A School History of the Great War Part 2

Believers in the idea of the community of nations argue that wars would cease or at least become much less frequent if this idea of a community of nations were generally accepted.

The body of rules which nations recognize in their dealings with each other is usually spoken of as _international law_. As to certain rules of international conduct the civilized nations of the world have been in general agreement for many centuries. Among such rules are those for the carrying out of treaty obligations, the punishment of piracy, the protection of each other's amba.s.sadors, the rights of citizens of one country to the protection of the laws of the country they are visiting, the protection of women and children in time of war.

As in community law so also in international law rules have frequently grown up as matters of custom. In the second place agreements have sometimes been reached through negotiation and written out in the form of treaties between the two nations concerned. In the latter half of the nineteenth century several attempts were made to strengthen international law by means of general conferences of the nations. One of the most famous of these was the Conference of Geneva in 1864, which reached a number of valuable agreements on the care of wounded soldiers and gave official international recognition to the Red Cross. At the very end of the century occurred the first of the two famous international conferences at The Hague.

Toward this growing movement in the direction of the setting up of a community of nations in which each has equal rights and equally recognizes the force of international law, the German Empire has taken an att.i.tude of opposition. She has steadily refused to accept her place as a member of a family of nations. Her leaders have taken the ground, as explained in Chapter II, that strong nations should control weaker nations whenever it is to their own interest. As a principle this is just as barbarous as if in a community the man with the strongest muscles or the biggest club should be permitted to control the actions of his neighbors who happened to be weaker or less effectively armed.

Just as the strong brutal man must be taught that laws apply to him as well as to the weaker members of the community, so must Germany learn to respect the laws of nations and the rights of weaker peoples.

THE CALL FOR A WORLD PEACE CONFERENCE.--In spite of the rapid growth of armaments in Europe after 1870 there was growing up among many of the leading thinkers of the nations a movement looking toward permanent peace in the world. The movement soon gained great strength among all cla.s.ses. Peace societies were formed, meetings were held, and pamphlets were prepared and distributed. Toward the close of the century public opinion in most countries was leaning more and more toward the idea of universal peace. Governments, however, were slower to take up the problem. Strangely enough the first government to take action in the matter was that of Russia, at the time the most autocratic of all the nations of Europe.

Two years before the close of the century Czar Nicholas II sent out an official invitation calling upon the nations to send representatives to an international conference to discuss the problem of the prevention of wars. The Czar pointed out the dangers which must surely result if the military rivalry of the nations were not checked. He referred to the fact that European militarism was using up the strength and the wealth of the nations and was bringing about a condition of military preparedness which must inevitably lead in the end to a war more disastrous and terrible than any war in the history of mankind. The Czar did not go so far as to suggest complete and immediate disarmament.

Every one knew that Europe was not ready to consider so violent a change of policy. The Russian invitation merely proposed that the conference should try to agree upon some means for putting a limit upon the increase of armaments. It suggested that the nations should agree not to increase their military or naval forces for a certain limited period, not to add to their annual expenditure of money for military purposes, and to consider means by which later on there might be an actual reduction of armaments. It was necessary to avoid the jealousies which might arise among the great powers if the capital of one of them were selected for the conference, so the Czar suggested that the meeting take place at The Hague, the capital of small, peace-loving Holland.

THE FIRST HAGUE CONFERENCE.--The conference called by the Czar met on May 18, 1899. All the great nations of the world sent delegates, as did many of the smaller nations. In all, twenty-six governments were represented, twenty of which were European. The United States and Mexico were the only countries of the New World which sent representatives. The queen of Holland showed her appreciation of the honor conferred upon her country by placing at the disposal of the conference, as its meeting place, the former summer residence of the royal family, the "House in the Woods," situated about a mile from the city in the midst of a beautiful park.

DISARMAMENT.--Although the menace of the tremendous armaments of Europe had been the chief reason for the conference, absolutely nothing was accomplished toward solving that problem. This failure was largely due to the opposition of Germany, which, as the strongest military power in Europe, would listen to no suggestion looking toward the limitation of military force. At one of the early meetings of the conference a German delegate brought out clearly and unmistakably his government's opposition to any consideration of the subject. In a sarcastic and arrogant speech he defended the German system of compulsory military service and her expenditures for military purposes. While it is extremely doubtful, in view of the difficulties in the way of any general policy of disarmament, that much could have been accomplished by the conference even under the most favorable circ.u.mstances, this stand on the part of the German government meant the immediate and absolute defeat of the suggestion. The other nations of Europe had established their large military systems as a measure of defense against Germany, so that in the face of that government's refusal to agree to the policy of limiting armaments, no neighboring country on the European continent could adopt it. In the conference, the matter was dismissed after the adoption of a very general resolution expressing the opinion "that the restriction of military charges ... is extremely desirable for the increase of the material and moral welfare of mankind."

ARBITRATION.--The conference met with a somewhat larger measure of success when it came to discuss the question of the peaceful settlement of international disputes, though here also the att.i.tude of the German government stood in the way of complete success. The United States from the days of John Jay had taken the lead among the nations of the world in the policy of settling international disputes by peaceful means.

Quite different has been the traditional policy of Prussia, which throughout its history has relied upon force to accomplish its purposes.

All the German wars of the nineteenth century could easily have been averted if the Prussian government had honestly desired to settle its quarrels by peaceful methods. She has taken the ground, however, that arbitration can only work to her injury, since she is better prepared for war than any other nation and can mobilize her army more rapidly than any of her neighbors. "Arbitration," said one of her delegates at The Hague, "would simply give rival powers time to put themselves in readiness, and would therefore be a great disadvantage to Germany." This point of view shows clearly how the German leaders place the growth of German power far above such considerations as right and justice.

THE HAGUE PEACE TRIBUNAL.--The struggle in the conference over the question of arbitration centered about the establishment of a permanent tribunal or international court of arbitration to which nations might bring their disagreements for settlement. The United States delegation favored making a definite list of the kinds of disputes which nations would be compelled to bring to the tribunal for settlement. On the other hand, the Kaiser himself sent a dispatch from Berlin in which he spoke strongly against anything in the nature of an arbitration tribunal.

Largely through the efforts of Mr. Andrew D. White, head of the American delegation, the German government was brought to modify its stand.

Germany finally agreed to the creation of the tribunal, but only on condition that in no case should the submission of a dispute to it be compulsory. The tribunal was to be established, but it would have the right to render a decision only in those cases which the disagreeing nations might decide to submit to it.

The Hague Tribunal is not made up of permanent judges like an ordinary court. It consists of persons (not more than four from each country) selected by the various nations from among their citizens of high standing and broad knowledge of international affairs. From this long list any powers between whom there is a disagreement may choose the persons to form a court or tribunal for their special case.

THE SECOND HAGUE CONFERENCE.--The conference of 1899 had proved an absolute failure so far as disarmament and compulsory arbitration were concerned. In fact the years immediately following were marked by two destructive wars: that between Great Britain and the Boers of South Africa, and the war between Russia and j.a.pan. These wars made it clear that with the applications of modern science warfare had become so terrible that, if the nations could not arrange by agreement for its abolition, they should at least take steps to lessen its horrors. This was the chief reason back of the invitation for a second Hague Conference, which was issued by the Czar at the suggestion of President Roosevelt. Forty-seven nations--nearly all the nations of the world--- were represented when the conference a.s.sembled on June 15, 1907.

Attempts were made to reopen the questions of disarmament and compulsory arbitration, but without success. Germany again stood firmly against both suggestions. The conference consequently confined its efforts almost entirely to drawing up a code of international laws--especially those regulating the actual conduct of war--known as "the Hague Conventions." They contain rules about the laying of submarine mines, the treatment of prisoners, the bombardment of towns, and the rights of neutrals in time of war; they forbid, for example, the use of poison or of weapons causing unnecessary suffering. Even on these questions Germany stood out against certain changes which would have made war still more humane. But her delegates took part in framing the Hague Conventions; and Germany, like all the other powers later engaged in the Great War, accepted those conventions by formal treaty, thus binding herself to observe them.

RESULTS OF THE HAGUE CONFERENCES.--Leaders of the movement for universal peace felt that in spite of the small success of the Hague Conferences a definite beginning had been made. Many of them were very hopeful that later conferences would lead to larger results and that even Germany would swing into line. There were plans to hold a third conference in 1914 or 1915. As we look back upon the years between 1907 and 1914, it seems hard to understand the general blindness of the world to the certainty of the coming struggle. Armaments were piled up at a faster rate than ever. Naval armaments also entered into the race. From the point of view of bringing about permanent peace in the world we must view the conferences at The Hague as having hopelessly failed.

They did accomplish something, however. Arbitration was accepted by the nations of the world, in principle at least. Moreover, the conferences helped the cause of international law by showing how easily international agreements could be reached if all the nations were honestly in favor of peaceful decisions. Some day when the present war has taught the world the much needed lessons that the recognition of international law is necessary to civilization, and that the nations must join together in its enforcement, the work begun at The Hague in 1899 and 1907 will be taken up once more with larger hope of success.

SUGGESTIONS FOR STUDY.--1. How are ordinary laws enforced?

How is international law carried out? Why the difference? 2.

Enumerate the instances in which questions of international law have been brought up during the present war. 3. Look up the history of the Red Cross movement. 4. Why did the Hague Conferences fail to attain their great objects? 5. Summarize what was actually accomplished by the Conferences. 6. Has the history of the Hague Conferences any lessons which will be of value after this war?

REFERENCES.--_War Cyclopedia_ (C.P.I.), under "Red Cross,"

"Hague Conferences." See also publications of the World Peace Foundation; _International Conciliation_ (C.P.I.); _War, Labor, and Peace_ (C.P.I.).

CHAPTER V

INTERNATIONAL JEALOUSIES AND ALLIANCES

The years between 1870 and 1914 were marked by growing jealousies among the great powers of Europe. All were growing in wealth and commerce, and each looked with envious eyes upon the successes of its neighbors. In this chapter we are going to consider some of the special reasons for the growth of international jealousies during this period, and the grouping of the great nations into alliances.

ALSACE-LORRAINE.--At the close of the Franco-Prussian War in 1871, France was humiliated by being forced to give up to Germany a large section of her eastern lands--Alsace and northeastern Lorraine. It was true that these provinces had long ago belonged to Germany. All of this territory, however, had been French for generations, and much of it for over two hundred years; and in both provinces the population was loyal to the French government and violently opposed to being transferred to the rule of Germany. But defeated France had no choice in the matter, and the provinces became part of the German Empire. France has never forgotten or forgiven this humiliation. Lloyd George, the British prime minister, in speaking of the Alsace-Lorraine problem (January, 1918) said, "This sore has poisoned the peace of Europe for half a century, and until it is cured healthy conditions cannot be restored."

[Ill.u.s.tration: ALSACE-LORRAINE]

German rule in Alsace-Lorraine has been unwise as well as severe. The teaching of the French language in the elementary schools of the provinces was forbidden. Military service in the German army was made compulsory despite the protests of the inhabitants, who felt a horror of some day being forced to fight against the French, whom they regarded as brothers. All important offices were filled by Germans from beyond the Rhine. The police constantly interfered with the freedom of the people.

French newspapers were suppressed on the slightest excuse. Attempts were made to prevent Frenchmen from visiting Alsace and Alsatians from visiting France. German army officers stationed in the provinces openly ignored the rights of the population and were upheld in their conduct by the German government. As time pa.s.sed the inhabitants grew more and more dissatisfied with the strict German rule.

In France also hostility to Germany was increased by the conditions in Alsace-Lorraine. Frenchmen could not forget that they had been robbed of these provinces. Hope was kept alive that some day they might be won back. In the city of Paris, in the Place de la Concorde, there are eight large marble statues each representing a great city of France. One of these represents Stra.s.sburg, the chief city of Alsace. Every year, on July 14, the national holiday of France, the people of Paris have placed a wreath of mourning on this statue. This custom expresses the sorrow of France for the loss of her eastern provinces, as well as her hope that some day they may be restored.

ITALIA IRREDENTA.--_Italia Irreden'ta_ in the Italian language means "unredeemed Italy." It refers to the territory adjoining Italy on the north and northeast, occupied by Italians but not yet redeemed from foreign rule.

[Ill.u.s.tration: Map of Italia Irredenta]

When in 1871 the kingdom of Italy took its present form through the union of former Italian states (Chapter I), Italia Irredenta remained under the rule of Austria. Italians feel, however, that Italian unity is not complete so long as adjoining lands inhabited by Italian-speaking people are ruled by foreign governments. So they regard these lands as "unredeemed."

Italia Irredenta consists chiefly of the Trentino (tren-tee'no), a triangle of territory dipping down into the north of Italy, and some land around the northern end of the Adriatic including the important city of Trieste. Both of these regions are ruled by Austria. For many years this situation has led to ill feeling between the two countries.

While it has not had so direct a bearing on the outbreak of the World War as the question of Alsace-Lorraine, it nevertheless largely explains the entrance of Italy into the war on the side of the Allies.

RUSSIA AND THE BOSPORUS.--Still another situation which in the years before the war was the cause of international jealousies was Russia's long-standing ambition to control Constantinople on the Bos'porus. As Constantinople is the capital of the Turkish Empire, the continued existence of that state, at least on the continent of Europe, was threatened by Russia's purpose. Russia has long been in need of an ice-free port as an outlet for her commerce. Archangel (ark'an'jel) in the north is ice-bound most of the year. Vladivostok', her port on the Pacific, is ice-bound for three months of the year. Russian trade by way of the Baltic must pa.s.s through waters controlled by other countries.

Naturally she has turned toward the Bosporus and Dardanelles (dar-da-nelz')--the straits connecting the Black Sea with the Mediterranean--as the natural outlet for her trade, and this explains her desire to possess Constantinople.

For centuries Russia has been so much more powerful than Turkey that she would surely have taken possession of Constantinople if the other nations of Europe had not interfered. On two different occasions during the nineteenth century England came to the a.s.sistance of the Turkish Empire and saved Constantinople from the Czar. Great Britain was led to take this action through fear that Russian control of Constantinople might endanger the safety of her own communications with India. In the years immediately preceding the outbreak of the Great War the danger from Germany made other quarrels of much less importance, and England's disagreement with Russia over her desire for a trade outlet was forgotten.

EUROPEAN AMBITIONS IN THE BALKANS.--Russia has always felt a strong interest in the small nations of the Balkan peninsula. Their inhabitants are for the most part Slavs, of the same race as the Russians themselves, and they have naturally looked upon the great Slavic empire of the Czars as their protector. There was, moreover, a pan-Slavic party in Russia, i.e. a group who looked forward to a union of all the Slav nations under the leaders.h.i.+p of Russia. The pan-Slavic movement had its beginning in the help Russia had given these states in their revolt from Turkey.

Russia's aims and hopes in the Balkans were strongly opposed by Austria-Hungary. That state has long felt the need of seaports to the southeast and has hoped, with German support, to secure an outlet on the aegean and to control the whole course of the Danube. This purpose could be accomplished only by annexing a large part of the Balkan peninsula.

The Balkan situation, therefore, brought Russia and Austria face to face in opposition to each other. It was one of the most serious instances of international rivalry in the period before the war.

Italy also was interested in the Balkan question. She saw that if the Austrians should annex the Balkan lands lying to the south they would control the whole eastern sh.o.r.e of the Adriatic. Italian interests and ambitions would suffer. This fear, added to the constant bitterness caused by the problem of Italia Irredenta, inflamed the hostility of Italy toward Austria.

Finally, Turkey also had an interest in the Balkan situation. She hoped to benefit by the various jealousies of the great powers. She believed that fear of a general war would keep all of them from making any move in the Balkans and so would prolong her own shaky existence as a European state.

RIVAL COLONIAL EMPIRES.--Some time after the establishment of the German Empire, her rapidly growing wealth, population, and trade led her to regret the opportunities for colonial expansion that she had missed.

She cast jealous eyes upon the vast colonial possessions of other nations. She also took what was left over,--several large regions of Africa, a port in China, a few islands in the Pacific,--not nearly enough to satisfy her ambitions. South America was closed to her by the policy of the United States which is expressed in the Monroe Doctrine.

In Asia, however, she secured extensive commercial and industrial concessions--the forerunners of political control--in the Turkish Empire. Germany's desire for colonies was natural enough, but her jealousy of her more fortunate European neighbors must be considered as one of the reasons underlying her military and naval preparedness for war.

Germany's covetous att.i.tude toward the colonial possessions of other nations led to several serious international disagreements in the years before the Great War. More than once it almost brought her into conflict with the government of the United States. An agreement had been made for the joint control of the Samoan Islands by Great Britain, Germany, and the United States. Germany's attempt to enlarge her interests in the islands led to a quarrel with American officers. An American flag was seized by armed Germans, war vessels were sent to Samoa, and a naval battle seemed about to take place. A hurricane destroyed the vessels, however, before any fighting had occurred, and the three countries drew up a treaty which settled that particular difficulty (1899).

Germany also resented our acquisition of the Philippines and other Spanish colonies. At the outbreak of our war with Spain in 1898, when Admiral Dewey steamed into Manila Bay, he found there a German fleet that was half disposed to interfere with his operations. But when Dewey showed a willingness to fight, the Germans withdrew.

Several years later Germany picked a quarrel with Venezuela and, in defiance of the Monroe Doctrine, bombarded a fort on her coast. Acting in conjunction with England and Italy, German wars.h.i.+ps blockaded the ports of Venezuela to force the payment of financial claims. President Roosevelt's insistence that Germany drop her further plans of aggression, and his promptness in concentrating the American fleet in the West Indies, resulted in Germany's accepting a peaceful solution of the dispute.

In 1911 Germany tried to force France out of Morocco. Since 1904 France had by common consent taken general charge of affairs in that country.

Later Germany made objections to this arrangement. Finally, in 1911, when France was sending troops into the interior to put down disorders among the natives, Germany sent a gunboat to Agadir (ah-gah-deer'), on the west coast of Morocco. It looked as if she intended to take possession of the port there. France protested and the affair began to look very warlike. England came to the support of France, and Germany gave up all claim to Morocco, taking in exchange about 100,000 square miles in equatorial Africa. After this humiliation the German militarists became more determined than ever to force the war which they thought would make Germany supreme over her rivals.

THE TRIPLE ALLIANCE.--The various jealousies among the nations of Europe which we have just considered, and particularly the general fear of the growing power of the German Empire, largely explain the strong international alliances which came into existence between 1870 and 1914.