Chapter 6 5. The Rise of Germany

Germany aims at a position among the peoples of countries outside the sphere of European civilization in which German influence, German capital, German commerce, German engineering, and German ingenuity can be compared with Other great powers compete on equal terms. Recognizing the hostility between Germany and Britain and its origins does not mean that other situations can be ignored.The annexation actions taken by Austria in the last year, or the long-standing or short-lived developments in the Morocco dispute in 1905, etc., have from time to time affected the policy direction of various countries.Small events occur largely by chance, but they also lead to reactions commensurate with their importance.The magnitude of this importance is estimated by the governments concerned, but is fundamentally determined by the impact of these events on international relations.The current standoff between Germany and the United Kingdom is the center of gravity of international relations, and it has developed out of the aforementioned series of historical events.Delbrück also wrote, I think, that the rivalry between the two great powers, Great Britain and Germany, was a natural consequence of the way things were going and could never be eliminated.However, this competition does not necessarily lead to war; at most, the vigorous armament building keeps the two countries on par with each other, and no one dares to take a step lightly.Other European countries, by siding with one side or the other, have an impact on the balance.

Delbrück's line of thought is applicable to every other country, including Britain, and it is suitable to be used to analyze the reasons behind every dispute, including that between Britain and Germany.The scenario of war depends largely on the geography of the parties involved, but the roots of war may lie elsewhere, especially today.Today, as we all know, both the European countries and the United States are increasingly obliged to find raw materials and outlets for their industrial products and capital in the less developed parts of the world, thus competing with each other in Asia, Africa and South America.At the end of May 1909, the British Foreign Secretary stated in a speech in the House of Commons that there was no European problem that would provoke sharp conflicts among European countries.He also pointed out, however, that the Congo problem in Africa, if not properly resolved, might cause troubles among European countries; Compared with Yue Cai's explicit acknowledgment, the latter is just child's play.Delbrück also wrote: Germany set itself a definite goal not to acquire large colonies, but to obtain such a position: that is, among the peoples of those countries outside the sphere of European civilization, Germany's influence German capital, German commerce, German engineering and German ingenuity can compete on equal terms with other great powers.

Nobody would object to such a goal.However, in the face of the above statement, people have to realize that Germany's military power is showing off in front of it; and it is impossible not to remember the following meaningful words of Delbrück: wars often do not start from clear The goal is rather prompted by accidental causes in which the strong usually prevail.Moreover, can the two parties in the conflict quickly agree on what constitutes conditional equality?Will the whole world take comfort in Germany's preaching of its equal rights when the whole world is already convinced of Germany's superiority in force and seeks to rely on it for control?The nations of the world must be mindful of two facts: first, there is widespread competition with Germany in Asia, Africa, and South America, and of course the situation in South America is complicated by the Monroe Doctrine; and second, the German Navy will soon become Stronger than any navy other than Great Britain.If Britain maintained its existing naval dominance, combined with the geographical location of the British Isles, the British Navy could hold Germany in check; but if the British Navy did not have this capability, no one could play a similar role.Since Great Britain has a very liberal system and therefore underdeveloped military organization, and its desire for colonies is fully satisfied, it does not have enough incentive to invade, and it is not very efficient in organization today.In this respect, Germany is the most suitable of today; the incomparable model.

If the above is correct, then at a time of intense competition and rising international tensions, as all countries leading in industrial technology and capital ownership are seeking trade and investment opportunities in the same part of the world, the UK is clearly an international leader. The crux of the situation.Industry, production capacity, and capital are not just abstract nouns, they also embody real resources, and their development and utilization determine the degree to which the public can be satisfied in terms of clothing, food, housing, transportation, and reasonable enjoyment.Therefore, the main body of the current struggle is not the government, but the people of all countries, and the government is only their tool.If any country is superior in the effectiveness of its system of government, based on the industrial and commercial power it possesses, it can compete as a militarized and well-organized force, while other countries can only hope that Form coalitions to uphold equality of opportunity.Due to its geographical location, navy, and huge colonial system, Britain held the key to the international situation in its own hands; however, in terms of armed competition, Britain was inferior to Germany in terms of organizational efficiency and concentration of manpower and material resources.Thus, for all countries or peoples other than Germany, if they consider equality or opportunity in the world market to be extremely important to them, it is necessary for them to consider what kind of ideological attitude and understanding of reality they should adopt. , What means to adopt to influence the future development.If one country is so powerful that others cannot match it, then, as before, the balance can only be maintained through mutual communication and solidarity among the weak.

It should also be mentioned, by the way, that in most industrial competitions the sea is the decisive factor.As far as the present situation in Europe is concerned, Germany is not at all threatened by invasion, especially considering that Russia is weakening and is throwing a part of her power to the East.And the German navy can, or will soon be able to, operate freely anywhere in the world in a way that only the British navy can.Once Britain loses this status, it is entirely possible for Germany to become the dominant naval state in the world and the master of Europe based on the current situation.Another question is, if the actions of the German navy do not involve the immediate interests of the UK, and the countries concerned have not guaranteed corresponding support to the UK in the opposite situation, can the UK be expected to exercise its power to restrict Germany?In an era when American power was still weak, the United States announced the Monroe Doctrine.While American claims can be dismissed as much as its naval power, Britain, a nation then with a relatively powerful fleet than it does today, welcomed the Monroe Doctrine as a genuine endorsement of it, and through them both The move blocked proposals by some countries to send troops across the sea from Europe to intervene in disputes in the Americas.At that time, the coincidence of interests made the United States and Britain support each other.

In addition, when the Spanish-American War broke out in 1898, a very influential authority in Britain told the author that, regarding a proposal to Britain to join an international alliance to restrain the United States from using its power, In reply Britain not only refused to take part in such a union, but pledged to actively oppose attempts to form it.And in 1895, joint action by France, Germany, and Russia forced Japan, another non-European country, to relinquish its possession of Port Arthur.I think the above actions of the UK are entirely motivated by interests, which it correctly recognizes.I would not ascribe its cause to emotion, which, though it plays a powerful part in the life of a country, is a very uncertain and capricious thing.The question now is, in the current situation, in what areas are the UK and the US more likely to support each other given their common interests?Of course, there is also a common political tradition between Britain and the United States, which to a large extent also makes the two countries have emotional closeness to each other.What is true today as it was in Washington's time, and will always be true, is that it is futile to expect that motives other than self-interest will continue to determine a nation's actions.This belief, which has been dubbed realism, has been outspokenly adopted by Germany as the basis of state policy.Starting from this belief, for politicians, whether their policies are correct and comprehensive depends on the examination of national interests; for this, they need to have a broad understanding of the immediate reality and the ability to analyze it.For a nation to function fully in the world, these understandings and analytical capabilities should also be universally available to its general public.Only in this way can the majority of people who previously only had short-sighted visions realize the long-term needs of the country, and the country can take necessary measures to achieve its goals.

Today, the United States once again needs to see clearly the direct and inevitable impact of European politics on its own interests.At present, Germany is determined to play a leading role in world politics and is openly planning to create a naval force that, when completed, will be stronger than the British Navy and superior to any other nation, including the United States, aspires to have. strength.As an independent state, Germany is exercising its undisputed rights, but it must also be held accountable for its actions.Germany's behavior has made every other country feel the pinch of German power, both in the defense of a region and in whatever part of the world a dispute involving Germany may arise.For the United States, then, a situation is rapidly emerging which, in its main features, resembles that which the United States experienced in the first half of the nineteenth century, especially between the introduction of the Monroe Doctrine and the end of the Civil War. The situation is very similar.

So, if the above situation were to take shape at all, it would not be unprecedented.However, it is decidedly more ominous than the situation of the past, because the competition among nations is much more intense today than it was before 1860.This state of affairs is largely a result of Germany's transformation from an agricultural country to an industrial one since 1870.Enmity today, as before, arises from the sea, which is the frontier of the United States and other maritime nations.The world had long been accustomed to be dominated by a naval power, and had unambiguously associated that country with the name England;Today, the struggle for that advantage is waged between Great Britain and Germany.The pursuit of this advantage drives nations to seek out markets and, wherever possible, rely on overwhelming force to control them to their advantage.The highest form of this control is possession.This system of protection is now prevalent in the world, and it shows how strength or state power can be used to artificially create advantages for the industry and commerce of the country.Britain's vaunted free trade policy, based on simple comparative advantage, is now in doubt and the free trade system is crumbling.In 1878, Britain agreed to the Austrian occupation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, although it was still a nominal Turkish province at the time.However, as soon as Austria occupied these areas, tariff adjustments were carried out, and Britain was excluded from the local market as a result.The now-familiar phrase "open door" was meant to express a protest against the policy of trade monopoly in an area through territorial occupation or overt or covert territorial control.

There is no doubt that purely commercial competition is based solely on industrial and economic efficiency.However, no matter how good a nation is at this, it will only compete on efficiency if it cannot control events.Once it has power, it uses it; and fails to do so because it does not control a piece of land.So there are two results: one is that some countries try to occupy a certain area; the other is that the occupants rely on force to keep the territory they have acquired.Just recently, when the author was writing these words, an influential figure in Germany said that if Germany still cannot gain a foothold in the colonies seized by other countries in the future, Germany will have to acquiesce in this.People should fully believe that this statement is indeed from the heart.The state, however, is in fact at the mercy of the opportunities it encounters and takes pleasure in applying them.Who could have imagined in the first months of 1898 that the United States would occupy the Philippines?At the beginning, this archipelago was neither the cause of the Spanish-American War, nor the target of the war planned by the United States; moreover, the author also witnessed the strong opposition within the US government at that time to the seizure of the Philippines.No one can predict what a country will do or feel compelled to do.Only one thing is certain: Even if both parties to a dispute on a given issue feel they are right, whoever is more powerful will prevail, and each will use his strength when the opportunity arises.At present, most of the markets that Germany needs are under the control of the laws of other countries. This situation determines Germany's current intentions and expectations for a strong navy; however, it is not the latter that dominates Germany's future, but the unpredictable surrounding situation .

The navy plays an indispensable role in the employment of power.Without the strength of the navy, it would be impossible to use other forms of power overseas.Moreover, the Navy needs to have the ability to be present on demand in any part of the world where it is required to function.That meant having a naval base, and landholding would bring that benefit.In response to the harm German citizens suffered in China, Germany showed off its force to China and forced the latter to cede Jiaozhou Bay to Germany.However, the German Chancellor told the parliament that the seizure of Jiaozhou Bay was not an accidental, unforeseen isolated action, but the result of careful consideration.We have long been convinced that we need a land base in the Far East.These remarks are just a specific expression of the importance of the above-mentioned base, and the base itself is an indispensable link in a series of chains with a logical relationship of succession. This chain is: industry-market -control-navy-base.

This chain summarizes the growth process of British sea power; Britain, too, was beginning to feel, as the term tired giant suggests, a burden on it to manage its vast territory.Some of the English statesmen of that era thought more than once that Britain had had enough, but England had not lost the habit of more is better, her industry continued to demand markets, her navy was still second to none, her power over the seas Still unrivaled.Fortunately, despite the value of the American market to Britain and the diplomatic disputes between the two countries, the British still vividly remember the fruitless and annoying war of 1812, So the idea of ​​occupying the United States has always existed in Britain, but it has not had much influence.Peace between Britain and the United States has been maintained, and American demands have been largely accepted by the British. Situations like the above are everywhere to be seen in the conduct of governments; and it must be seen that conflicting considerations of national interest give rise to competition among nations.This competition is a tit for tat of power, whether the confrontation is mediated by diplomacy or placed under wartime arbitration, or between two states or groups of states.Judgment on the magnitude of power is not limited to the understanding of material power, but also manifests itself in a broad assessment of all favorable and unfavorable factors that affect actions.The balance of power means that the two weighing pans on one side of the balance are in a balanced state based on the opposite relationship and are easy to float. This situation appeared in Europe in the nineteenth century.Emerging from this situation is the idea of ​​international coordination, that is, the big powers and other countries concerned work together to find a solution to the problem through compromise or based on entitlement; Constraint effectiveness.Although all treaties reached at inter-state conferences have this nature, the current concept of coordination broadly refers to the general consultation and arrangement of states through bilateral exchanges and international conferences, so as to reach specific solutions to relevant issues plan.It was only through coordination that the major powers decided that France, Britain, Italy and Russia would station troops on Crete in order to maintain the calm relationship between the Christian and Islamic residents on the island.The two parties hope to achieve political unity with Greece and Turkey respectively and seek support from the latter. This situation has deteriorated the relationship between Greece and Turkey and brought the danger of war to European peace.However, Germany has refused to participate in the coordination, apparently because of its special relationship with the recently ousted Turkish Sultan Abdullah Hamid.In addition, the Alheciras Conference five years ago was also a coordinated action among major powers, which agreed to France and Spain, the two countries with the most direct interests in Morocco, to implement certain measures in Morocco.The results achieved under such circumstances reflect, at least in their form, a consensus among great powers rather than a balance based on confrontation. The means of balance of power embodies coercion, and trying to replace the use of power with rational negotiation and mutual concessions is consistent with resorting to arbitrariness in spirit.Disturbingly, however, agreements reached in this way are often in essence also the result of power struggles, and thus their effectiveness fluctuates with changes in power relations.A recent example is Austria's disregard of the 1878 Treaty of Berlin, changing the status of Bosnia and Herzegovina under the treaty and incorporating it into its own territory.This made the great-power coordination embodied in the Berlin Treaty obsolete in the new round of confrontation.In this case, Germany sided with Austria, and Russia, under pressure from Germany, had to abandon its understanding with Britain and France that the three countries were united against any deprivation of Turkey's rights to Bosnia and Herzegovina without European coordination. actions that are clearly contrary to the legitimate wishes of the Kingdom of Serbia.The resentment of Russia, which was blatantly suppressed by Germany, was reflected in the Tsar's diplomatic trip from Russia to Italy in October 1909, which he deliberately avoided passing through Austrian soil.Events in Bosnia have widened the divide between the countries involved; against this backdrop, any thorny issues in the Balkans threaten peace in Europe.The turmoil did not come to an end until February 1910.As a result, Austria's actions created a fait accompli, a fact achieved without resorting to or even ignoring European coordination.The only embellishment to this was that Austria gave Turkey a financial compensation, which also catered to the financial needs of Turkey, which was beset by the domestic revolution, but it was this revolution that gave Austria an opportunity.With this outcome, the situation is worse than at the beginning of the incident, and the confrontation between the countries concerned is as fresh as before. It is obvious to all that the arbitraryness of the moment has made strict coordination unnecessary.There is little, if not all, of trust between the countries concerned. Whether or not the above situation can be avoided, it does not show that an orderly system among the nations of the world cannot be established.Some views hold that a country will not unconditionally obey the results of coordination or arbitrariness, and that only coercive force can make its behavior consistent with such results.It will also be interesting to note that the balance of power has much in common with the competitive state of industry and commerce, and that the European coordination process has much in common with the workings of a trust.Although the Coordination of Europe, unlike a trust, does not aggregate its members into one group, it does use the collective will as the source of political decisions about Europe, and all powerful countries are subject to the collective will as subsidiaries within a trust. decision. For such an act as the above-mentioned annexation of the two Balkan provinces of Turkey, there is no need to find excuses or more objections from the objective situation.It is obvious that flagrant abandonment of agreements will have morally negative consequences for the entire world.Any satisfactory relationship, whether social, financial or international, must necessarily be based on credibility.There is no security without credibility; when credibility is lost, chaos follows.It doesn't take much vivid depiction to imagine the impact on international politics of relying on power and violating treaties.And this situation is more or less reflected in the European situation since the Franco-Prussian War.This situation not only demonstrates the existence of a military superpower in Europe, but also makes this country a country with a higher social life than any other member of the European family and the United States with which it is closely related. There is an organic whole with better organizational skills in all areas. Military organization, the army, is only one concrete manifestation of German organizational talent.The main feature of Germany's coordination and collocation of its own forces is that all areas of social life under the government's control have their own national guiding agencies. No.Germany thus managed to muster its forces, both in the commercial and industrial spheres and in the military sphere.Trusts are a form of organized concentration of power whose effectiveness is well known.Centralization by the government is particularly easy and effective in Germany, because Germans today are the product of centuries of political and social circumstances.In this environment, the government, for better or for worse, has always put the individual at its mercy.This situation exists partly because absolute government is the traditional form of government in Germany, and more because historically German states were mostly small, and their governments were able to intervene in individual lives to a degree that no one else could. So, historical circumstances and inherited traits have shaped Germans today to live within a framework of government control.In fact this increased control appears to be the trend occurring in all civilized nations today.Individual liberty from state restraint without violating public rights, long admired in Great Britain and the United States, is now being increasingly constrained everywhere, as it is increasingly seen that few Collective actions of individuals can indeed undermine public rights.For purely self-preservation purposes, the state has to take some measures.However, as long as the purpose of these measures is not to allow government action to complement individual action, but to regulate the latter, then these measures are socialist in form but not in substance.In any age, however, this or that part of a political society invites controls lest it exert undue influence.Moreover, it can also be noted that governmental regulation also injects a new element of competition into society, because when individuals and small groups become too powerful, their interests are checked and balanced by the interests of the whole.According to the current so-called socialist ideology, the state should govern and guide all social affairs. In this way, the state has become a huge monopoly organization, a trust, and there is nothing that can naturally and effectively correct it. Worked. One of the trends of the day is the growing phenomenon of organization, in which Germany has hitherto been the leader both in method and in talent, which gives Germany a head start over all other countries and an opportunity to make up for it. The unfavorable factors that existed before the century had caused losses to the development of Germany, which had started at that time.At that time, Germany was divided politically and relatively backward socially, economically and commercially.It was not until 1835 that a customs union was created in Germany, freeing industry and commerce from the shackles of a tax card every few miles.The prominent role played by Prussia in promoting this change has decisive significance for it to replace Austria as the capital of Germany in the future.However, the political development in Prussia from 1862 to 1866, a quarter of a century later, is quite intriguing.At this time, the Prussian Prime Minister Bismarck did not pay attention to the lower house of parliament at all, but the upper house continued to promulgate new taxes that were opposed by the lower house to support Bismarck's policy. A striking feature of German politics during this period was that the German people had always paid their taxes without complaint, in stark contrast to the attitude of the British people to the ship tax and the American people to stamp duty.Indeed, Prussia's taxation promoted the reorganization and development of its army, and the strength of the army pushed Prussia to the position of the leader of Germany, and enabled the birth of the modern German Empire with a series of military victories.But the ship tax is also meaningful to the development of the British navy, which determines the dominant position of the United Kingdom, not to mention the need to develop a navy that the British cannot deny.As for the stamp duty, its collection is not without reason, but also out of the needs of national defense.In similar circumstances, the obedience of the Prussian people to the government in respect of taxation clearly reflects their general character, placing themselves at the mercy of a powerful government, while at the same time remaining more or less within the sphere of action of the individual himself. Be a little proactive.From this it can be seen that the character of the German government and the character of the German people are in harmony with each other.This coordination has contributed to the strength of Germany, which is not always seen clearly.In any case, there is no doubt that in today's era of organization, because the German government has the ability to organize society systematically, and the German people can generally accept this kind of organization, in terms of the degree of organization, Germany ranks first among all countries. Nature dominates. Germany's gift for orderly organization of domestic activities enabled it to become powerful by coordinating its forces.The German Army, with its incomparable effectiveness, epitomizes all of Germany's military gifts.The population of Germany on which this army depends is now larger than that of any European country west of Russia, and is growing at a higher rate than any other European country.Since the Franco-Prussian War in 1870, the population of Germany has increased by half, from 40 million to 60 million, and is still rising at a rate of 800,000 a year.So, in terms of size and quality, the German Army can maintain its leading position.Even if other countries combined, Germany had a recognized military advantage due to its geographic location at the heart of Europe.Leaving aside other military considerations for a moment, it is conceivable that the former states forming a coalition would be as Against the alliance of Louis XIV and Napoleon, which would naturally leave Germany and Austria vulnerable to attack from multiple directions.However, military practice has proved that when other factors remain unchanged, the benefits brought to a country by being located in the center are far greater than the losses brought to it by the danger of being attacked at the same time. Several enemies perform consecutive strikes.Such a state can concentrate its pressure and use its superior forces against a weaker enemy, and its geographical centering allows it to move troops along what militarily is called an inner line, which is simply a shorter line.Shortness of distance means quicker action, and thus time is saved, as the famous adage goes, the difference between victory and defeat is five minutes. For these reasons states at the center of an arc are more likely to take coordinated action than those whose territories are scattered around the circle.At the present time this facility is on the side of the German-Austrian alliance and is reinforced by the existence of the railway system.Much of this railway system was under the tight control of the German-Austrian government and was organized according to the needs of strategic and commercial transportation, thereby maximizing the use of military opportunities offered by internal movement.These will only strengthen the mutual support between Germany and Austria, and the mutually beneficial relationship between the two sides in the current European situation has been regarded as inevitable by themselves.Neither in terms of the specific intentions of any one country, nor in international relations in general, is there any factor which would make secession as beneficial to both parties as unity.In addition, the territories of Germany and Austria are connected in one piece, from the North Sea and the Baltic Sea through Europe to the Adriatic Sea, which also brings some military and commercial benefits to the two countries.In connection with this, considering Turkey's troubled future, attacking the Mediterranean from Thessaloniki on the Aegean Sea is a natural plan of Germany and Austria. Given the above, Austria's annexation a year ago and its plans to build four dreadnoughts are a signal.If Austria gains a foothold on the Aegean Sea, or controls the Adriatic Sea with the help of naval superiority, then it can rely on sufficient naval power to place the area between the Aegean Sea and the Adriatic Sea in the under their own control.Austria's ambitions in the region conflicted with Italian interests and did not match the general sensitivity of European states to the situation in the Near East.It must not be forgotten that just half a century ago, Austria, with its tradition of expanding in the Italian peninsula, occupied most of Italy, including Venice and Milan.Austria also briefly occupied Naples and Sicily between 1718 and 1733.After the Italian advance was suppressed, Austria turned its traditions of expansion and its desire for commercial dominance to the other side of the Adriatic, the Balkans.Italy's previous resistance to Austria was also naturally transferred over, because the control of the Adriatic Sea was crucial to its security.The Adriatic is not more than one hundred and fifty miles wide at its widest point, and not forty miles wide at its outlet. It is impossible for Italy to watch with equanimity a sea which adjoins its entire eastern frontier fall to a single coast. In the hands of the powerful Austrian Navy as the base.The old and present dissatisfaction with Austria, then, made it almost impossible for the Italians to feel any sympathy for the country of their queen, and they remained sympathetic to the Italians in Trieste and Trent. The Austrian subjects grieved that they had not been redeemed.Because of the above-mentioned discord, it is impossible to reach any balance between Italy and Austria.All that is needed is to recognize the instability in the Balkans and its implications for the place where East meets West, for the traditional center of world politics.The representative cities of the latter area are Constantinople and Alexandria, respectively named after two of the world's greatest statesmen and conquerors. The powerful alliance of the two Central European states has several goals, which have been manifested in recent years through Germany's naval development and Austria's annexation of the Balkans.Germany is Austria's super partner, and its support has been decisive for the success of Austria's recent actions.Austria took this action both out of immediate necessity and clearly to enhance its prestige in the world.In response to Austria's annexation of the two provinces of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Austrian Prime Minister once said that a decisive decision must be made, otherwise the development of things may not be good for Austria.This actually means that the Al-Shabaab Turks, who have just achieved a successful revolution in Constantinople, may oppose the annexation of Bosnia and Herzegovina to Austria after they are full-fledged, just as they still refuse to allow Greece to be conquered in the face of the threat of war. Like Ritter Island.Austria was also outspoken about its active foreign policy in order to put Austria-Hungary in its proper place in the world.In addition, trade expansion to the Aegean Sea and the Mediterranean Sea is also Austria's plan.If the whole of Austria can support the above-mentioned goals, it will no longer give people a feeling of hesitation.Disagreements among the many peoples who made up the Austrian Empire had kept Austrians from uniting, and a firm foreign policy would have brought all Austrians together under a new banner of the national interest.儘管奧地利的財政不太寬裕，但上述目標以及擴張至愛琴海所帶來的商業利益將繼續促使它沿著既定方向推進；最近的情況已表明對奧地利的抵制軟弱無力。自然奧地利也需面對在當前爆發歐洲戰爭的危險，可現實形勢是俄國一蹶不振，而兩個中歐帝國卻兵強馬壯。德、奧的聯合行動說明，這兩個國家將依然是鐵板一塊，作為一個最穩定的因素在當今國際關係中發揮作用。 德國總是及時地向它的盟友伸出援助之手；反過來，它也肯定希望得到而且無疑會得到奧匈帝國在將來對於德國的各種政策的支持，尤其是在德國和其他國家處於衝突之中的時候。這就意味著，只要世界政治還取決於歐洲局勢，一個國家無論在世界上的哪個地方和德國陷入爭吵，它都必須掂量一下奧地利的作用。這一點明顯不過地體現在了摩洛哥問題上。在克里特島事務上，德、奧兩國至今也是並肩而立，脫身於歐洲協調之外。如果今天的法、英、俄二國協約集團中的任何一國沾惹上了與德國的嚴重麻煩，其他兩國如果想要干預，也不能不考慮到奧地利的反應。一旦在上述形勢下法國決定動用自己的海軍以支援英國，可能由此引發的危機將使它不得不留意著不僅是德國、而且有奧地利的對自己陸上邊境的威脅。同樣顯而易見的是，在美國和德國的企圖或政策在世界上某個地區發生碰撞的情況下，此時的歐洲局勢對德國行為的制約必會因奧地利對德態度的明確而大打折扣。上述例子都具體說明了均勢效應。目前歐洲均勢狀況的主要特點就是，天平的一端是基於地理位置和必要的相互依賴而聚為一體的力量；而在另一端，力量分散且缺乏必要的凝聚力。因此，在制衡的力量出現之前，歐洲的均勢天平不可阻擋地會向一端傾斜。以往的經驗也並不能保證有關國家將自然而然地想到應防止他國一時具有的優勢所造成危險或消極影響，並且針對將來的可能不測進行穩固的合作。相比於三國同盟，三國協約集團力量的散亂清楚地說明了在今天的歐洲誰是強者。 在上述易變的局勢下，只有一種力量能有效地制約德奧集團，那就是英國海軍。如果英國海軍能保有適當的優勢，英國還會象在過去的兩個世紀中一樣繼續扮演決定性的角色。英國之所以擁有強大的海軍，有以下兩個原因，一是英國將本國的力量集中投入到了海軍方面；二是英國除了享有島國身份給它帶來的安全之利，還有足夠的財力以推行今天所稱的兩強標準。兩強標準只不過是賦予某個傳統觀念的新名稱。在整個十八世紀，尤其在北美獨立戰爭前後，英國政治家們就篤信英國海軍的規模必須比法國和西班牙這兩個波旁君主國家艦隊之和還要大。當時的法西同盟從當時的情形來看和今天的德奧同盟一樣，將長期、穩定地存在，因為這兩國不僅為王朝紐帶所維繫，相互間還明顯地有著迫切的互予支援的需要。 當今，英國對兩強標準的執行相對缺乏針對性，這實際上表明了自普法戰爭以來的國際關係多少令人覺得撲朔迷離，而且這種局面還會持續一段時間。不過，兩強標準的依然存在在一般的意義上說明了國家安全需要仍使英國認為它的海軍應比其他任何兩個強國的聯合艦隊還要強大。對英國來說，對海洋的控制不可缺少，它不僅關係著英國的軍事防禦，也關係著英國的生存，關係著英國對於糧食、商業機會和工業原料的獲得。目前在美國，對於美國是否應被視為一個反英聯盟的潛在成員這個問題有著爭論。一些人之所以認為美國可能參與這樣的一個聯盟不是因為他們相信當前英美之間存在著什麼隱患，尤其是那些會使美國背離傳統而走進軍事同盟的隱患，而是因為他們覺得在將來具體情勢下的權衡再三或許會使上述作法成為美國的權宜之計。不過應強調的是，考慮到英美商業聯繫的緊密，考慮到英美在語言和政治傳統上的一致，也考慮到不可能置身於一場英美間的戰爭之外的加拿大的利益，英美間任何可能的爭端在影響上與抑制這些爭端的因素相比，只能是相形見絀得多。 據說當今英國首相索爾茲伯里奉行的一個主要原則就是不能允許英美間的分歧發展到使相互關係破裂的地步。這說明了這個普遍事實，即通常在每一個國家看來，和另外某個強國保持和諧關係有著首要的意義。在俄國盛極一時的年代，普魯士重視的是俄國；對於今天的德意志帝國來說，受垂青的就是奧地利了。德國首相俾斯麥在一八七九年促成了上述轉換，儘管這和當時德國皇帝強烈的感情傾向相背。如果美國人不僅僅把目光集聚於英倫二島，還能注意到英帝國的其他一些組成部分，即澳大利亞、加拿大和新西蘭它們都瀕臨太平洋而且和美國的太平洋沿岸諸州有著同樣的政治要求，另外還尤其能考慮到英國海軍的世界作用，就有充分的理由相信，對於國際問題的思考會使美國人把大英帝國置於自己心目中的優先位置。 這種態度自然也離不開美國人由於和英國具有共同的政治觀念而對後者產生的親近感。不管在不同的地區對於這些觀念有著多麼不同的表述，它們自其首倡者從北海的日爾曼海岸遷居他地之日起，在過去的十五個世紀中，在英國及其各個殖民地區分別得到了獨立的、不盡相同的弘揚。不過，美國是否重視與英國的關係在根本上還是取決於它是否冷靜地權衡了各種可能，分析了各種平衡關係並認識到它不可能脫身於各國間的關係之外，也不可能在沒有清晰觀點的情況下穩妥地處理與他國的關係。目前，如許多人所看到的，在美國和歐洲國家都有其各自利益的領域，美國在推行自己的某些政策時，即使沒有和歐洲國家攜手合作，至少也盡力地和它們進行磋商或求得協調。從這中間透出的正是一些美國人對於美國涉足世界政治的心照不宣的認可。他們不能不承認，美國再也不能將自己與其他國家的關係局限在美洲地區和門羅主義的範圍之內。 當然，我們一直和某些國家有著特殊的關係。不過現在和以前相比的變化是，從前我們和其他國家離得較遠，相互間的關係被嚴格地限制於關於美洲問題的討論之內。而現在，東方的動盪局勢、東方的發展需要以及西方的工業和資源通過填補這種需要而獲益的機會成為了歐洲國家和美國的共同關注所在。中美洲、南美洲和針對這些地區的門羅主義也具有同樣的性質。各國在上述地區的接觸既可能增加有關國家間的利益一致性，也可能導致衝突。這兩種情形都會促進幾個強國間的力量組合。國家有時會覺得和其他國家採取一致的外交行動是理所當然之事，另些時候又會發現它們相互間更多的是分歧。當今，各個力量之間的相互作用無所不在，我行我素只能是自毀前程的愚昧之舉。緊接而來的問題是：是否應抱著一種機會主義的企圖去就事論事地處理各類問題？是否在國家間能夠找到政治理念和戰略考慮方面的根本一致，從而依照這點推行始終如一的、強有力的國家政策？ 絕不能把重視與他國的一致之處看成是有意謀求正式的同盟。出於以認識和經驗為基礎的對某人的信任而毫無勉強地與人合力共事是一回事，在一個長時間內使自己受縛於某種義務則是另外一回事。即使美國的傳統政策不是刻意避免因一時之需締結長期性的同盟，想勸說美國人民承擔同盟義務也只能勞而無功。得不到國內大眾的一致支持，美國締結同盟也毫無意義。不過，如果美國人民基於對國際形勢的全面理解支持結盟行為，美國對於同盟關係就能揚其長、避其短，美國的一般政策也會從結盟中受益非淺。門羅主義本身就反映了美國公眾的認識，政治家們只不過將這種認識總結、深化並精確地表述出來。作為一項國家要求，門羅主義的生命力就在於它是否能繼續和美國人民的心理傾向相一致。這種傾向並非一直能被一清二楚地理解，但的的確確決定著美國的對外行動，雖然它不具備其他什麼約束力量，不象一項協定那樣有著人為的效力。 在本文的前部，我順便引用了斯塔布斯的觀點，即均勢因素是打開一五○○年至一八○○年間的歐洲近代史的鑰匙。這位其研究方法非凡地影響了同時代的國人的思想深邃的歷史學家還曾言道，在我們稱為中世紀的前一個時代，各個民族都是各行其事，不象今天的國家這樣有著日常的對外交往；各國都不具備國家行為的一體性，而這正是嚴格的國家層次上的行動得以產生的前提。當時，現代意義上的國家尚處於形成之中，在一塊領土之上存在著許多獨立的子單位，行為主體的眾多使一國政府根本不可能象在今天這樣籌畫或完成一項由它進行良好控制的行動。用斯塔布斯的話來說，當時的政治舞臺呈現的不是一出有條有理的戲劇，而是一幅雜亂無章的場景。 當英格蘭、蘇格蘭和愛爾蘭組成為一個單一的國家時，當法國不再是一個封建領地的集合而成為一個集權的王國時，當德意志獨立的各邦合併為一個有著中央行政機構和全國性的立法機構的統一帝國時，國家也變得愈發簡明和令人容易理解了。將作為一個統一的整體的美國和獨立戰爭結束之初相互間沒有正式的關係且又勾心鬥角的十三塊北美殖民地相比，也能毫不困難地領悟上述道理。 在歐洲社會的眾多成員成功地融為幾個有機體，亦即現代意義的國家之後，均勢因素也就和歐洲的歷史密不可分了。其結果就是每一個國家都對維繫著國家獨立的均勢狀況有著自覺的關切，從而歐洲所有國家之間形成了牽一髮而動全身的關係。不管各國的利益如何不一，也不管各國的國民性格如何因傳統和多個世紀的政治環境的不同而有差異，共同的確保自身生存的本能使各國都自然地堅信獨立國家地位的重要，它們都是以此為出發點來處理與他國的關係。門羅主義反映了美國對於各強國之間的平衡狀況的認識，借助於門羅主義，美國給它與歐洲國家的關係定下了一個基調；而對於東方移民的排斥很大程度上也不言自明地顯露了美國對其他國家與自己的利益關係的認識。 就如在中世紀許多地區和許多領主在不同的時間、以不同的方式，找到了在一定的區域之內或在某個君主的治下實現統一，從而形成一個國家的道路，由循此傳統而來的國家組成的今天的國際社會也正在摸索實現自身統一的途徑。這個途徑從當前來看與歷史上的道路並無二致。不過未來的歷史進程的兩大主角將是西方和東方兩大集團；和從前的歐洲國家一樣，這兩者一直處於相對獨立的變化、發展之中。另外，包括美國在內的歐洲國家社會內部的鬥爭還導致了作為國際關係準則的國際法的全面發展。主導國際法的是獨立和國家主權觀念，至於對於某種政府形式而言主權的載體是誰並不重要。一位德國人曾恰如其分地說道：國家的一體性和獨立性體現於國家主權之中。正是因為國家享有主權，組成各個國家的各國人民才能越來越融為一體。今天，一直主導著歐洲國家社會發展的獨立觀念已成為了眾人共知的東西。對於這種結果的產生，每個國家都起到了一份推動作用，因為它們為一種共同的傳統所左右。