Chapter 5 4. Agreement and Alliance

At present in Europe only Great Britain and Germany have the unmatched and well-coordinated power of any other country, as reflected in their wealth, the effectiveness of their industrial and commercial institutions, and the strength of the British navy and German army.The rest of the world just sided with Britain or Germany to play a role in the balance between them. In all countries, the general public tends to focus first on issues that are usually domestic.The interests of the individual are bound up with the special needs of the region in which he lives and its surroundings, and even the province and country, which have more than ordinary significance for him.This situation is natural and reasonable, needless to say.The idea of ​​home government, as embodied in the power of government in the United States and in the tradition of the village meeting, has penetrated our minds; affairs.This belief is evident in the state government, the numerous municipal governments, and the governing bodies of the subdivided towns and villages.For most of us, this reflects not so much a truth they have deeply understood, but a simple habit.

This notion of empowering places to govern themselves gets the credit it deserves because a functioning institution has been established through it.However, in the early history of our country, that is to say, in the colonial period when independence was not only not achieved, but was not even declared, it was generally believed that if the results desired by a local self-government government were to be achieved, more than local self-government was required. many other things.Filling your head with ideas of local self-government will only alienate you from other local associations.This is obviously not conducive to promoting the public interest, nor is it conducive to its own development, not to mention the well-known suspicion that was still pervasive in the relationship between the thirteen North American colonies at that time.Thus, there was a real need to regulate the relations between these colonies, which were not different in nature from those between states, although they were more closely connected with each other.

The term localization, in its broad sense, is more applicable to Europe than to America; yet, in the narrow-mindedness it implies, it is used to describe those prejudices and practices that were common in the early history of our country before the Civil War It couldn't be more apt.The bad thing about localism or local ways of thinking and acting is not that they reflect the realities of a place as they really are, which would be a good thing if they did; feel.According to regionalism, both metropolises and outlying corners can be hopelessly selfish and unrepentant, and so can Wall Street, though it has interests everywhere.

The same thinking can be seen in the larger region, that is, in the interrelationships within the international community.There is no doubt that the first consideration of every member of the international community is self-interest, and that is to put his own house in order.Moreover, for an individual, no matter he or it is a person, a community or a country, as long as its main interests are well protected, he or it has made the greatest contribution to the general well-being.However, if the understanding of this truth only stays at the point where it only pays attention to itself and does not consider the situation and necessary requirements of other people or other members of the international community, it will become something of passive localism.

The dead state of the State Department between the end of the Civil War and the end of the Spanish-American War reflected the general indifference of the American public to the international situation.We only briefly express concern when some extraordinary development threatens us or undermines some of the principles we believe in.For most Americans, the ins and outs of the Spanish-American War and its impact on international relations are entirely random things; except for a few, almost unknown people who care about international issues, almost no one in government circles pays attention to strengthening the relationship between the United States and the United States. The emphasis on international relations demands.And the government is mainly busy with other necessary business.A shrewd old MP once warned a newly elected MP about the prevailing public attitudes: If you want to keep your voters on board, don't serve on the foreign affairs committee that seems attractive because the public is obsessed with international issues. Not interested.

Interestingly, however, during the colonial era when several colonies were strictly province-like, Americans’ indifference to international affairs was not as pronounced as it was later; The steamship and the telephone are even more striking.Of course, it is not hard to find reasons for the differences in the interests of early and later Americans.compared with now.Pre-Revolutionary Americans had more direct economic and political ties to Europe.They are influenced not only by their relations with European countries, but also to a large extent by their relations with each other, just as today's changes within a European country can shake the entire European society.At that time, all kinds of rumors about the war in Europe disturbed the people in the North American colonies, because the outbreak of the war would involve them.Macaulay made the following vivid comments on the occupation of the Silesian region of Austria by Frederick the Great of Prussia: human perception.Because a man can prey on the neighbors he has promised to protect, the Negroes are fighting each other on the shores of the Cromandel, and the Reds are killing each other in the Great Lakes of North America.

At that time, although the exchange of information was relatively sparse, there was careful and sufficient written reporting from Europe that was not rushed to catch the mail.While readers of the time had time to carefully judge the basic situation of external affairs, their attention was not distracted by a large number of daily trivialities; few things are more important and thought-provoking than the news of the complicated external situation in the North American newspapers. .All this explains the divergent interests of early and later newspaper readers: our colonial predecessors were concerned with external affairs; most of us now believe that these matters have little to do with them.

Much can be said about the origin and continuation of today's attitude to external affairs, but it should be believed that it is now out of date.Our War of Independence was followed by the French Revolution and its ensuing wars, and the nascent United States suffered a string of troubles stemming from its earlier treaty with France, naval battles between France and Great Britain It has brought many difficult problems to the United States.Washington then issued a stern warning to the American people not to get involved in the alliance, and the successive presidents wished with all sincerity to stay out of the squabbles of Europe.The actual situation also strengthened this intention.In 1803 and 1821 we acquired Louisiana and Florida respectively, stretching the territory from the Atlantic Ocean to the Pacific Ocean and the Gulf of Mexico.In this way, our boundaries are clearly defined by natural features, thereby preventing territorial disputes caused by artificial demarcation.On the other hand, the revolution in Spanish America has disengaged our country from all European powers except on the Canadian side.

Corresponding to the above situation, the Monroe Doctrine emerged in the early nineteenth century.Its goal was to keep European infiltration out of the Western Hemisphere, thereby fulfilling its desire to avoid entanglement with it.Centuries of experience have shown that conflicts among European states in the Americas inevitably disturb the United States, and that such conflicts exist as long as European states hold land in the Americas.The basic spirit of the Monroe Doctrine is to prevent European powers from expanding their possession in the Americas through occupation and exchange.Although the implementation of the Monroe Doctrine led to much controversy, it undoubtedly contributed to the attainment of the goals concerned; however, it also contributed to our aversion to any policy alliance with European countries.Reinforced a certain psychology that is still at work today.This mentality has perhaps become as irrational and damaging as prejudice, preventing us from seeing clearly the trends contained in the current turbulent world situation.Conservatism in national policy is indispensable and commendable. Our country's constitution is a huge guarantee for the power of conservatism, but at the same time, our thinking should have a certain flexibility and the driving force that enables us to move forward.No amount of conservatism can prevent changes in the external environment. If a person or a country cannot adapt itself to the times, what seems to be firmly in hand will be lost.

Thus, the reasons for Americans' isolation of themselves from European problems, both in concept and in practice, can be found in the early history of our country, which has been briefly introduced above.Needless to say, our country's indifference to international affairs was intensified and sustained by domestic issues closely related to the slavery debate.From the promulgation of the Monroe Doctrine to the end of the Civil War, the main problem facing our country was trying to maintain domestic order and build national self-government on a solid foundation.This period of more than a generation was devoted entirely to appease the unappeasable forces, to maintain the unity of the country, which is the basic factor on which the vitality of the country depends.In any country, especially in a country as big as ours, the divergence of interests among various forces will inevitably lead to factional confrontation.But in the experience of our country there has never been a disagreement so clear and dangerous as that between two opposing systems of labour.This disagreement is extremely hostile both in nature and in form, and has had an impact not only on the industrial and economic conditions of our country, but also on the psychological and moral conditions of the regions concerned.As far as our present topic is concerned, the significance of the above situation mainly lies in helping to explain my country's long-term indifference to international relations in concept.At that time, my country did not have the conditions to actively participate in international affairs. The poor domestic situation and the underdevelopment of most regions made it unable to do so.

However, as long as the situation of our country in the above-mentioned period can be confirmed in the history of other countries in essence.It is possible to compare this period of history, which because of its own characteristics is different from the period before and after it, and the period in which we live today, with the history of other countries.Nations are made up of human beings, and therefore inevitably have tendencies; they should be watched, in order to either check them or translate them into reality.Slavery wasn't the only thing that divided our country into different factions, both religious and racial differences could lead to this division.In Germany, the division line once between the Catholic South and the Protestant North represented the political division of a territory; in our country this division has been healed with the end of the Civil War up.In France, the main line of division has historically been between east and west, while Protestantism was strong in the south.In Germany and France, religion was not the only cause of domestic strife, but it did in itself suffice for division; and, because of the geographical concentration of religious sects, religion was the most powerful, persistent, and long-lasting divisive force. It is instructive to note that while some states are beset by domestic strife, they are at the mercy of others in international relations.In a word, they are on the defensive.Spain was united spiritually by its protracted religious wars with the Moors and territorially by repelling the Moors and the marriage of Castile and Aragon.At this point, unified Spain found itself in a position to exert powerful influence over the outside world.At that time, regardless of the justness of its aims, Spain was indeed in a position to carry out her plans, and to take vigorous action in any area where her special interests or general perceptions demanded her intervention.Thus, for more than a century, Spain became the dominant power in Europe because of its unity and solidarity.Meanwhile, Germany and France remained disjointed due to domestic differences, and Britain remained a politically divided island due to England's rivalry with Scotland.Overall, France, Germany, and Great Britain were on the international defensive against Spain for more than a century, no matter how the situation changed over time. But France was the first to escape from internal difficulties.In a way, the nations of Western Europe are a little luckier than we are, because slavery has bequeathed us a racial problem that has not yet been resolved.The problem is only regional in its distribution, but is exacerbated by large differences between races.Although European countries are not without internal interregional differences, they possess an element of identity that has enabled them to achieve national unity.However, it is not necessary to trace the process of the concentration of French state power here.All we have to say is that during the successive reigns of Henry IV, Richelieu, Mazarin, and Louis XIV, France achieved national unity and concentration of power; Spain is similar, forming and executing a strong foreign policy and taking Spain's place.As a corollary, this policy made France ubiquitous in the international relations of the era.And, as we so often see in writing today, France achieved hegemony in Europe at the time.This was accompanied by the disintegration of the dominance previously enjoyed by the Spanish Empire. As observers of current reality, our concern is not the rationality of the hegemonic policy that characterizes France's behavior in the above-mentioned environment, but the reactions it elicits.As a defiant power that controlled by its influence and influenced the internal and external relations of all other countries, France provoked the resistance of other European countries, and they formed a broad alliance to prevent the further strengthening of French hegemony.If this hegemony is not limited, it may cause the whole of Europe to prostrate at the feet of a certain powerful country.Members of European society were thus striving for an equilibrium, a spontaneous act of self-preservation against a centralized, well-organized oppressor.And, despite the weaknesses of the aforementioned alliance or union, it achieved its purpose, and Louis XIV was finally pulled from the height of his power.A hundred years later, under the leadership of Napoleon, France achieved a similar supremacy, but the same process of joint counterattacks once again shattered the huge imperial system built by Napoleon. Such accomplishments have led politicians to deify what once worked: coordinated action among nations to resist relentless oppression such as that of Spain and France.Observers of international politics have had an impression very similar to that which Cromwell, who ruled by means of a standing army, made on the English people.At that time, as a means of ruling, Cromwell concentrated the military power of Britain in one hand, so that he could do whatever he wanted.This situation is mirrored to a lesser extent in international relations when a state becomes very powerful by concentrating its forces and subduing other states in the international community with separate and often conflicting wishes From.The means of confronting hegemony is confrontation, which begins with alliances, and the familiar word is to establish a balance of power.The notion of a balance of power predated the word itself, and for three centuries it has had a decisive influence on the actions of statesmen.The eminent British historian Stubbs wrote: "However the balance of power is defined, and however it is necessary to maintain a balance among the great powers so that the weak will not be overwhelmed by the strong, the balance of power is the plot of modern European history. The most important factor to get up.It was the most important idea in the three centuries from 1500 to 1800.In any drama, the balance of power is always the key to the plot.Over time, the concept of the balance of power has been deepened, leading to the perception that the balance of power will secure its effectiveness as the protector of the status quo, balance, and peace.Recent research on international arbitration also echoes an in-depth discussion of the balance of power, which also sees international arbitration as a means to achieve peaceful goals through cooperation among states on an equal basis. As long as man-made arrangements take into account contemporary human nature, human strengths, weaknesses, emotions and interests, and coordinate with them, they will not be ineffective.The same applies to the balance of power and the arbitration, the raw materials contained in them will not produce finished products with characteristics not found in these materials.When the major arrangements of European affairs were made after the fall of Napoleon, it was thought that by regulating the distribution of territories an effective equilibrium might be established among the five great powers, while the territorial integrity of the smaller states would be guaranteed by the great powers be consolidated.The disruption of these situations would be something that every nation would oppose, as had been the case when the Utrecht agreement of 1713 and the comprehensive settlement reached before 1815 were violated.Dominance will be contained as soon as it emerges, and no nation will be allowed to develop into a giant that will cast its shadow over the entire continent, like Philip II of Spain, Louis XIV of France, and Napoleon treated the same.The balance of power, then, means that international intervention can be carried out on unanimously agreed occasions. The above design is convinced that if the balance of power and tranquility can be achieved, the situation and opportunities of countries will tend to be equal.But, no matter how perfect the coordination at the moment, will the states always be satisfied with them?If you are not satisfied, how can you expect these countries not to cause trouble?The rationale behind this arrangement is that if countries are balanced in terms of material power, they will also be on the same starting line.But experience tells us that due to differences in the mental or material capabilities of individuals, even the most extensive balance can quickly lead to imbalance, which in turn leads to social and economic dissatisfaction and antagonism.The artificially adjusted balance of power was not the whole of the situation in Europe in 1815, and the success of the above arrangements in individual countries depended on the balance between them with different levels of political, social and industrial development, different conceptions of rights and different vested interests and opportunities.Over time, these differences can quickly exacerbate dissatisfaction with the status quo, so that they will have their own agendas and thus be at odds.The history of Europe from 1815 to the present is a record of the struggles and their consequences arising out of human nature, governed by interests and passions. After the decline of Louis XIV's France, control of Europe passed to Britain.This was not obvious at the time, but the course of eighteenth-century history proved it more and more;However, the new British hegemony was fundamentally different from the previous hegemony, and people saw it that way at the time, although they may not have analyzed it rigorously.Strictly speaking, Britain did not have the power required for hegemony at the time.It never had the military power that Philip II, Louis XIV, and Napoleon had had so that it could be effectively aggressive on the Continent.The dominance of the United Kingdom lies in its ability to act as a third party in politics, as a balancer, and to play a decisive role in correcting the balance between the two.The reason why Britain has this ability is that its status as an island country has greatly strengthened its defense capabilities, enabling it to concentrate on developing industry and commerce and avoid the nuisance of war.If a country's territory is vulnerable to invasion, it will obviously suffer from frequent wars.In addition, the union of England and Scotland under the same king in 1603 saved England from war, and the complete political unity and establishment of a single parliament in 1707 strengthened this situation.Domestic unity is the premise of Britain's self-improvement and external expansion. Unlike the previous hegemonic countries, Britain's expansion and progress were not aimed at Europe, but at the world outside it.This was perhaps the beginning of what we know today as world politics.Britain was unique in terms of foreign expansion, not that it was the first to expand or that it had no competitors, but that despite its insatiable desire to expand its colonies, its focus was not on how much wealth it gained from the colonies, Instead, Britain's own system was pushed to it.In this respect, the British colonies are similar to the Roman colonies, both politically and industrially a replica of the mother country.This does not exempt Britain from pursuing a selfish policy in its colonies, but since they are regarded as British settlements, the same written and unwritten rights of British citizenship can be enjoyed in these colonies.From this arose a laudable underlying atmosphere which, after the American Revolution, made all English-speaking members of the British Empire see as a common goal the cultivation of reasonable and sincere relations with one another. The role played by England in the struggle against Napoleon is here irrelevant to us.Of course this role is decisive, but it is backed by the aforementioned advantages possessed by Britain.Britain's geographical and industrial advantages enabled and facilitated its access to the colonial market, thereby developing a large number of commercial and industrial resources, and economically supporting the allies against the Emperor Napoleon.The struggle was over, but Britain's industrial and commercial preeminence and its vast colonies remained the same.Britain thus remained one step ahead of the other great powers in the ensuing European race, a feature that persisted throughout the extraordinary nineteenth century and only recently disappeared.Although the great political changes of recent years and the increase in British-related wars have greatly diminished the British advantage, the industrial development promoted by the complementary scientific progress is still the characteristic of the United Kingdom.Since Great Britain was superior both in material wealth and in national talent as determined by consistent industrial and commercial traditions, she easily gained the upper hand and was for a long time unopposed.In 1815 the differences among the countries of Europe were not only reflected in the above-mentioned respects.The war of attrition, which lasted for about two decades, had a disastrous effect on the population and industry of continental European countries.The victims of war are mainly men who are the backbone of life and the potential nurturers of new generations.A large number of British citizens were also killed in the fighting, but the British Army was relatively small, and sea control as a special military tool did not cause many major naval battles.For France, Napoleon's wars were an integral part of the wars of the French Revolution, and when it emerged from these wars, it not only suffered huge material losses, but its population was only less than before, while France's world position has always been is commensurate with its population.Another problem that still plagues France today is the weakening of the state by a large administrative system, a bloated bureaucracy that not only creates unnecessary burdens but also undermines any hope of an efficient government.Unlike Germany today, France's foreign influence was determined not by its government but by individual talent. Germany at that time was still the same as before the French Revolution, a collection of many countries; these countries were independent but most of them were small countries.The existence of two German powers, Austria and Prussia, not only did not slow down but exacerbated the division of Germany, the opposition between the two countries based on tradition or other reasons hindered the political unity of Germany, unless one country ordered the other to be its leader Yes.However, just three months before the Battle of Waterloo, Bismarck was born.It seemed insignificant at the time, but it was of great significance in the future.As the rivalry between Austria and Prussia continued, the traditional separate identities of the two countries divided Germany into two blocs, each with one of the two Austro-Prussian monarchies as a source of cohesion.But in terms of historical origins and existing prestige, Austria, the older country, is also the head of Germany.The political system in both countries was an absolute monarchy, temporarily strengthened in response to the French Revolution.In this respect, to say nothing of Russia, the fifth great power, there was unambiguous strength that emerged from the unchecked authority of the Tsar.In Russia, however, as in Germany, absolutism was a political weakness, since it inevitably required the insertion of an irresponsible administrative bureaucracy between the ruler and the ruled.In the past decade, we have seen the result of some negative factors for Russia, and these factors, combined with a problematic state system, will make Russia's already great strength disappear at some time in the future.The current trend is that Russia is being thrown out of the competition in Europe and into the ranks of Asian countries, which share political institutions with Russia. The situation in 1815 has been briefly described above. Its main feature, which is still closely related to our reality today, is that Britain is superior in the creation of material wealth and in the world system; while the German race is divided, Thus lagging behind in political and industrial development.In the words of the current Prime Minister of the German Empire, Prince Bilot.At that time, Germany was just a geographical term rather than the title of a great power.France, on the other hand, was intent on dismembering Germany, from Richelieu to Napoleon.Napoleon inherited the practice of splitting Germany, but his strategy changed.It is in these circumstances that the main features of European international relations at present are determined, and efforts towards a balance of power can be traced back to them.Perhaps it is more accurate to say that such an effort is a struggle for overwhelming superiority over an enemy group, and the objective result is an unstable balance.To see how fluid this balance can be, one need only look carefully at the series of developments since the Turkish Revolution in the summer of 1908.It is not the things themselves that are examined, but the intertwined intentions, needs, and suspicions inherent in nations, which are often laid bare in concrete situations. For a long time, Germany was left behind in the race to become rich and powerful, held back by a centuries-old tradition of division.Today, however, it is found that Germany is beginning to become, and may eventually become, a centralized power that eclipses others.In terms of international influence, the rise of Germany can be compared with the famous rise of Spain, France and Britain in modern history.However, Germany is different from Spain and France.The latter two, at the height of their power, had chief interests confined to the European sphere around which the whole content of European politics unfolded; their operations abroad were also determined by the European situation.There are also differences between Germany and the UK.Britain's power was entirely based on the sea, and it never had an army as powerful as the German-Austrian alliance has today. Today's Germany has a huge advantage in power, which is reflected not only in the military, but also in all aspects of the system; moreover, Germany has a firm will to play a role in world politics.However, since the environment on which this will depends has not yet been finalized, no one has estimated its specific characteristics and direction, even for the Germans themselves; let alone predicting its future changes.After writing these words, I saw a recent enlightening article, which is "Why did Germany build warships?" written by Delbrück, a professor of history at the University of Berlin. "The article said: Ambition alone cannot create the great conquests in the history of the world.The empires of the world are not built simply because of a desire for power.Things have their own laws of evolution, so that relatively insignificant things like frontiers and commercial rights of way provoke conflict; and the conqueror will naturally extend the frontiers of his country because of his victories.Not even the Romans intended to be world conquerors.As far as Germany's advances in Europe were concerned, its war with Austria in 1866 appeared to have been anticipated and deliberately waged by Germany.However, when it comes to the war between Germany and France, although it was roughly expected by the Germans, it seems that the sharp turn of the German-French hostilities at that time was due to the shrewd and somewhat cautious decision of the Germans to seize the opportunity. And their mental preparation in advance also enables them to act quickly to reverse the situation. The prototype of modern Germany can be found in the Roman Empire to a considerable extent.Today's German Empire can be said to have at least historical ties, if not successors, to Rome.The Holy Roman Empire became little more than a decoration in the name of the Austrian Habsburg dynasty, and finally died out at the beginning of the nineteenth century; however, the spirit of the empire still lives on, and it is very important to the form of the powerful unified German state today. And the determination of the name plays an impact.The German national character of subordinating the individual to the state also contributed to German unity as did historical factors.This character is something quite different from the more modern notions of liberty and individual rights that are chiefly embodied in the British and Americans.Perhaps it can be considered that the former is a more advanced concept, representing a higher stage of development, and can most effectively promote political progress; but at the same time it must be admitted that collective action also has considerable practical advantages. The individual is placed among the whole to promote the common good.By the way, the reason why the Japanese Empire, which is not in the same region as Germany but has the same urgent need for self-improvement and expansion, can exist today is because the Japanese have inherited the same spirit of individual should obey the collective from history.This character also existed in Sparta among the ancient Greek city-states, and made it dominate among these city-states for a period of time.From the point of view of social development, the above-mentioned concept is old and backward compared with those ideas that more fully recognize the rights of individuals, but if it is only regarded as a factor that can inject strength into economic activities and foreign relations, it has a certain value. its superiority. All students of history are familiar with the opposing concepts of individual needs and national needs.They undoubtedly co-exist everywhere, and therefore need to be reconciled with each other.But in cases where one side is valued more than the other, the nature of this mediation can only result in a difference that has fundamental implications for a society.This difference creates a stark contrast between the uniformity of an army and the individuality of the masses in industry, agriculture, or commerce between nations with opposing ideas.The same is true of the struggle between many small business companies and a large business group.Regardless of what the final scenario will be, individual or collective priority, the current situation is that the overwhelming concentration of power will continue to exist for a period of time, so it may also cause a lot of unnecessary suffering; moreover, this power It not only exists, but also plays a leading role, because no matter how much progress the world has made, it has not yet developed to the stage where people or countries voluntarily subordinate their interests to reasonable consideration of the interests of others.There is no need to be plunged into pity; nor should it be denied that in the name of public opinion moral forces are playing a greater role, and this will no doubt open our minds wider than before.Of course, the ancient law of the jungle still exists in human nature. Only countries with power can survive in industrial and commercial competition and in wars. Moral power is not enough to decide issues unless there is material power to rely on.The government is a company, and the company has no soul; the government is also a trustee, not a subject, so it must put the legitimate interests of its trustees, that is, its people, first. It doesn't matter what specific intentions the German government has now, when the fact that the world needs to pay close attention today is the existence of a mighty German Reich.This empire is also definitely supported by the Austro-Hungarian Empire, because no matter what domestic troubles or foreign plans the Austro-Hungarian Empire has, due to its proximity to Germany, its own unsatisfactory strength, and to a certain extent, it has the same interests as Germany. It must follow Germany, just as the moon must revolve around the earth and form a combination with it in the planetary system of the solar system.Many countries are opposed to Germany and Austria, including Russia, Italy, France and the United Kingdom.Recent events have demonstrated Russia's international weakness, whose domestic roots are clear to even the most casual observer.As for Italy, it is still in the Dual Alliance with Germany and Austria.不過義大利的親英傾向是眾所周知的，這種傾向來自於兩國歷史上的相互間好感以及義大利的海洋國家身份。另外，從前互相疏遠的義大利和法國近來也日益接近。在巴爾幹地區和亞得里亞海，義大利的利益和奧地利的野心之間存在的不僅僅是一般的分歧，最近奧地利對波士尼亞和黑塞哥維那的合併以及此前的事態已表露了這點。一份敏銳地預計到了這次合併的奧地利雜誌最近寫道：我們迫切需要有一支強大的艦隊以統治北亞得里亞海這兒座落著義大利的威尼斯和奧地利的的里雅斯特支援我國陸軍的行動、保護我國主要商業港口不受敵人的海上行動的侵犯並防止我們在奧特蘭托海峽被鎖住咽喉。為實現這些目標，該艦隊的實力必須至少和我們可能的敵人的大致力量持平。如果我們在發展我國的海軍方面拖拖拉拉，義大利就會佔據上風並使我們再也無法超越它。和其他方面相比，在海軍方面止步不前更是一種退卻，而退卻就等於放棄奧地利的歷史使命。奧地利的無畏艦正在建造之中，而上述文字令人們可對三國同盟內的平衡關係略知一二。在關於摩洛哥事務的阿爾黑西拉斯會議上，義大利沒有支持德國，只有奧地利一個國家站在德國一邊。 這樣，通過分析當前歐洲的國際關係，我們看到，在這一方有著剛組成的三國協約集團：法國、英國和俄國；另一方則是已存在三十年的由奧匈帝國、德國和意大利組成的三國同盟。義大利的傾向儘管可以根據當前局勢對它的壓力以及它的正式同盟關係來判斷，但仍然是令人迷惑的。形勢的焦點看來還是在為德、奧這兩個中歐軍事君主國家所反對的三國協約身上。將這兩方的力量作比較，前者在除海軍之外的任何方面都佔據優勢。在地理上，德、奧緊靠在一起，從而易於在必要之時相互支援。不過這種支援不可能是純粹防禦性的。純粹的防禦態勢也不可能成功地得以保持，德奧至少已在進攻方面做好了準備。只有攻守兼備才能為自己贏得尊重，一九○八年在巴爾幹的兼併行動已明顯表明德奧集團具有這種能力。而且，考慮到兩國的經濟狀況和人民的生存手段，顯然它們的進擊是為了在世界範圍內為它們的工業獲得至少說得過去的進入市場的機會。奧地利朝向巴爾幹和愛琴海的擴張就是這個性質。另外，在過去的三十年中，德國也越來越從一個農業國變為了一個工業國，這樣它也就越來越需要確保它的原料進口並盡可能地控制原料產地，越來越需要確保市場和在糧食進口方面的安全快速增長的人口使德國本國的糧食產量日益不敷需求。所有這些都意味著海上安全必不可少。 面對上述眾多需要，由於國家的統一和國內組織的有力而實力大增的德國開始了它的航程；然而同時它也發現，其邊界之外世界的市場和原料產區相當程度上已被其他國家搶先佔據或控制。在取得了實現國家統一這項輝煌成就的基礎上，德國已建立了龐大的工業體系並組建了一支大型商業船隊，目前這支船隊在運載德國的工業產品、保持對外交流的暢通方面正持續地積極發揮作用。不過，雖然德國有船隊，有商業活動，但就交換過程的第三環節，也就是由於本國國內消費不足而必不可少的國外市場而言，德國不得不在完全處於自己控制範圍之外的國家努力進行貿易競爭。而在各國都為其國內經濟掛上保護主義標籤的時代，他國的隨心所欲的規定使這種競爭十分吃力。德國能有效控制的唯一一塊有價值的市場就是在其疆界之內。另外，自德國加入圍繞著領土的角逐以來，迄今它也握有了丁點殖民地，但這看來也並不足以大大減輕德國在市場方面的壓力。 於是德國在一開始就處於劣勢。在它看來，近在咫尺、令其歷歷在目的爭鬥將對它的種種不利暴露無遺；也就是說，距離上的接近使德國人有一種活生生的被束縛的感覺。這兩者之間並不必然會有這樣的聯繫，但不幸的是更多的時候的確如此。在諸如國家和個人間關係這些問題上存在著不同的官方認識，這些認識所體現的不同的國民特性常常加強各國間的誤解與厭惡。在前引的那篇文章中，德爾布呂克教授就說道：英國的政府體制在其他國家受人歡迎，而德國的政體則非如此。在德國我們有著一個輔之以一個民主議會的強有力的、獨立的政府，它比在英國讓人習以為常的、不斷換馬的政黨執政制度要好。德國的兵役制度、教育制度和社會法規在實踐中已成功地解決了許多問題，我們堅信這些連同今天德國的欣欣向榮都和將嚴格的秩序和自由結合了起來的政府形式密不可分。但是其他國家更青睞相對寬鬆、有著更大的自由度的英國制度。因此，英國的統治範圍和影響的擴展比德國權力的上升更讓人樂意接受。一位長期乘坐德國輪船的官員曾拿德國人作比較，向我談及了在和乘客說話的方式上的英國人和美國人的禮貌程度。在德國的倚仗軍事味的政府干預對個人行為的緊密控制所發散出的不容置疑的味道中，德國人的上述不同可找到並不牽強的解釋。儘管如此，德國和其他國家仍然大可無情地一較高低。德國人從事工商業的方法有著公認的優越之處：他們總是認真地根據目標來調節手段，他們善於既仔細又全面地觀察問題的細節，他們熱情不倦而且還有著政府的英明支持。這些優點必將和英國已有的優勢相交鋒並將其消磨殆盡。 儘管人們普遍認為德國固然擁有上述優點，但對於工商業地區、對於貿易場所和原料產地的實際擁有以及更不公平的對於大片可用於居住和開發的地帶的政治控制使德國作為一個國家並不能在這些地區大顯身手。不過德國的個人倒可以前往這些地區並在那受到歡迎。他們能夠安居樂業，並且還可能喜愛上更自由的英美生活方式或任何比他們所脫離的制度有著更少的干預內容的社會體制，儘管他們或許依然熱愛著並不存在這些東西的母國。不過，不管這些變化如何能促進移居海外的德國人的發展，德國本土上的人們建立一個大德國的心願也仍然難以實現。在這樣的一個體系之內，各個部分之間有可能在相互依賴的基礎上建立起互利互惠的關係；這種關係在英國及其殖民地之間有著實現的可能，而且雙方正日益認識到了它的意義。當前，沒有什麼比建立一個大德國體系更能讓德國人心滿意足；而機會的缺乏又不禁使這個對殖民地的貪欲昭然若揭的國家心煩意亂。 德國的追求和現實之間存在著經濟和政治上的不一致。此外，不列顛群島的位置對於德國也有著深刻的軍事意義。德國瀕臨北海和波羅的海，它的所有內陸河道它們已得到了極大的開發和利用，而且相互間有運河溝通，從而構成了一個巨大的國內水運系統都是以這兩個海洋中的一個為入海口所在，因而這些入海口就成了海上貿易的進出通道，德國的全部對外商業也都集中於這些地區。如果沿著敵國軍艦的巡遊路線，德國的北海海岸從埃姆斯到易北河口也就六十英里多點；波羅的海海岸要長得多，但從大西洋抵達這裡必經斯卡格拉克海峽，它的寬度也不到一百英里。戰時德國商船可以在中立的區域之內貼著挪威和丹麥的海岸航行，從而在某種程度上保護自己，不過德國依然面臨著很大危險，因為從德國通往大西洋和其他大洋的所有航線都經由不列顛群島。英吉利海峽和多佛爾海峽的寬度給我們中的大多數人都留下了深刻印象，而且這兩個海峽的一側完全是英國的國土，其中還有兩個主要的海軍基地；在蘇格蘭以北的另外一面上，北海在任何地方都沒有四百英里寬，有些地方只有三百英里。在英國和德國發生戰爭的情況下，依照現今的國際法，沒有任何德國船隻可以經由上述水域而不被劫獲，而對於德國在北海和波羅的海的成功封鎖會使德國開展的和中立國對德國開展的貿易都陷入停頓。對英國而言，只需以離德國不到四百英里遠的英國港口為基地，就能在北海上對德國，包括它的兩個主要商業城市漢堡和不來梅進行封鎖；在波羅的海進行封鎖則複雜得多。 至此我們就清楚了將波羅的海和北海在易北河口連接了起來的基爾運河的軍事意義。借助這條運河，軍用或商用船隻可以從一個海域前往另一海域而不暴露於敵，德國海軍也可以進行集結以對付敢於將其艦隊一分為二的敵人。另外，雖然基爾運河不能使德國商船在北海的處境有所改善，但它能使由於封鎖不能前往漢堡和不來梅的中立船隻駛往波羅的海港口，從那裡它們的貨物可通過運河系統轉運至許多目的地；而連成一片的水道使得很大程度上沒有必要再在途中將這些貨物另行裝船。基爾運河在防禦上的巨大意義在於，在某敵國海軍的規模只是德國海軍的兩倍不到的情形下，它使前者不能同時封鎖北海和波羅的海。如果它這樣做，和因基爾運河而得以集中的德國海軍的全部力量相比，它一分為二後的任一部分都處於劣勢，這樣它就只能後撤；而根據既定的國際法，這樣的後撤使封鎖暫時失去了法律效力。在封鎖得以再次確立，牢牢紮下根基之前，封鎖國不可劫獲中立國的船隻，而且中立國還需有一定的時間以被通報變動後的決定某個航行非法與否的封鎖局面。不過，雖然封鎖的松緩使中立國船隻能出入北海或波羅的海的德國港口，德國從其中得到的好處也還是有限，因為英國和德國在今天的世界商船噸位中都佔有很大比例。如果英德開戰，中立國的噸位根本不足以滿足開往德國港口的運輸任務。 德國在北海的海軍基地威廉港也處於不斷的發展之中，並且和德國艦隊的壯大是同步的。這些都表明德國正在做著系統的準備，這很大程度上使德國既顯得偉大，又令人害怕。不過，發展威廉港的意義也是有限的，因為二十多英里長的、近海多沙洲的危險海岸將它與易北河口分隔開來，某種程度上這削弱了基爾運河作為兩個海域間保險的連接紐帶所具有的優點。另外，上述海岸的週邊有著戰略地位重要的赫爾果蘭島的拱衛。作為和德國放棄對東非的桑吉巴島的要求的交換，該島於一八九○年由英國讓給德國，今天它已成為一個堅不可摧的魚雷艇基地。不過和海岸僅三十海裡的赫爾果蘭島的意義遠不僅僅在於魚雷防禦上。 儘管諸如基爾運河之類防禦上的準備意義重大且值得讚賞，但由此獲得的安全遠遠不能滿足德國的國家榮譽和國家利益的需要。對古巴曾具有的對於我國對外政策之意義記憶猶新的美國人不會不明白不列顛群島的地理位置對德國商業意味著什麼。包括密西西比河流域貿易在內的墨西哥灣海岸貿易將古巴的一百英里海岸都囊括於其中，這種情形使美國不能容忍任何海軍強國將古巴島據為已有。不過，古巴政治歸屬狀況的變化和美國力量的壯大已使美國曾有的擔心化為歷史；古巴的重要性依在，但至少此時已不再有古巴被某個國家用作海軍基地的可能。不列顛群島的對德國重要性和政治歸屬狀況都是長期性的，這是再自然不過的事。今天英國的海軍力量依然首屈一指，保持這種局面更是英國兩大政黨的明確目標。 提出這個目標是合理和必要的。雖然和德國同為商業國家，但英國在更大的程度上依賴於外部的原材料、糧食和市場。英國的人口只有德國的三分之二，因而英國在用以支持軍事力量的人力資源方面居於劣勢，儘管英國也有著較大的人口比例，單靠自己的土地也不易養活它的人口。英國的人口比例是每平方英里四百多人，而德國只有三百。另外，英國對海洋的依賴是絕對的，它不象德國有著能使其得到物資的大陸邊界。德國還有著萊茵河，它通過和德國友好的荷蘭入海，是德國腹地的一條大運量運輸要道，而且根本不可能被英國切斷。在另一個方向的邊界上，德國和俄國接壤，後者是世界的一大糧倉。一九○九年的俄國小麥產量比其他任何國家都多，是二億一千三百四十二萬五千三百二十六英擔。美國排在第二位，為一億九千三百五十四萬四千九百七十五英擔。 就保持一支強大海軍的緣由而言，英國在保全自己方面有著更大的需要。它絕不能放棄海上主宰地位，這是生死攸關的事情。另外，英國和其殖民地之間的關係使它必須保衛後者。不過英國不需要在其殖民地所處的海域都保持海軍優勢，只要將這種優勢集中體現於歐洲地區即可，因為針對世界上的其他地區而言，歐洲依然是採取攻守行動的基地所在。而且，由於不列顛群島的地位，英國在歐洲海域保持海軍優勢可以對德國商業施以長期的潛在控制。正因為這些原因，在過去的幾年中，英國海軍在本土海域加強了集結，而從前它多少更具分散性。以往英國海軍的相當一部分是在地中海，而現在英國對該地區多少有些放棄，這也頗具意義。 無疑，上述集結是出於對德國海軍的發展和德國陸軍世所公認的出類拔萃的考慮。拿破崙就曾夢想將英國艦隊誘開，然後再迅即入侵英國，這也是當年英國人怕見到的情景。當然拿破崙最終還是失敗了，而且還不僅僅以微弱的劣勢。不過，即使在蒸汽時代之前，入侵英國也不是完全不可想像的。拿破崙之前路易十五時代的舒瓦瑟爾尤曾嘗試過。今天，蒸汽輪船的運用使跨越英吉利海峽遠不象過去那樣困難，可以在完全不受風向和天氣影響的情形下特別迅速地向英國運送軍隊。當然，調集船隻和載運部隊並不會因此就一帆風順；在英國登陸是一件包含眾多細節的行動，沒有仔細、適時的考慮就不會成功。英國人對昔日英國為防止奧地利或法國的入侵而作的動員以及導致這些措施的精明政策還有著記憶。不過一些持有值得重視的意見的人也確實擔心會發生這樣的情形：一支足以粉碎任何有組織抵抗的軍隊在英國突然登陸，而他們面對的其實還只是一群烏合之眾。 所以英國要把其海軍集結於本土周圍，而這也促使德國努力發展它的海軍，不僅增加軍艦的數量，還大力修造各類工廠和船塢，以具備大規模的製造和維修海軍裝備的能力。這些計畫總體上看深刻地體現了德國非同一般的進行靜悄悄的周密準備的能力。德國並未正式表述過它發展海軍的目的，不過或許用下面這句話來說明這個意圖不會有錯：壯大德國海軍的力量，以使世界上最強大的海軍不敢對德國冒然挑釁。德爾布呂克也寫道：德國永遠不可能以征服英國為政策目標，但它應該且必須盡力對英國的行動施以限制。這就是說不能由著英國依靠本國的地理位置對德國的貿易進行控制。不過由於德國的計畫是建立一支規模比英國海軍還要大的海軍，英國不能不和德國展開一場造艦競賽，以維護它在海軍上的領先地位。 很明顯，英國海軍的強大也是對德國在陸軍上的優勢的抵銷。如果英國喪失了對海洋的控制，它不可能指望擁有一支足以和德國陸軍一爭高低的陸軍。相反，德國在已有一支強大陸軍的同時，還期望擁有一支無故的海軍。儘管英國比德國要富有，但英國政府不可能象德國政府那樣從人民那裡索取太多。個人自由也許是英國人最重要的本性。它使在英國按照德國的方式來治理社會絕不可能；這個特徵是多少代人造就的，一代人的時間根本不足以改變。英國作為一個海洋和殖民國家所取得的成功是個人獨自努力或自由合作的結果；這種局面今天依然未變，由個人進行公平競爭仍是其中的規範。在英國，進步的動機來自個人；在德國本質上則是集體行動決定一切。 英國最近提出的養老金計畫也反映了上述情況。儘管該計畫以德國的作法為藍本，但其執行暴露了英國在採取集體行動方面的經驗和把握全域能力的不足。和在德國一樣，根據該計畫，個體雇傭者或受雇傭者不被要求依其自身情況承擔部分負擔，所有的養老金負擔都是由國家承受。不過該計畫沒有對社會成員之間的利益關係作認真的調節，而是以一種統一的方式簡單地將養老金福利一古腦地推向社會。它所依靠的稅收政策既不會激勵進取精神，也不能促使人們奉行節約。因為通過努力工作得來的財富中的過多一部分將作為稅收被抽走；而即使大手大腳，也能從國家多少得到補助。在採取政府行動方面簡單地模仿德國並不能使英國取得德國人經過精心籌畫才取得的那種進步。 這類進步更加強了德國的優勢。在歐洲大陸，任何一個國家使盡渾身解數也無法單獨和德國對抗；如果某兩個或所有的大陸國家連成一氣對付德國，它們也不容易解決協調行動的問題，何況無論歐洲強國如何分化組合，奧匈帝國肯定都會站在德國一邊。因此英國海軍實際上成了唯一一支能讓德國不敢輕舉妄動的軍事力量。而英德兩國之間的軍事態勢又是和相互間的工商業競爭摻雜在一起的，這種競爭日趨激烈而且左右著兩國人民體現在需要和收入方面的福利狀況。不時見諸於報端的頻繁外交訪問正反映了當前的國際局勢。在德國眼中，從這些訪問中凸現而出的是一種孤立和限制德國的企圖；而這些訪問傳遞給其他國家的則是這樣一個共識：應該壓制那看來過度膨脹而又甚具侵略性的德國的野心。無論人們有什麼看法，當前在歐洲只有英國和德國有著他國望塵莫及、協調得當的力量，這體現在它們的富有、它們的工商業體制的有效以及英國海軍和德國陸軍的強大上。其他國家只是站在英國或德國一邊對它們間的平衡發揮作用；這種作用是輔助性而非決定性的。