The Rudolf Steiner Archive

Fourth Lecture

[ 1 ] My dear friends! As I continue the reflections I began here eight days ago, I would like to note once again that—if misunderstandings are to be avoided—the things I say should be understood in such a way that in no way is one people or another, as a whole, or the people as such, to be thought of as affected by a judgment that is to be rendered based on the facts. One would completely misunderstand me, my dear friends, if one were to generalize time and again in such a way that what I say regarding the actual, real elements—for example, about certain personalities—were taken to refer to entire peoples. After all, most people have no idea what they are actually talking about when they identify with one personality or another—who, in a sense, stands as representative of one people or another, or at least appears to do so—by saying, “I belong to this people!” They have no idea what this is actually about; they are, in essence, speaking completely in the dark. And where will human judgment end up if judgments are made in such a way that the judgment actually only applies to a mere phrase, only in name, while in reality nothing can be grasped at all, because such judgments do not in the least touch upon the real, actual facts.

[ 2 ] My dear friends, I intend, as far as possible, to direct your gaze—your spiritual focus—toward three things. First, I would like to awaken some understanding—though, of course, it can only be a certain degree of understanding—of the great spiritual currents that underlie current events. Then I want to direct your attention to how these currents are at work in one place or another—whether they act through associations, brotherhoods, and, so to speak, through human beings, or whether they act more or less consciously or unconsciously through the individual human beings themselves. And then I would like to show how one must look at the characteristic aspects—those aspects that are crucial if one wishes to understand how what happens on the physical plane can be explained in terms of the larger contexts.

[ 3 ] If one adopts a perspective high enough to take in the broader context, then many things appear differently than when one merely looks at the individual, haphazardly assembled facts that happen to present themselves; for even in its most painful events, the history of humanity is already guided and directed by spiritual impulses. But these spiritual impulses also work against one another, and human beings are placed within a web of impulses that are often in conflict with one another. Those who simply assume that the wise order of the universe will take care of everything are taking the easy way out. If that were the case, there would be nothing in the vast physical universe that actually exists: human freedom. On the other hand, however, there are certainly impulses of necessity—great karmic impulses that are at work in everything. And in these very considerations, we want to give some thought to how these karmic impulses work. But one must then grapple with the details; one must, for example, first direct one’s attention to how things take shape when a certain great contrast exists that is significant in the ongoing course of human development. One such opposition is that which exists between the West and the East of the European cultural sphere, and I have characterized what has emerged in the West and what lives on in the East as a future national spirit. These are real forces that exist. Certainly, most people know nothing of these real forces, but there have always been individual people who have come to know something of these forces.

[ 4 ] Now, two things are possible. Either people know nothing about these real forces — in which case it can very easily happen that these people unconsciously become tools, in that, out of inattention and through no fault of their own in the usual sense, they allow themselves to be used by those who [through their selfishness] are more or less swept up in the currents, and whose behavior results as a combination of these actually prevailing currents and their selfishness; these people then exert a suggestive influence on those who are inattentive. Or the opposite may occur, which has been so important and significant, especially in the last few decades of European life: There will always be individuals who, through occult brotherhoods in one way or another, gain some experience of what exists as spiritual forces and consciously abuse them, consciously use them in some sense—perhaps not even in a sense that would warrant a damning judgment. But it is still like playing with fire when people who do not know how to handle spiritual impulses give these spiritual impulses a certain direction—especially when such things arise, as they did, for example, when various more or less occult brotherhoods formed in Central Europe during the second half of the 19th century—brotherhoods that were always strongly influenced by the periphery of Europe and that, to a certain extent, worked with occult means, such as the “Omladina,” which permeated many things with the impulses that lived within it.

[ 5 ] Now, the “Omladina” was one such organization that operated among its followers using a specific ritual, as is otherwise customary in occult brotherhoods and within their degrees, so that within the “Omladina” in Central Europe we had very secret brotherhoods that were spread throughout various Slavic regions, including the Balkan countries. They truly operated through occult means, employing a specific ceremonial system. And because they were in contact with one another, they had a profound impact, stirring up much beneath the surface, until eventually—through what one might call a coincidence, though it is merely called that—the matter came to light through a trial that took place in Bohemia. These brotherhoods then continued their work, I might say, under different guises.

[ 6 ] One such front was the “Narodna odbrana” in Serbia, which was so frequently mentioned at the beginning of the current painful events. This current—through which certain elements had already seeped in that worked with occult means, and within whose sphere there were people who were partly aware of the matter and partly unaware, serving as unwitting instruments—this current, in other words, has helped drive much of what has unfolded in recent decades in southeastern Europe, in the Balkan countries. And when, in the Western—namely the English—brotherhoods during the last decades of the 19th century, people spoke of the great coming world war—and as I have told you, this was always discussed—the importance of what was taking place in the Balkan countries, what was to take place there, and what was to come there, was always specifically emphasized.

[ 7 ] Therefore, please allow me to say a few more words about this right at the outset. For if one focuses solely on what—as I have said many times before—permeates things as the spiritual, one lacks the foundation needed to ask the right questions. One does not know how what happens spiritually is, so to speak, reflected here below on the physical plane. And following the appeal I made to you yesterday—namely, to reflect on the great conflict of the Mystery of Golgotha—it is precisely this aspect that I wish to develop for you in particular in these reflections. And as I begin by outlining what will then serve as a basis for many things, I must emphasize very strongly that I ask you not to believe that what I am about to say refers to any particular people as such. For no one can feel more sympathy for the unfortunate Serbian people than I do—not merely because they have experienced so much suffering in recent times, but above all because, for decades, this people as such has been the plaything of the most diverse forces and elements. As I indicated yesterday and the day before, these forces have exploited what lives within this people in order to use it for purposes about which we can only say: there lies at the root something abusive, for the aim is to steer what exists within the fifth post-Atlantean epoch as real evolutionary impulses of humanity in a certain direction.

[ 8 ] There are at least a few things I must say, but I do not wish to go back any further than the second half of the 19th century. I know how rarely such reflections—which can truly be enlightening—are made today. I merely wish to sketch things out, and in a sketch, of course, some details are always drawn only in outline. I know how little people are inclined to delve into the actual facts, but one must still be aware of some of them. And so I would like to go back only as far as Michael Obrenović, who played a significant role as ruler of Serbia in the second half of the 19th century; he was a likable figure, and it truly cannot be said that he in any way misdirected those impulses that, naturally, a member of a particular people perceives above all else. One can direct the impulses of a people in such a way that—out of national or individual egoism—one, so to speak, exaggerates them to a great extent, so that one does not drive the individual national impulses in a way that allows them to act in harmony with the impulses of all humanity. In this regard, it is, of course, extraordinarily difficult to strike the right balance, but that is not what matters in this particular case, for in Michael Obrenović’s case, his ideas were essentially in line with—well, let me use this word, even if it may be somewhat one-sided—the “good” European impulses. But he went in the direction of these “good” European impulses only as far as he could go as a true Serbian patriot. And one can certainly take the Serbian point of view, even if a certain one-sidedness is evident in Michael’s case—but that doesn’t matter. One could say—when a man expresses his patriotism in the way he did, this expression is certainly understandable to anyone who, by birth, ancestry, and upbringing, must have a different kind of patriotism. I need only tell you in a few words what a man who knew him well—Milan Piroćanac—said about Michael Obrenović’s ideal. Please forgive me if I mispronounce certain words; that is inevitable, since I am not fluent in all these languages. He says of Michael Obrenović:

His ultimate political goal was not the creation of Greater Serbia, but the formation of a South Slavic confederation under Serbian hegemony—a federation that, in addition to Serbia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, and Montenegro, would also include Bulgaria, which Serbia was to liberate without the help of Austria or Russia.

[ 9 ] So Michael was thinking of a Balkan confederation. During the heyday of Western European occultism, even the most highly educated and active occultists in Western Europe spoke of such a confederation. And even if this ideal may have been distasteful to some, one must still say that it was an ideal rooted in certain real impulses of the fifth post-Atlantean epoch. Now, however, a large portion of the Serbian intelligentsia, notably under the leadership of Jovan Ristić, rose up against this ideal of Michael Obrenović. This Serbian intelligentsia introduced another element into the matter. While Michael Obrenović sought to create a Balkan federation drawing on the Slavic strength of the Balkans—without the aid of Austria or Russia—the aim of those whose leaders included Jovan Ristić it was a matter of placing Serbia, under all circumstances, in the service of what emanated from Russia, in order to create a framework for Russification by influencing the Slavic mindset with the help of the “Testament of Peter the Great.” At that time, this faction—deeply influenced by the “Omladina”—put forth the slogan that a movement must be launched to counter Michael’s aspirations in such a way that Russia would, under all circumstances, become for Serbia what France had been for Piedmont in the creation of the new Italy—this was the slogan they put forth. Just as France had rendered its services to the Piedmontese to guide Piedmont into modern Italy, so Russia was to serve Serbia so that Serbia might become something [that could be counted on] in the Balkans, on the other side of the Adriatic Sea—but only under the leadership of that which was to be incorporated into the mysterious impulses of the “Testament of Peter the Great.”

[ 10 ] Well, you will see that conflicts are bound to arise [if you consider the following circumstances]. In total, there are about six million Serbs. Of these, only three and a half million are in Serbia and Montenegro; two and a half million live in Austria—they immigrated there in earlier times. But all of this is surrounded and interspersed with four million Catholic and half a million Muslim South Slavs. So, try to imagine the intellectual chaos that coexists there and what it means to introduce a movement such as “Omladina” into this chaos. One can achieve various things if one uses these circumstances in the right way. And those who work with such means, as was the case with “Omladina,” always pit one current against another, so that something very specific emerges from it.

[ 11 ] Thus it came to pass that Michael Obrenović faced fierce opposition, and that this opposition was able to work effectively against him by organizing not in Serbia but outside it—in Hungary—that is, by establishing an opposition movement there with its own opposition press. If you understand that the “Omladina” was not confined to Serbia but had connections extending into the states of Central Europe, then it was of course possible, when necessary, to silence the “Omladina” in Serbia and organize all sorts of things from outside. This kept open the possibility, should the matter somehow become public, of saying: “A foreign state organized this.” — One always had to keep that option open in such a case. Added to all this was the fact that Michael Obrenović was very popular among the Serbian people, and that this was truly a primal love. That, too, is an occult force. One had to counter this love of the people either with an equal love—which, of course, one could not simply muster—or with something that would spark a revolution. Thus, the dynastic rivalry between the Obrenović and Karadjordjević families influenced the various movements associated with the “Omladina.” The Karadjordjević family was based in Geneva, had debts in various parts of Europe, and sought the Serbian throne for themselves. They had the opportunity to become acquainted with the most diverse societies in Europe—of which there are indeed numerous—and with the impulses at work within these societies. And by working, so to speak, hand in hand, one can accomplish a wide variety of things in this way—especially when one has at one’s disposal the means I have alluded to. One then organizes one’s affairs in such a way that, from various locations—and these locations must be in different countries—one can bring about the most diverse effects. Thus, Alexander Karadjordjević established his estate management in Szeged, Hungary. His estate manager—well, he was the banker—he didn’t really have anything in particular to manage, but he was the banker. But one day he influenced a number of convicts—people who were susceptible to influence, for that is how one deals with convicts or similar elements—and on June 10, 1868, these convicts assassinated Michael. That was the first step toward making progress in a certain direction. So on June 10, 1868, we have the assassination of Michael Obrenović.

[ 12 ] The sole male heir, a nephew of Michael, was a very poor fellow; he was also still young—almost a boy—and all influence now fell into the hands of the aforementioned Jovan Ristić, who was truly the archetype of a certain kind of politician—a great politician from certain points of view. Since Ristić also advocated all these viewpoints in his writings, it is possible to trace the external means by which he sought to carry out his inner intentions. Above all, he established as a supreme principle that Serbia and the Serbs should always follow Russia’s lead, but not in such a way that this should always be done openly; rather, it was better to follow Russia’s lead by making certain concessions and seeking amicable compromises with the Habsburg Monarchy. Thus, one should not hesitate to take this or that action against Russia, in conjunction with the Habsburg Monarchy, for in reality the aim was to do everything in the service of Russia. But to achieve this, one had to go along with the others for appearances’ sake from time to time. That was the supreme principle.

[ 13 ] Ristić’s primary concern now was to establish himself and win supporters. That was difficult, because the Serbs did not love Milan Obrenović—[at least not while he was in power]—and, of course, no one was to even suspect the secret connections through which Ristić himself was linked to the assassination of Michael Obrenović. One can be very distant from such matters and yet very close to them at the same time. So the threads had to be obscured. He was able to do this by managing, in a certain way, to make it known—and thus spread the word—in Serbia that the murder of Michael Obrenović had been instigated in Hungary, and that the Magyars were actually to blame. This was also fully believed in the circles that mattered.

[ 14 ] Now, another movement—founded by ten people in 1872—merged with the one I am referring to here. It was intended to operate in harmony with other European movements and was therefore founded in Zurich. So, in 1872. One of the ten drafted the program of this “Brotherhood of Ten,” to which Nikola Pašić also belonged. This program states verbatim:

The unification of all Serbs requires the destruction of Turkey and the destruction of Austria-Hungary, the abolition of Montenegro’s statehood, and freedom for the people of Serbia.

[ 15 ] So, these ten had a very specific program; it was drawn up in 1872. The goal was then to increasingly incorporate this program [of the Radicals] into the [liberal] current of the Risti€—who was, after all, the right person in the right place: he, the ruler, alongside the underage Milan—and this worked out very well, because for certain movements it is always a matter of securing the right man in the right place in order to achieve a wide variety of goals through him. University professor Jovan Skerlić, who also had some connection to this radical movement, wrote, for example, the following sentence [about the political convictions of the movement’s followers]:

The freedom of the Serbian people and the existence of Austria-Hungary are mutually exclusive.

[ 16 ] I just want to state the facts—I don’t want to deny any Serb that, from his point of view, such a program is certainly a possibility.

[ 17 ] When Milan Obrenović came of age, circumstances led him to want to break away from this radical movement; he wanted to free himself from it. He wanted—in agreement with Austria-Hungary—to promote Serbian patriotism. In the period that followed, there was a constant interplay, on the one hand, between what emanated from Milan Obrenović—though it was very weak, it was there nonetheless—and, on the other hand, between what was opposed to all of that—I have alluded to this above, and the Karadjordjević claim to the throne plays a role in this. It is curious that no one from the Obrenović dynasty was invited to the coronation of Alexander III of Russia, whereas Peter Karadjordjević, the pretender who later, after Alexander Obrenović, ascended to the Serbian throne, was invited.

[ 18 ] The ties between Russia and the Balkans were to be made even closer when, upon deeming the time ripe, Peter Karadjordjević was betrothed to the eldest daughter of Nikita of Montenegro—a development that did not please Nikita at all, since he himself would have liked to succeed the Obrenović dynasty on the Serbian throne. But the Russians provided a million as a dowry, which old Nikita of Montenegro naturally pocketed—he certainly had a knack for such schemes. I do not wish to burden you with the broader historical context, but I do wish to mention Austria-Hungary’s decisive support for Serbia, which coincided with the period of Serbia’s unfortunate war against Bulgaria, so that Serbia, having lost the war, suffered no territorial losses. But all of this was of no concern to the Omladinist party; for them, it was really only a matter of participating in that movement which was intended to channel Slavism into Russism—I have already described this to you. And this party was quite effective. Serbs—and not foreigners in Serbia—have compiled a remarkable set of statistics, which, admittedly, are merely “statistics”—as I said, much can be discounted—but even if only half of it is true, it is still very telling, very characteristic. Namely, between 1883 and 1887, this radical party of the Omladinists gained a particularly large number of followers, and during this period it committed 364 political murders to ensure that those who were not supposed to be there—physically speaking—would not act as troublemakers should the party continue to expand. As I said, this is not reported by outsiders, but by Serbs themselves: 364 political murders between 1883 and 1887! Even if you assume that only half of this is true, that is still enough.

[ 19 ] First and foremost, one must consider the major resurgence this party experienced in the 1990s, which particularly [alarmed] the government in Vienna, giving it, so to speak, a powerful jolt. A powerful jolt—after a long period of subversive activity—occurred in particular when, one day in the 1890s, all the cities in Serbia were decked out in flags, resplendent with flag decorations. That was the day it became known that the alliance between Russia and France had been finalized, and it was also during the period when, behind the Obrenović dynasty’s back, plans were made to order many thousands of rifles from France for the Radical Party. But that was also the time when a figure emerged who exerted a profound influence behind the scenes; due to his background, it was extremely difficult to secure the approval of the influential circles for his appointment, even though, on the one hand, Russia had specifically singled out this figure for certain purposes. But the party that carried on the legacy of “Omladina” was somewhat reluctant to make precisely such a figure in such a position a key instrument. This was the figure whom Alexander Obrenović was initially able to make his mistress in 1897: Draga Mašin.

[ 20 ] At that time, this figure entered the course of events. And it is significant, after all, that a friend of the Obrenović dynasty, Vladan Djordjević, wrote a very fine book from which one can learn a great deal: The End of the Obrenović Dynasty. I especially recommend the fourth-to-last chapter in this book, because in that chapter you will see—even if Djordjević only hints at it cautiously, almost unconsciously—how strangely the threads of world history unfold, for Djordjević recounts the peculiar visit he was compelled to make to Draga Main, since she was, after all, an important figure. And he points out how the magic she was to perform stemmed from a very specific perfume blend that—a true magic—was tailored to the individuality of the person in question, who was to be influenced. You will gain many insights—some of them significant even in an occult sense—into the realm of the lower magical arts if you read Vladan Djordjević’s veiled account in the fourth-to-last chapter of his voluminous book The End of the Obrenovićs—and read it with understanding. And you will then be amazed at how much can be achieved when those who wish to accomplish something remain in the background and leave what must first take place to the seductive arts of a woman who has mastered the art of perfume blending in the appropriate manner—a practice that, after all, played a major role in politics at various courts as early as the 17th century. And one cannot truly write history without also being an expert in the effects of certain perfumes throughout specific eras and periods.

[ 21 ] Then an event occurred that, at any rate, shed some light on what I would call strange karmic connections. The party I have described to you continued its work, pressing on and on. They managed to bring it to the point where, finally—again through the kind of instigation I have already described to you—an assassination attempt took place against King Milan, who had long since abdicated but still played a role in Serbia and whom, as you know, they allowed to play all sorts of roles. In the process, Nikola Pšsič—you know the name—was [almost] also sentenced to death. In fact, he was saved from death at that time only because Emperor Franz Joseph of Austria-Hungary objected to his execution. As you know, Pšsič is the name of the Serbian prime minister who was in office when the war broke out!

[ 22 ] All of these things, however, had become necessary. Consider that one would not have been able to achieve what one set out to do if the Obrenović family had remained in power. For that to happen, Peter Karadjordjević had to ascend to the throne under Russian protection. Meanwhile, Draga Mašin, who had since married Alexander, had also been placed under Russian protection. However, she had now become a major thorn in the side of the Radical Party, for they were ashamed of her. All of this was taken into consideration—all of this was something they had fully anticipated, for the motive behind bringing Draga Mašin into the picture was not to place this “pleasant” personality with a talent for perfumery on the throne of Serbia, but rather to render the Obrenović dynasty, in the person of Alexander, unviable. After all, one had to first ridicule the Obrenovićs; one had to first make Draga Mašin queen in order to be able to kill her afterward, for otherwise the murder would not have been staged in a manner appropriate to the purpose. The point was precisely to target that very person

[ 23 ] to serve those for whom Draga Mašin was, on the surface, a major inconvenience; but in order to get rid of her, they had to stage the whole charade, and Draga had to play her part. I do not wish to go into further detail about this charade, which went so far as to feign high hopes for a future heir to the throne—who, however, was never “in the running.” But it should be noted that some very peculiar individuals were enlisted, who established a certain connection between Geneva—where the Karadjordjević family was staying—and the Balkans, as well as various other, more far-reaching connections.

[ 24 ] But Peter Karadjordjević had been instructed to keep a low profile in Geneva and under no circumstances to make a move there. In contrast, a whole series of negotiators were scattered across various locations; they had been appointed to direct the entire operation in Russia’s interest and to give the whole operation a public face. And I would like to draw your attention here to the fact that it is by no means important to focus specifically on the individuals who do anything [in such contexts]. For example, there was a negotiator, a Montenegrin, who played a very important role in what the Karadjordjević family undertook together with Russia. But it was not at all his intention to serve the radical Serbian party or anyone else. He demonstrated this later, notably by offering for sale in Vienna the numerous letters he had exchanged with Peter Karadjordjević regarding this fateful matter. The sale in Vienna was thwarted only because the good Karadjordjević himself shelled out one hundred and fifty thousand francs to buy back these letters, which had been exchanged at that time, in 1907.

[ 25 ] I merely wish to allude to these matters, but, my dear friends, when the history of what took place back then in Vienna at the Hopfner Restaurant, what took place on January 22, 1903, in Linz, and what took place in April in Mödling at the Hotel Biegler is finally written—and it will be written one day— when the story is finally written about how that document came to be—the one in which Karadjordjević pledged not to take any action against those who would assassinate Alexander Obrenović and Draga Ma$in should he ascend to the throne—then that will be a chapter that sheds light on many things. In particular, what Peter Karadjordjević signed in Linz on January 22, 1903, will be significant, as will the meeting that several officers working toward this cause held at the Kolarac Inn in Belgrade.

[ 26 ] After all these preliminaries, the assassination in Belgrade—which had become known to the world in a different light—[without knowledge of such background details]—was carried out in June 1903. A certain Lieutenant Voja Tankosić played an important role in this assassination. It is not insignificant that at that time, Lieutenant Voja Tankosić was the leader of one of the groups that were scattered throughout the country to assassinate the various supporters of Alexander Obrenović and Draga Ma$in. You may know that among the individuals named in the investigations conducted by Austria following the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand—specifically, among those in Serbia who organized the assassination in Sarajevo—a certain Major Tankosić was mentioned. This is the same Voja Tankosić who, at that time, was tasked with assassinating the two Lunjević brothers—Draga Ma$in’s brothers—and who, after having since been promoted to major, was then assigned the role—which has since become known throughout the world—in the assassination of Franz Ferdinand. It is important—so that one can see the connections through real-life examples—to point out how one event continues to have repercussions in what follows.

[ 27 ] The Obrenović dynasty had now been swept aside, and the task at hand was to place the Karadjordjević on the Serbian throne, for PaSi€, for example—even though he was involved in everything—did not immediately agree that Peter Karadjordjević should ascend the throne — Pšsič wanted to install an Englishman on the Serbian throne at that time. Even in Eastern Europe, not everyone shared the same opinion. For example, in St. Petersburg, people—and this can be historically verified; they lived nearby—could hear Grand Duchess Milica Nikolayevna say, after the news of Obrenović’s assassination became known: “Let us drink to the health of King Nikita of Serbia.” — So in these circles there was a tendency to place Nikita of Montenegro—this man, whom you will surely know by name—on the Serbian throne. But when the time came to make a decision, the then Russian chargé d’affaires in Belgrade, Čarykov, appeared and declared, word for word: “I have come to announce that my government—that is, the Russian government—will only agree if, in tomorrow’s election, Prince Karadjordjević is unanimously elected King of Serbia.”

[ 28 ] My dear friends, I have pointed out to you a series of facts intended to show you how things work when they are directed along certain paths, for one must have a concrete idea of what is actually happening in the world. Now, I would like to proceed, so to speak, symptomatically. After all, things can only come together to form a coherent picture—and enable us to ascend to the fundamental truths of the matter—if we consider various aspects. In all of this, I must always emphasize: One can have different points of view, and one can understand everyone’s point of view. But whoever holds such a point of view should be aware of it, and above all, one must admit this to oneself; one should not judge matters so readily, as if judging from a higher vantage point.

[ 29 ] Truly, I have often found myself wondering lately—especially lately—where certain things come from, how certain things come about. When I began these reflections, I told you that it was truly painful for me to learn how, in one particular direction, one essentially encounters only unfriendly—or at the very least dubious—judgments, and how precisely those people who hold such unfriendly judgments in a certain regard attribute to themselves the ability to judge things objectively. One need not look far to see what kinds of unkindnesses are at play here. I would like to emphasize again and again that I understand every point of view, but not when it is claimed that a judgment has been formed on a certain objective basis—allegedly on an objective basis. For example, one can read:

The diplomatic documents already in the public domain are of decisive importance when it comes to the question of who was to blame for the outbreak of the war. Of course, they must be studied thoroughly—something only a few have done; those who dismissively set them aside are clearly unfamiliar with them. From this treasure trove, statesmen occasionally draw out individual arguments in their speeches, which naturally make a great impression on the uninformed; however, it is always important to read the texts in their context and in their entirety. At first glance, reading diplomatic documents is as dry as it is confusing; yet from my own experience, I can say that it becomes increasingly engaging, even gripping; these dry, often ponderous, and not infrequently deceptive texts ultimately read like scenes from a tragedy.

[ 30 ] Here's what the author says.

The conclusion I draw from this reading is quite clear to me. A crime against humanity has been committed; it was perpetrated by the governments of the Central Powers. Not once, not ten times, but even more often have I revisited the problem from the beginning, examined it in light of new possibilities, and time and again I have had to arrive at the same conclusion. Even today, fully aware of my own subjectivity, I would doubt this conclusion were it not for the fact that others—who approached the problem under entirely different circumstances—have reached the same conclusion. The judgment of those waging war who defend their own country, or the judgment of those who oppose their own country’s government out of political conviction, may be logically compelling; yet for me, it would still lack that moral force which creates certainty. So when I speak of “others,” I mean certain German-speaking Swiss whose personal circumstances, long-standing sympathies, and scholarly training are thoroughly German, and whose objectivity and authority in our country are so great that the mere mention of their names would make the deepest impression. These men do not wish to appear in public; that is their right; so I will not name them. As early as November 1914, one of them, in a small circle, demolished the German White Paper with rigorous scholarly criticism; from a recent conversation, I know that the chancellor’s latest speech has only reinforced this judgment. The much-discussed “encirclement,” the war planned by Russia for 1917, and other matters of this sort—these are assertions to which I do not wish to deny all value; they already lead over to the other set of facts, but have only a relative, partly hypothetical significance and do not alter the fact that at the end of July 1914, the war could still have been avoided; that it was, however, willed and carried out by one side.

[ 31 ] Well, my dear friends, I can say that I have indeed studied all the Blue, Red, and White Books—far more often than a dozen times—and have truly allowed myself to consider every possible perspective; [depending on the outcome] I would then have simply had to find a way to come to terms with the actual facts. But when I take everything—absolutely everything—into consideration, I must say: The judgments I hear remind me, time and time again, of only one thing—of long discussions that conclude with the words: “Never mind, the Jew will be burned!” — Whether the people making these statements are more or less intelligent, the underlying sentiment is always the same: “Do nothing—the German will be burned!” — And since one can never find an objective justification for such grave assertions as those made here, for example, these things can only be taken as something that, in the most fundamental sense, must become a question: How is it that such a large proportion of people hold the view that is ultimately summed up by the statement—even if not in those exact words, of course: “Do nothing; the German will be burned!”—How did this come about?

[ 32 ] It is precisely in this judgment that many things come together, my dear friends. And they come together, in particular, because it is of no use to raise this or that point where the reasons that lead to this judgment lie. And yet, my dear friends, the question I am raising here is, in its deepest sense, also a matter of the heart and soul. I know what people thought when, out of a certain necessity, I wrote my pamphlet Thoughts During the Time of War, which—as the subtitle states—was intended “for Germans and those who do not believe they must hate them.” I know that these are thoughts—please do not take it as immodesty when I say this—I know that these are thoughts that will one day be regarded by history as the ones that matter, no matter how long it may take! But I also know that certain things will not be possible—will not be possible due to inner spiritual connections—as long as there is no sense, at least in certain quarters, of the truth of these thoughts. And those who refuse to be convinced by the inner weight of such thoughts will still have to learn many lessons from various quarters. The world will certainly receive a weighty lesson when the programs of people like Lloyd George are put into practice. But perhaps many other lessons will be necessary—certain people on the periphery will also receive such lessons. And one could shape many things differently if one were less willing to be numbed by those judgments that I have characterized.

[ 33 ] What I am telling you is indeed true, for part of the solution will consist in steering judgment in the direction I have just indicated in certain instances. What good does it do, for example, if a member of the English nation advocates for this or that man, through whom this or that is accomplished, and takes it as a personal insult when precisely this individual

[ 34 ] is characterized in an objective manner? Precisely because English culture gives rise to what I characterized the day before yesterday—that particular shaping of political thought—it is also possible that there is something deeper underlying it, something that is used as a tool to steer certain things in quite peculiar directions. For, my dear friends, there is a peculiarity here: what I have characterized as the political ideas of English culture must be regarded as the least suitable instrument for certain impulses coming from Western Europe. It is entirely possible—and indeed this is the case—that on the one hand there stands what the English people are called upon to realize in the fifth post-Atlantic epoch, but that this is constantly thwarted by forces coming from a completely different direction. And one must certainly also listen to various other voices in the orchestra, even if this orchestra includes the beautiful voices I described the day before yesterday.

[ 35 ] For example, I would like to draw your attention to a statement made by Lord Rosebery in 1893—not because this particular statement is of special importance, but because such a statement is a symptomatic expression of something that exists and is particularly evident in this very statement; one could characterize it through many other statements, but in this particular remark it comes across most characteristically. Lord Rosebery said—the translation reads:

It is said that our empire is large enough and that we possess enough territory. [...] However, we must not focus solely on what we need today, but also on what we will need in the future. [...] We must remain mindful that it is part of our duty and our heritage to ensure that the world bears the stamp of our people and not that of any other.

[ 36 ] It is important to realize that such voices, too, blend into the world’s orchestra. Now, Lord Rosebery was not, in and of himself, a significant figure in this regard, but it was in precisely this tone that the sentiment we are about to point out was expressed. It is important to bear in mind that, after all, from there—not from the people, but from a man backed by certain groups—came the claim that the entire world should bear the stamp of the English people. That, my dear friends, is nothing other than the resonance of what has always been taught in certain occult brotherhoods—taught, for example, with the words: The Latin essence is in decline, it is in decadence; one need only leave it to its own devices; it can no longer trouble us in any way; the fifth post-Atlantean epoch belongs solely to the English-speaking peoples; they are to shape the Earth into what develops from within them. One must hear the echoes of what was presented as a fixed doctrine in occult brotherhoods in Lord Rosebery’s statement, and one will at least be able to learn something from it, for the point is to look at the right aspects. What happens on the surface, my dear friends, may be a comedy, and the only thing that matters is that one sees through the comedy and does not regard it as events that bring happiness to the world.

[ 37 ] Isn’t it true that if someone takes the position that Lord Rosebery took back then, there’s no point in discussing the matter with him, because discussion is entirely unnecessary in such matters? Nor can one say that someone has no right to take such a position. Of course he has that right. Everyone has the right to adopt Lord Rosebery’s position, but they should say: “My ultimate goal is to make the world English”—and not: “I am fighting for the freedom and rights of small nations.”—That is the crux of the matter. One can quite well understand Lord Rosebery’s position from his point of view. But if one does not adopt his standpoint, one necessarily adopts a different one, and then there is no agreement between the two standpoints—only the possibility that the matter will be settled by the means available to the world. Under certain circumstances, such standpoints must inevitably lead to the outbreak of war. That goes without saying, for otherwise one would have to demand that the others voluntarily submit to such a standpoint. But if their standpoint is that they do not want to do so, then conflicts will inevitably arise. That is why, my dear friends, I wish only to characterize these standpoints, for what matters is not to pass an objective judgment on something that cannot be objective, but simply to make a choice.

[ 38 ] That is why I can also understand a viewpoint such as that expressed by French Foreign Minister Hanotaux in his 1909 book on Fashoda and the Partition of Africa. He states there:

For ten years now, the work has been complete; France has maintained its place among the four world powers. It is at home in every part of the world. French is spoken—and will always be spoken—in Africa, Asia, the Americas, and Oceania. [...] The seeds of dominion have been sown in every corner of the globe. They will flourish under the protection of Heaven.

[ 39 ] Of course, one can understand such a point of view, but one must recognize that conflicts with other points of view may arise.

[ 40 ] Now we must also objectively consider something else. The term “colonial policy” has often been used, particularly in Germany. But before Germany began to pursue any kind of colonial policy—which, after all, was never really Bismarck’s intention, since Germany—and this can be discussed later—first had to be “coerced” into colonial policy, not even of its own accord, but in a very peculiar way from a completely different quarter. It was so very much against the nature of the German people to provoke a conflict of this kind that, for example, in Fichte’s famous Addresses to the German Nation, you can read explicitly: “The Germans will never pander to a people that speaks of freedom of the seas but actually means to dominate the seas against all others.” — Above all, it was also known in France that there was a distinct inclination not to thwart in any way the goal that Hanotaux articulates here, but rather to calmly let France go its own way as a colonial power.

[ 41 ] However, the book by Minister Hanotaux that I cited also contains the following passage:

It will be up to history to determine what Germany’s and its government’s guiding principle was amid the complex disputes that marked the partition of Africa and the final phase of French colonial policy. One can assume that, at the outset, Bismarck’s policy watched with satisfaction as France embarked on distant and difficult undertakings that were bound to fully occupy the attention of the country and its government for many years to come. Nevertheless, it is not certain that this calculation proved correct in the long run, since Germany ultimately followed the same path and—albeit somewhat late—sought to make up for lost time. If this state, of its own free will [...]

[ 42 ] — please note, he says “at his discretion” —

[...] having left the colonial initiative to others, he should not be surprised if they have secured the best opportunities.

[ 43 ] Of course, one can certainly understand this point of view, but it does contain an admission: that Germany, “of its own free will,” ceded the best parts to France’s colonial policy—please do not jump to conclusions based on the details I am providing, for only when I have gathered them all together will a complete picture emerge.

[ 44 ] You see, one might ask how it is even possible to so recklessly construct a connection between the events that took place, say, from July 22 to 24 or 25, 1914, and those of the following days. You have no idea how reckless it is—how wildly reckless—to seek a mere continuity in these events and to believe that the Great War arose, or indeed had to arise, simply as a result of Austria’s ultimatum to Serbia. Many other factors had to come into play; many other things had to have been in the making for decades. But one must, in a certain sense, keep an eye out and be attentive to some of what happened there. To those gentlemen who so readily pass judgment on the many books in the manner I have shown you with an example, I would advise not merely to read—as people often do today—but to read in such a way that, as you read, you notice what was actually at play. And there, as you may know, one must be able to pay very close attention to certain things. So it was written [in the records of the conversations that took place in July 1914]—for the time being, I’m willing to risk the misunderstanding that I’m compiling all sorts of things that can’t be easily proven, because I can indeed prove all of these things—but I must say this: Read all of this, which recounts many conversations that took place in July 1914, and observe how these conversations unfolded. Just as one can sometimes in life discern something from facial expressions that goes beyond mere words, so too can one—especially with politicians—gain insight into what they really want—often much more from their facial expressions and gestures than from what they say. This is often even intended to conceal what is actually meant to be conveyed. Moreover, reports on such intangible factors are usually more accurate than reports on what is actually said.

[ 45 ] And so I would like to ask: Why did a figure like Sazonov clearly play two roles throughout the negotiations? Why did Sazonov play this role, which must have given the impression of an extremely agitated man who, however, is trying with all his might to remain calm, so that his composure comes across as rehearsed? Why did he play this role, which makes it clear that he is not listening, but is merely saying what he has prepared—which is not the right answer to the question being asked of him, but something that one knows very well, and can clearly see, has been prepared? Why does he play this role when negotiating with those whom Austria has sent to him, and why does his behavior appear entirely different when he negotiates with the envoys of the Entente? Why does he listen then? Why, when he writes about it afterward, do we find such sentences that we can be certain were first said to him by the envoys of the Entente? One need only compare them! Why does he listen in those instances? And why does he already know what he is going to say when, for example, he speaks with the Austrian envoy—to the point that he even strays slightly from his script? For at the very first words of the Austrian envoy during his visit on July 24, Sazonov said: “Oh, you don’t need to tell me any of that; I already know it all!” He was embarrassed by what the envoy was about to say, because he already had his answer ready! And why, in this rehearsed speech, did he place particular emphasis on the fact that under no circumstances should Austria be asked to dissolve the “Narodna odbrana” or to halt the efforts of the “Omladina”—why this? I just want to raise it as a question—one simply has to ask questions, often even negative ones, because questions phrased negatively [can be particularly revealing].

[ 46 ] For example, the German government is being blamed for the war. In response, one might ask: What would have happened if the German government’s actual intention—to confine the war to Austria and Serbia—had been carried out? After all, any child can see from the negotiations that this was the German government’s goal: to confine the war to Austria and Serbia—that is, to prevent it from escalating beyond a war between Austria and Serbia. One might also ask: What would have happened in that case? Everyone should answer this question conscientiously.

[ 47 ] But there is another question that must also be answered conscientiously. Isn’t it true that something else would have had to happen in order to contain the war? That was for Russia to have remained on the sidelines, to have refrained from intervening. Had it not intervened, the war would have been contained. Of course, other factors also come into play, but these are necessities that have nothing to do with human will—and nothing to do with the question of blame. But why does the issue of containing the war never come up in the discussions between Sir Edward Grey and everyone else—at least never in a serious way—and why, instead—as early as July 23—does the question immediately arise: Russia must be appeased? The idea that Austria should be left alone with Serbia never comes up; instead, the argument is always that one could not possibly expect Russia to leave Serbia alone. And this aspect of localization did not come up even when Austria made a binding promise not to conquer any Serbian territory—not to conquer anything at all. Can one say, for example, that this promise was not believed? In that case, one could have waited, for it has happened before—just think of earlier events—that people were first allowed to fight it out, and conferences were held afterward. Why is it immediately the task of those with whom this Sir Edward Grey is speaking to define the matter as if this issue were always a Russian question? That is also something that anyone who truly wishes to examine the matter conscientiously must answer for themselves.

[ 48 ] And this, my dear friends, brings us to the point—the crucial point—of the relationship between Central Europe, England, America, and so on; in other words, to everything that lies behind Lord Rosebery’s words, everything connected to them and linked to them. This brings us to that point, and also to the question: Where does something like this come from—what I characterized yesterday as the fear that prevailed among the peoples, the fear of one another? — Well, it would take us too far afield to explain that fully today, but I will have to return to it before I bring the matter to the conclusion it is actually meant to reach. I would just like to note that events took place from which one could reasonably draw no other conclusion than what actually occurred afterward. [Nothing else could be concluded from them] other than that in England, behind those who were, so to speak, the puppets, there existed a powerful, influential group of people who were driving the country toward war with Germany, who absolutely wanted war with Germany. Through them, the World War—which had always been predicted—was steered along certain paths—for one can, of course, steer what is destined to happen along certain paths, which in turn must be properly shaped. And so, among a certain number of people in Central Europe, particularly in Germany—by no means out of a desire to start a war with England, which from Germany’s standpoint would have been completely senseless—there arose a belief, mingled with fear, that a war in which Germany and England would have to be adversaries would be brought about by a certain group in England at the appropriate moment. And various individual events pointed to these things even to those who looked only superficially.

[ 49 ] So, first and foremost, I would like to draw your attention to one point that is important for forming an opinion: Until 1908, perhaps even as late as 1909, there were still broad circles in England that were not very distant from King Edward VII—or, rather, to whom he was not very distant—broad circles that considered it impossible for Russia to ever be allowed to approach Constantinople or to maintain, as it aspired to, completely free passage through the Dardanelles. Now, during this time, an event occurred that changed many things within a few months. At that time, two people were speaking with one another, one of whom, in particular, understood a great deal—a very great deal—about interpreting words. The issue at hand then was to secure free passage through the Dardanelles for Russia as compensation for the annexation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, in agreement with Austria. That was Russia’s goal. And Izvolskij, who is indeed a clever man but believes himself to be even cleverer than he really is, actually believed at the time that he already had Austria’s consent in favor of Russia, but against British interests. But that turned out not to be the case, and so he had to change course.

[ 50 ] This was just one of the events in recent years that could easily become much more frequent. And so, my dear friends, much of what has happened in these last few years is rich—very rich—in subterfuge, and such subterfuge can truly be found in abundance on the periphery; one simply cannot help but notice it. If one has the relevant books—which, after all, describe only the very last phase of the tragedy—and if one studies them twelve, fifteen, or twenty times and really struggles with them as I have honestly and earnestly struggled, then one cannot help but—we will discuss this point further—recognize how a powerful group, which was, so to speak, merely the outpost for the immense forces driving it from behind, stood behind those puppets. They were, of course, honest people, but merely puppets, and they have now faded into obscurity, so that Europe will soon be able to see for itself who will follow in their footsteps.

[ 51 ] But this had created a situation in which people in Central Europe were asking themselves: Will it be possible for enough honest people to emerge through the selection process to overcome that powerful group, or will it not be possible? — And there were people who began to worry because they foresaw a Russia-France-England coalition in the event of war. There were people who were concerned about precisely that, and I really don’t know if one needs to be surprised that people were worried. There are certainly many things to be surprised about, but this is not one of them, for the wise gentlemen who study the books could, I think, at the very least have discovered what even that award-winning treatise from the University of Bern found: that, on England’s part, the war had long since been made absolutely inevitable by the time the violation of Belgian neutrality took place. But everything, absolutely everything, points to the fact that there was no reason that would have stood up to scrutiny, no reason that could have been presented to the English people, because the reasons for the war were not to be spoken of—under any circumstances! And the situation was this: If any English minister had appeared before Parliament with the actual reasons at stake, he would have been swept aside by public opinion. That is why, for example, Sir Edward Grey had to deliver such peculiar speeches.

[ 52 ] It is easy and cheap to say that the English people did not want a war. There is no need to say that—it goes without saying; everyone knows it. No one who points to the real facts believes that the English people as a whole wanted a war—the English people would have swept aside anyone who had stated the true reason. Therefore, something quite different from the true reason was needed, and that is something that could indeed be presented to the English people: the violation of Belgian neutrality. But that first had to be brought about. Therefore, what Georg Brandes pointed out had to be prevented—that had to be prevented. The fact is this: Had Sir Edward Grey uttered just that one sentence, this incident would never have occurred. And history will one day confirm that Belgium’s neutrality would never have been violated if Sir Edward Grey had made the statement—which would have been very easy for him to make had he been able to follow his own will. But since he was not free to follow his own will, but rather an impulse that came from another quarter, he was compelled to make such a statement, which made it necessary for Belgium’s neutrality to be violated. This, however, created a pretext that England could exploit—one that had to be brought about in the first place. Oh, nothing would have been more inconvenient for those who mattered than if Belgian neutrality had not been violated; that would have been the most inopportune outcome for them—not, of course, for the people, nor for the majority in Parliament, but, well—parliaments! But now, all sorts of things became ingrained in what was, so to speak, blowing over from England, so that one can understand the rather strange things that certain people experienced, such as that German who, in April 1914, had a conversation in England in which very strange things were said to him. But I will mention that in another context. Since all these things have seeped through more and more, one can understand—one can certainly ponder these matters in all sorts of ways, but one can also understand them—that some people said: One must be prepared for the worst for Germany to come from England. — And so it came to pass that people in Germany began to talk about these things, particularly in the new century.

[ 53 ] I would now like to cite such a voice; but please forgive me for citing this particular one—after all, in these times one must ask forgiveness for so many things, because there is so much strangeness swirling about in the world that one, I would even say, must actually become paradoxical if one wants to speak the truth. So I will quote a passage from a book that has become famous, written in 1911, which deals with what might potentially threaten Germany from England. The book states:

After all, British policy could also take a different course and, instead of war, seek a compromise with Germany. In any case, we would prefer this solution.

[ 54 ] Yes, my dear friends, this sentence is from a book that has become famous, namely Bernhardi’s Germany and the Next War. You know that, alongside Treitschke, he has been allowed to achieve a certain degree of fame abroad—a fame he does not enjoy in Germany—but that is how it is. I’d like to read another passage to you—it was written in 1911:

Under current circumstances, it is virtually impossible for Germany to seek such an expansion of power through territorial acquisition within Europe itself. The German colonial territories lost to Russia in the east could only be regained as a result of a major war in which we were victorious, and would then likely provide a constant pretext for further wars.

[ 55 ] So it is portrayed as the most undesirable thing to undertake conquests, say, in Russia!

Even reclaiming former South Prussia, which was annexed by Prussia during the Second Partition of Poland, would raise serious concerns among the Polish population.

[ 56 ] This is from a chapter of a book that explains that, among the many things Germany must do, the most important is that it must not allow itself to wage wars of conquest in Europe or instigate any wars of conquest whatsoever. The passage I just read aloud—which even points out how absurd it would be to sever Russian territories from Russia—is—yes, forgive me—also from Bernhardi’s book. So it might be wiser if those people on the periphery who speak of Bernhardi would, with a measure of open-mindedness, pay attention to what is actually written in his book—and, above all, seek to understand the context in which these matters are presented. Even if some things in this book are expressed rather clumsily, one could—precisely by studying this book—at least see that it would be wiser to take things as they are than to take them as they are taken today.

[ 57 ] My dear friends, we will hold another slide show next Wednesday at 7:00 p.m. and meet here again next Saturday at 7:00 p.m.