it does in Central Europe, because thero only the. necessity to provide for the oommon defence has drawn all classes together in the idea of the common good. And not only a truo spirit of nationalism, but also a spirit of internationalism has been developed in Central Europe, because under tho compulsion of a hard struggle for life people managed to co-operate even when thoy. are not akin either in blood, language, or religious creed. And, in fact, Switzerland and Austria-Hungary are but examples of international co-opera-.tion. . ■ ! . '

A Proooss of Natural Selection. However, before tho people of Central Europo could rise to the idoa of national and international co-operation they havo been compelled to go through a most intense process of natural selection, which, as ,wb understand it now, was directed to kill individual selfishness, and to foster in its Btead tho spirit-of brotherhood. This process of natural selection has been applied somewhere slowly and 'elsewhere abruptly, according to the conditions created by tho surroundings.Tho fact'that Germans, French and Italians in Switzerland, and, again, Germans, Hungarians, Slavs, and Italians irr AustriaHungary have adapted themselves to cooperate to, their mutual defenoo goes to show that where this process of natural selection has been most inexorably applied is where these different nationalities meet, i.e., in Central Europe. And, in fact, now many times, after a' war prolonged for years and years the whole of Central Europe has seen her population abruptly .brought down by one-tenth, one-fifth, or one-half! History is thero to bear this out. But before I "go further I must explain what I moan by Central EuTopo., ■ ; ' " (To bo continued.)