- Yg. 1925, No. 12 -
The word pacifism has nowhere a worse sound than in Germany. Clever claims that it came from the one-sidedness of the German pacifists. Oh no; the aversion lies in the German mentality of the Wilhelminian era. Every word against war and inter-state understanding and international arbitration and disarmament has a feminine character here; here in the country where, until very recently, the popularity of childbearing had been stimulated by the popular speeches of military romantics.
The spirit of mistrust that blows across the Rhine is perhaps more substantiated than even German pacifists want to believe. Certainly: this distrust has remained pretty much the same since 1918; No matter who was at the helm with us. But is not that perhaps because these governments either did nothing or could not do much to show the world that the spirit of 1914 is dwindling?
A straight line goes from the first Hague Conference in 1899 to the reservations about joining the League of Nations. At that time it was already the view of the powers involved that “a limitation of the military burdens that oppress all humanity is highly desirable.” But the German representative replied: “The German people are by no means crushed by the weight of their taxes, they are by no means driving towards the abyss is by no means facing exhaustion and doom. ”With that, the main point of the conference was brought to a failure. At the second conference in 1907, when it came to the establishment of a permanent court of arbitration, Germany's no was again decisive for the miserable outcome. From then on the disastrous regrouping in European politics dates. The instrument of understanding and mediation was prevented, and Wilhelm's rash led to conflicts. There are links in a chain, the jump to Agadir, the blanket power of attorney to Austria, the break-in in Belgium, the violent peace treaties of Brest-Litovsk and Bucharest.
Only in one point did we abandon the line of our policy of violence and stand up for justice and justice: when we were forced into the shameful Treaty of Versailles. He is, we see it today better and better, less a product of senseless hatred than an outpouring of French fear. Emerging from the spirit of mistrust, which we have so untiringly nourished under William II. Whoever so stubbornly refuses disarmament and arbitration and relies on his naked sword, who has so little confidence in the first hopeful beginnings of a well-organized organization of international relations, should not be surprised if the difficulties of understanding his real hardships tower high piling up and when his appeal to the law goes down in distrust.
Significantly, in the fight against the Treaty of Versailles, the so-called question of guilt has come to the fore rather than the allegedly unrequited burdens (2 1 / 2 billions are earmarked as the highest annual payment, around 6 billions a year for alcohol and tobacco) ). The naked statement that we attacked first has been transformed into the lie of the sole guilt of the Germans in the war, of which there is no mention in the peace treaty. But the fight has a much wider goal. Not only does one not want to be guilty of the fatalities, but he also wants to prove that German politics was the right one before the war, that the others were to blame for the World War. The consequences of the thwarting of the Hague Conferences are used to say: look, they were not serious about their talk about peace. If anybody has said anything that fits the innocent liar in the junk, it will be dragged to the great clean-washing.
Meanwhile, it has long been clear in the world outside to what extent imperial Germany is to be found guilty of world conflagration. Only we still do not know it. We continue to appeal to the world conscience; there is nowhere less faith in a policy of law than in us. We do not have the courage to put an end to the policy of violence. Our hopes are still silently with her.
A little funny Ruhr war is still more likable to us than the settlement of some delivery arrears. Whenever your own government or a foreign government wants something in the direction of understanding, and whenever others, strengthened by the chauvinist backing, have exploited it, the 1914ers are forgiving: here you see, you stupid peace-lovers. And if one has the courage, as Professor Förster, to be open, the whole pack is after him. Because they believe that politics and morality are not compatible. Because they are used to the tricks of their secret diplomacy. Because business and politics still work so well with them.
Pacifism is necessary. Solidarity is needed. The business must go out of politics, and morals, decent attitudes, into it. For and for nothing else, the much misunderstood forester fights. Is not he right?
There is no honest policy without the awareness of connectedness, and there is no attachment among business politicians. There is no trust unless someone starts to justify it. And there are situations where only the courage to trust a little bit can help. We are in such a. The civilized world faces the moment when it must shape chaos. The historical moment urges the world organization.
1925, 12 · Hermann Mauthe
In the “Selbsthilfe”, the newspaper of the People's Rights Party, Mr. WP unintentionally wounded some readers with his pointed pen. The editors feel compelled to announce that the readers are "of course not meant". Isn't that precisely the fault with our entire press that the readers are never meant? And the mistake of the honorable readership for feeling so seldom hit?