The Rudolf Steiner Archive

Twelfth Lecture

[ 1 ] You will understand that, when one shares in the fate of humanity, it is difficult to speak today, on New Year’s Eve, and it may be understandable if what is presented today cannot be presented in its entirety, as would otherwise be the case, since that “New Year’s gift” that has befallen humanity hardly allows for a free unfolding of the spirit today.

[ 2 ] Yesterday I attempted to present a historical event and to show that such a historical event must not be interpreted in a moral sense, that what underlies historical necessity cannot—to use this Nietzschean expression once again—be judged in a “moralistic” manner. For one must be clear that, just as the mystery of Golgotha has nothing to do with nations or groups of people—but rather the light of this event shines only upon the individual human being—it is not appropriate to simply transfer, by analogy, the ordinary moral judgment of an individual’s thoughts, feelings, and will to groups.

[ 3 ] Nor can one apply moral standards in other cases; for example, it would never occur to anyone to apply a moral standard—say, to the construction of a house—and to consider one roof more immoral than another simply because of its shape. However, the matter is naturally more radical here, and it is more foreign to people to apply moral judgments in such cases; it is not in their nature to delude themselves with moral judgments in such a situation. On the other hand, it is very natural to cloak in moral terms that which truly does not happen for moral reasons—and which one would not defend with moral reasons unless one wished to be hypocritical—in situations where one seeks to influence people’s minds, which are always receptive to such things. That is why I have presented an event that may well be suitable for shedding light on certain motives that are already at work on the physical plane in the evolution of humanity.

[ 4 ] One must not pass moral judgment—neither positive nor negative—on something like the Opium War I told you about yesterday. For what, to mention just one thing, would a moral judgment lead to, and would it itself be the kind through which people, so to speak, sought to soothe their own consciences? Let’s suppose someone were to say: Yes, that was indeed an immoral undertaking at the time, but that is long behind us now. — That would be yet another judgment, intended solely to numb us! For thanks to the many millions that flowed from Asia to Europe back then, the empire that now exists in its current state is the very one that would then have to appeal to its conscience.

[ 5 ] But then, from the same moral standpoint, one would also have to condemn the current intrigues just as harshly and sharply as one condemns something like the Opium War! Otherwise, it would be like looking at a house and focusing only on the second, third, and fourth floors and the attic, and not on what cannot be removed—namely, the first floor. What was gained back then is part of the entire structure of what exists today as the British Empire. Perhaps you have heard the example of how a pfennig or a centime would have grown if it had been invested at the time of Christ’s birth, earning interest and compound interest. From this, you can gauge the potential for the accumulation of wealth over the years. So, too, when you assess the proceeds of the Opium War today, you must view them as an integral factor and say to yourself: What has become of those millions from back then—after all, a century has passed since then—is precisely what is now poised to rule the world, to flood the world; embedded within it is what was gained back then!

[ 6 ] So you simply cannot single out one part from a continuous process of development; to do so would be to violate all truth. Therefore, one must say: What has come to be is, in part, a result of this Opium War. One can view this entirely objectively, without taking a moral stance—whether positive or negative. But one must not attempt to gloss over the fact with some moral pretext; otherwise, one would also prevent the possibility of future insight regarding everything that is happening now. For karmic and moral reasons, we must consider it possible that when people look back on current events decades or centuries from now, they will condemn with just as much conviction and certainty what is being defended today out of a certain moral patriotism. For to future centuries, the events of today will appear very similar.

[ 7 ] It is fitting for us to look a little more deeply into such matters that take place on the physical plane, especially when we are dealing with a moment that, on the one hand—as is the case tonight—is meant to evoke a festive mood in the human soul, and on the other hand, must unfold so bitterly this very year—a moment that should touch us deeply if we do not wish to be superficial. Quite apart from any partisan viewpoint, it must be clear to everyone today that the words we have read today could lead to the most terrible things that will befall humanity.

[ 8 ] I said: It befits us, who stand on the ground of spiritual knowledge, to look a little more deeply into things. — Therefore, today—since I do not know how much longer such spiritual matters can be discussed in Europe—I would like to draw attention to something that can serve as an example for looking more deeply into the circumstances that, in a sense, manifest externally in the revelations of the physical plane. You see, even more so than in the science of the physical, one must be clear that for the science of the spiritual, the facts and the interrelationships between them are not so straightforward, but rather very complex. I have often pointed out this complexity of the facts and asked you to be clear that, while the general formulas, ideas, and laws received through spiritual science regarding the interrelationships of life are absolutely correct, they naturally take on many different forms when applied to specific cases.

[ 9 ] When we reflect on the various things we have considered, we know that a period of time elapses between death and a new birth; the human being descends into the physical world to embody his soul-spiritual nature in a physical human being. We can therefore say to ourselves: When we turn our spiritual gaze upward toward the spiritual worlds, there are always souls up there who are preparing to descend into physical bodies with the forces they develop between death and a new birth. This means that down below lie the possibilities for this or that physical body to come into being—while up above are the forces within the souls that tend toward these physical bodies.

[ 10 ] Now you must consider what has just been said in conjunction with a few other points. As you know, the following objection is often raised against the idea of repeated earthly lives: People say, “The human population is growing; where do all these souls come from?”

[ 11 ] I have often replied that this objection is superficial, for the simple reason that people do not take into account that this so-called increase in the human population has only been observed in the very last few centuries, and that, for example, the highly precise researchers—who are so proud of their precision—would be at a loss if asked about the statistics from the year 1348, when America had not yet been discovered, regarding the distribution of people on Earth. The arguments that are often put forward are, in fact, characterized by a staggering superficiality. But there is also the fact that in some parts of the world the birth rate is declining, while in others it is increasing, so that population density varies across the Earth’s surface. This gives rise to a certain disharmony. It is possible that, depending on the conditions of their incarnations, souls who are between death and a new birth may—through the powers they have accumulated from previous incarnations—feel drawn to incarnate in a particular spot on Earth, yet find that only a few bodies are, so to speak, available to the many souls in that spot; this can certainly happen. But something else can also happen. And this other possibility—you should consider it in connection with what I have just mentioned.

[ 12 ] I have—and from this you will see that these lectures I have given here in recent weeks are not without connection—pointed out some time ago that John Stuart Mill, along with the Russian philosopher and politician Herzen, suggested that in many respects a kind of “Chineseness” is beginning to emerge in Europe, that Europe is becoming “Sinicized.” I did not make that remark at the time without reason. For if John Stuart Mill, who was already a keen observer, finds that strange Chinese traits are manifesting themselves among the people around him, then he is, in a certain sense, already correct.

[ 13 ] Now consider the following: There are souls who, due to their past circumstances, are destined to be incarnated in Chinese bodies in the 19th century or at the beginning of the 20th century. Now, since the Chinese population is nowhere near as large as it was in earlier times, not all Chinese souls can be incarnated there anyway; but in Europe, where the population has increased significantly in recent times, many souls can be accommodated who are actually destined to be incarnated into Chinese bodies. There you have one reason why keen observers are noticing the “Sinicization” of Europe.

[ 14 ] But that would not have been enough to prepare Europe in such a way that the European karma which was meant to emerge would actually emerge; rather, the aim was, so to speak, to assist the great laws of existence in a certain direction. If, over the course of long ages, one brings about what I hinted at yesterday—namely, that the bodies of an entire mass of people are emaciated—then one brings about a situation in which, over time, bodies arise down there to which the souls that had initially been drawn toward them do not go. By “opiumizing” the Chinese bodies and producing generations that came into being under the influence of opium forces, one has condemned the Chinese to take into themselves souls that are, in part, very immature and very inferior—souls whose qualities I do not wish to discuss. Consequently, however, those souls who had destined themselves for Chinese bodies were prevented from entering these opium-addled bodies. They were diverted to Europe to bring about, within the European population, precisely what those keen observers I mentioned must surely have noticed.

[ 15 ] As you can see, therefore, an event on the physical plane such as the Opium War certainly has a spiritual background. It exists not only for the purpose for which it was initially intended—namely, to enable people to enrich themselves by the millions—but also to prevent certain souls, who would otherwise have descended from the spiritual world to strengthen European cultural forces in the present age, from incarnating at this time, and instead to allow Chinese souls to incarnate in European bodies. As paradoxical as this may seem, it is nevertheless true. The fact is that a significant and momentous event has come to pass: among a large number of Europeans, the disharmony between the soul and the body—which I have just alluded to—has been brought about. And this disharmony between the soul and the body invariably results in an inability to use the instruments of the body in an appropriate manner. Hence the possibility of manipulating error. Error cannot be manipulated so easily if the one who sees through it is not, in a sense, condemned to preach in the wilderness by a firmly established spirit of the times.

[ 16 ] So you see that I truly did not tell you what I told you yesterday for the purpose of characterizing this particular event in relation to a people in any abhorrent way; but rather to provide an example of how what is done by people here on the physical plane brings about profound changes even in the spiritual evolution of humanity. And do not think that I recounted everything I told you about centers of error, about the ways in which deceptions and numbing effects are brought about today, merely for my own amusement; rather, it was to further illustrate how many things are actually shaped, especially in our materialistic age. And today I have tried to present to you one of the reasons that arise when one considers what happens through human beings not merely in its physical course, but when one views it in relation to its occult background. In this context, something like that Opium War actually signifies a displacement of the spiritual element from one point on Earth—where it belongs and where it might have been useful, because it would have entered bodies suited to it—to another point on Earth, where it can serve as a tool for powers that, in one way or another, in their own nature, well, let’s say, do not have humanity’s best interests at heart.

[ 17 ] We must be clear that the historian of external cultural history can, of course, only observe a degeneration of certain segments of Chinese folk culture as a consequence of the Opium War. But those who consider the history of spiritual culture must look deeper and see what effect this has on all of humanity. For it is only in this fifth post-Atlantean epoch, which is thoroughly permeated by materialism, that a perspective is possible which is downright Ahrimanic, yet which today permeates all thinking and all ideas: namely, the belief that something right or wrong can happen to a portion of humanity without affecting all of humanity. Whatever happens in relation to a part, or is done by a part, always affects the entire evolution of humanity through the way the forces behind the scenes of physical existence arrange themselves in a certain manner.

[ 18 ] It is only in the sixth post-Atlantean epoch that a sense of responsibility can become reasonably widespread among human beings—a responsibility in which each person feels accountable not only to themselves but to all of humanity for what they do. Today we find ourselves in this atmosphere of catastrophe precisely because the exact opposite is the norm, and humanity is gradually coming to regard the opposing perspective—based on the views of the present age—as the correct one.

[ 19 ] So let this be an example to show you that what happens on the physical plane truly extends its effects into the spiritual world and thus is not only significant for the physical plane, but also finds its echo in the events of the spiritual world—and thereby in the entire world. This is stated in the Mystery Drama with full deliberation, not merely to present something poetic, but to truly embody a truth that must be placed within the present time—just as is the case with all things that are part of the Mysteries.

[ 20 ] Humanity has still not come very far in terms of broadening the horizons of its worldview. Broader horizons for our view of the world—in a sense, we do not want them. And contemporary science is actively striving to narrow those horizons more and more. Underlying this, however, is a secret fear—the fear of what the truth is. This fear of the truth is taking hold of humanity more and more, both in specific, everyday instances and on a broader scale. And if this were not the case on a broader scale, it could not occur in everyday situations. For example, the war would not be prolonged now, for the simple reason that there is a fear that, in a genuine discussion aimed at reaching an understanding, certain things would come to light—well—things that people simply fear.

[ 21 ] Some of you may recall that I summarized much of what has been said over the years regarding the trends of our time in a series of lectures I gave in Vienna in the spring of 1914. There, I pointed out that one could speak of a “social carcinoma.” I must admit: I am always somewhat surprised that such remarks, which shed deep light on certain existing realities, are very often simply accepted—well, as something that is commonly said these days, something that merely satisfies one’s curiosity a little.

[ 22 ] I wanted to point out that in our present life—at the beginning of 1914—certain impulses are at work that can be compared to the impulse in the physical human organism that underlies carcinoma, or cancer. And I said at the time that it must increasingly become a task for humanity to study the social organism just as one studies the diseased physical organism—even though the disease-causing toxin is not present in the social organism in the same way as it is in the physical organism, it is nonetheless a disease-causing toxin. But then one must have a sense for the spiritual. One cannot have a sense of the spiritual if one denies it. In the social realm, of course, there is no bacterial toxin or the like seeping in, as there is in the physical organism. It can only be found in the social organism if one has a sense for that which passes through existence in a spiritual sense. But if one has the ability not merely to draw analogies—which are inadmissible—but to truly trace things, I would say, across the various planes, then one will already be able to imagine what lies behind these things.

[ 23 ] Now the question might arise: How is something like what I have described actually brought about—that, in the social life of the globe, a whole collective of souls is, so to speak, directed from one point to another, similar to the artificial cultivation of certain diseases in the human organism? — If one understands these things, if one first studies them, so to speak, independently of what one encounters in human life, one can already become aware of certain aspects. Let us consider that plant life, animal life, and of course mineral life as well, have the characteristic of secreting certain poisons. As you know, these poisons have two distinct properties. On the one hand, they are precisely what is expressed by the word “poison”: they destroy the respective higher form of life; they destroy and kill, for example, the human organism. On the other hand, however—when taken in the appropriate doses and prepared accordingly—they are remedies.

[ 24 ] This is based on a profound connection within the whole of natural existence. We must gradually form certain concepts about it. We must not, of course, derive these concepts from hypotheses, much less from flights of fancy; but if we pursue spiritual science, we can already form certain concepts. We have, for example, the truth that the evolution of humanity and the world connected with it has proceeded through Saturn, the Sun, and the Moon right down to our present existence on Earth, and we know: Before our existence on Earth came our existence on the Moon. — I have described this in part, but so far, I would say, more from a physical perspective than from the substantial realities of the lunar existence itself. You can see from the descriptions I have given that this lunar existence was entirely physical, that—at least in certain stages of development—it was just as physical as our earthly existence. Even though the mineral kingdom did not yet exist, lunar existence was physical. The physical forms existed under different conditions; but it was physical. And this raises the question: How can the substantial reality that existed on the Moon be compared to the substantial reality that exists on our Earth—to that which, so to speak, flows and pulses within the substances of our Earth?

[ 25 ] Through occult research, we find that what now exists on our Earth—such as the substances the human body needs for nourishment—actually came into being in its present form only during the Earth’s existence. It has, of course, gone through earlier stages, but in its present form, it came into being during the Earth’s existence. One could not speak of “wheat” or “barley” on the Moon.

[ 26 ] What, then, was present on the Moon of the substantial elements found in the kingdoms of our Earth? What today flows as poison in the mineral, plant, and animal kingdoms—what we today call poison and what acts as poison—that was the normal substance on the Moon! You need only recall what I have pointed out on several occasions: how hydrocyanic acid was present on the Moon as something entirely normal. I have also mentioned this frequently since 1906, when I first drew attention to it in Paris. All these things are connected with hydrocyanic acid.

[ 27 ] Well, for the Moon, today’s poisons were essentially the same as what plant sap—which humans can tolerate—is for the Earth. Why, then, do poisons still exist today? For the same reason that Ahriman exists: they are simply what has been left behind, what has remained in physical forms. So we have what humans can tolerate—that which has progressed normally—and that which has remained behind in the lunar stage, that is, in the poison stage.

[ 28 ] But there is another side to this matter as well. We know that we only developed the capacity for our present spiritual life with the transition from the Moon to the Earth. What developed normally proceeded, so to speak, in parallel with our development, even in the substantial realm of the lower kingdoms. Only the poisons were left behind. However, there is a connection between what constitutes—not in the spiritual but in the physical sense—the substantial foundation of our higher human nature, that is, the higher organs that actually make us human; there is a connection between the substantial foundation of these organs in human beings—which developed only on Earth—and the toxic substances of the Moon. We carry within us, so to speak, the later stage of development of these toxins. What we regard as a poison today is in a residual stage. That which human beings can tolerate in the lower kingdoms has, so to speak, developed in a descending manner; but that which has developed in an ascending manner—that which lives within us in such a way that it can be transformed into the bearer of our “I”—these are the transformed toxic substances of the Moon.

[ 29 ] It is only because we carry within us these transformed toxic substances from the Moon that we possess a certain capacity to be self-aware beings. I have even drawn attention to this in public lectures, stating that human beings need not only constructive but also destructive forces to live; for if we were unable to break things down, we could not possess ego-intelligence. Breakdown, aging, and death are necessary from the moment of birth, because it is precisely in breakdown—not in construction—that we find the foundations for our spiritual development. The constructive lulls us to sleep; wherever the constructive is at work within us, there is a soporific, proliferating activity. This clouds our consciousness. Consciousness can only live through the consumption of spiritual forces. The structures within us, with their substances required for this consumption of spiritual forces, are transformed toxic substances from the Moon; however, they have been transformed in a certain way so that they do not act as they did on the Moon.

[ 30 ] Now, it is difficult to imagine this for certain toxic substances; but the fact remains that we must conceive of the evolution of these toxins in such a way that their intensity has decreased to one-seventh, two-sevenths, or three-sevenths of what it was. So if you have certain toxic substances in plants, these, as they are today, are remnants from the Moon. Other toxic substances have had their toxic effects weakened many times over and have been instilled in us in the course of evolution. This enables us to age during our lives. This also enables us to exert that toxic effect—for it is indeed a toxic effect—which consists in the fact that, in the procreation of humanity, the masculine acts upon the feminine. This toxic effect is expressed in the fact that the purely feminine possesses, at any rate, only the tendency to bring forth an ethereal being. This tendency exists even without the toxic effect. In order for this etheric being to take physical form, the proliferating etheric life must be poisoned. I alluded to this in my physiological lecture in Prague at the time. And this poisoning is the act of fertilization, just as in plant life the influence of the substance from the etheric upon the pistil—the act of fertilization in the plant—is a light-poison effect.

[ 31 ] Here you see something that arose for human beings even during the Earth era: procreation. It is, in a sense, a distilled toxic effect—an effect that existed on the Moon with the intensity of a toxic effect, just as it has been preserved in the poisons found in the lower kingdoms. From this you can see the statement I would like to put forward first today: The actual poisons—which are, in essence, Ahrimanic in nature from the lunar era—are the opponents of regularly advancing evolution; distilled, or diluted, so to speak, they are the very substance that sustains our spiritual life.

[ 32 ] Now, when any kind of diseased formation arises—and medical science will have to take such things into account more and more in order to gain insights from the spiritual sciences—what actually happens? Evolution proceeds at a certain pace, and within it, so does our own physical organization. Now, when any formation arises—and a formation need not merely be a tumor; for my part, it can also be anything that manifests itself in the organism in a fluid form, or even in a non-fluid form—when something like this arises, what is essentially present is that a part of the organism is developing at a greater rate than the normal course of evolution. A carcinoma, in particular, is based on the fact that a part breaks away and, in its evolution, assumes a greater speed than that of the rest of the human organism. In substantial life, this is something Luciferic. It has nothing to do with the moral-Luciferic; it is simply objectively Luciferic. It is compensated for by the poison, because the poison is the Ahrimanic—that is, the opposite. So if you find the correct polar opposite, then you compensate for the Ahrimanic—the Luciferic—through the poison; these two can balance each other out when they act in the right way.

[ 33 ] You can see from this that the concepts of the Luciferic and the Ahrimanic can indeed be traced all the way down into the natural world. But they can also be traced up into human life, into social life. Someone who wanted to be wiser than the gods might say: Why didn’t the gods create the world without these toxic effects? — But then one would have to be just as clever as that king of Spain who first said this in reference to a specific case. Well, just as such toxic effects are substantively present in the human organism, so are they spiritually present in social life. And in social life, they can indeed be directed and guided. And what, after all, is gray magic? Gray magic is nothing other than directing these toxic effects so that they have a harmful impact in a certain direction, so that they produce pathological conditions.

[ 34 ] With that, I have begun today by drawing your attention to something that anyone who has a sincere desire to understand life should take into account. To avoid piling up such topics, let us continue these reflections on poison, illness, and health tomorrow.

[ 35 ] You may now be wondering: What, then, follows from all this? The conclusion is—and if you reflect on this, you will already see the connection—that humanity, having evolved from earlier atavistic knowledge of such connections, now has the task of truly striving for the truth with the new consciousness it has attained. Without this, it is not possible. The connection to the old atavistic insights has been severed precisely because humanity was meant to become free and to bring its sense of self into ever fuller and fuller expression. That is why we see the connections fading away—connections that were still perfectly clear to the old atavistic consciousness and that are expressed in certain myths. And I have now once again clarified for you the connection between a myth such as the Baldur myth and major, far-reaching phenomena in human development.

[ 36 ] While our scholarly mythologists can get no further than the assertion that such myths, as they put it, express the creative imagination of the people, they actually contain deeply meaningful truths, which are evident in particular in the fact that they are, in the true sense of the word, well-developed right down to the smallest details. The Baldur myth, for example, provides a good understanding of the gradation of toxicity, as well as of many other things. The fact that a parasitic plant exerts a certain degree of toxic effect is expressed in such a marvelous way by the fact that Baldur was killed precisely by mistletoe; it attests to the fact that there was an awareness of the gradation of toxicity in the world: that the sap of the mistletoe has a different level of toxicity than what humans can tolerate. For everything differs in degree.

[ 37 ] When people say that certain things are “poison,” it simply means that they are a stronger poison and have remained at the lunar stage; they have not evolved further. But after all, everything contains a little poison—at least there is a little of it in everything—it just varies in degree. — Although I do not wish to agree with that doctor and professor who defended alcohol and claimed he could prove that far more people have died from the poison “water” than from the poison “alcohol,” he did point out something important: that all poisons are a matter of degree; for it is true that more people have died from water than from alcohol. The point is simply that something may well be true, but it cannot be applied to a specific case without becoming untrue. I have therefore often said: The fact that something is true is not enough in itself to be able to assert it; rather, what matters is that it fits into reality, that it has real-world value.

[ 38 ] The ancient truths have largely faded away. Consequently, even meaningful references to the truths of ancient myths—such as those still found, for example, in the writings of the so-called “Unknown Philosopher” and in those of Saint-Martin—have remained entirely misunderstood by those who followed him. Saint-Martin, who described himself as a disciple of Jakob Böhme, barely managed to point out the significance—the true essence—of the myths. But that was in the 18th century; and the 19th century truly produced the most unbelievable of all interpretations of the myths. All of this, however, is connected to the fact that our age lacks a strong, intense yearning for truth; for if this yearning for truth were strong enough, it would have been sufficient to lead humanity toward spiritual life on a much broader scale than has been the case. It is because of this weak urge for truth that so few people feel the longing to deepen their spiritual lives.

[ 39 ] But this is also evident in the external, concrete realm; it is precisely in these sad, painful events of the day that we see that the sense of truth often—through no fault of human beings—does not pulse through the world like spiritual blood. The sense of truth is what must be properly awakened. And for this reason, it has been necessary in recent weeks to point out certain sensory and concrete aspects, insofar as they are the expression of the spiritual impulses and spiritual events lying behind them. For it is closely connected to all the striving for truth—or rather, the striving away from truth—of the present day, the way things are handled today, and the way things can be said today that are believed by the widest circles, yet are nothing but a complete reversal of the truth. In an age in which it is possible for the truth to be shaped in any way one wishes, according to one’s antipathies, passions, and instincts—in this age, much is already required if that strong sense of truth is to be awakened, which then leads to spiritual life. This can indeed be seen in the details.

[ 40 ] Let us just consider everything that has been said in the more than two and a half years since this event—which is called a war—began. And let us consider even more what has been believed. As I said yesterday, all the observations presented here are meant solely from this perspective: from the perspective of the pursuit of truth, from the perspective of the search for truth—not to take sides with one party or the other. However, when one makes a claim—even if one makes it only to oneself, in one’s own soul—and these, too, are realities—one must have the will both to consider to what extent a truth may or may not be accessible to one in a certain area, and to what extent one must exercise restraint and first seek out the conditions that make it possible to form a judgment on a matter.

[ 41 ] Let’s take a specific case. Just think of all the information that has been disseminated in America about the circumstances in European life that led to these wartime events! From much of what has reached Europe as an echo, one could see what is believed in America. Why? Because people in America, of course, were just as ill-equipped to understand European life as the English were, after the Opium War, to understand Chinese life. For example, anyone who today, out of a certain moral impulse, might say, “Well, that was just a lapse”—I would remind such a person that among those who, in the London Parliament, praised the outcome of the Opium War with great enthusiasm as “an achievement of British culture” was old Wellington himself—in other words, not one of the worst of them.

[ 42 ] A long time ago, someone wrote a piece for Americans—a piece they apparently never heard—and to conclude, I’d like to read you a few excerpts from his essay so you can see how a person makes judgments when he tries to understand things. Don’t say: If one knows what we have been considering in recent weeks, one can arrive at a different judgment. — Certainly, one can then find things to be more deeply grounded. But to arrive at a judgment, one does not need these things; rather, to arrive at a judgment, even a genuine sense of the objectivity of the external facts that are unfolding is sufficient. Yet this sense of objectivity has been found to be lacking.

[ 43 ] In it, George Stuart Fullerton, a professor at New York University, writes about Germany. — Allow me to read you a passage from it as a document, as a counterpoint to what is now circulating around the world as a New Year’s Eve legend, as a New Year’s Eve document. Fullerton writes:

“I am an American and do not have a drop of German blood in my veins. The suspicion of partiality toward Germany—which characterizes German-Americans—is therefore out of the question in my case. Moreover, I am entitled to be considered a true American as much as anyone else, for my family has been American ever since the American nation came into existence. I love my country and hope and wish that it may have a great future and prosperity founded on law and justice. But one does not have the right to be merely American; one must remember that one is also a human being, and that as a human being, one must wish to see justice upheld in other countries as well as in one’s own. We Americans are neutral, but we have the right to learn the facts about the Great War, and it is our duty to strive for a comprehensive and profound understanding of the situation.”

[ 44 ] It is a person who views things solely with sound judgment, not an occultist!

“I have known Germany for 30 years and have taken a keen interest in its literature, scholarship, and political and economic development.

At first, I viewed the country, so to speak, only through the eyes of a traveler. In recent years, however, I have had the opportunity to get to know it much more thoroughly. I have seen a people who were once relatively impoverished, not very strong, and not yet fused into a solid unity become wealthy, powerful, unified, and so advanced in their social development that their internal organization must command the admiration of both economists and sociologists. The country has been extraordinarily successful in its prudent work toward peace. I have visited Austria frequently and, last winter, as the first visiting professor at Austrian universities, I gave lectures in Vienna, Graz, Innsbruck, Kraków, and Lviv. I have met with a large number of people in both public and private settings and thus had ample opportunity to gauge public opinion. I assert without reservation that no one, neither in Germany nor in Austria, showed the slightest inclination to bring about this terrible war. People desired peace—seriously and honestly—if only for economic reasons. But the war was forced upon both nations. The fact that it came at this particular moment may be described as a coincidence. For war was inevitable in any case.

Since many of my compatriots are only inadequately familiar with the prevailing conditions in Europe; since they themselves live under such vastly different circumstances that they find it difficult to correctly grasp even the significance of facts that are truthfully conveyed to them; since, moreover, they have been systematically misinformed by certain parties who, among other things, had the opportunity to cut the German cables; it is hardly surprising that the political situation in Europe is, in many cases, thoroughly misunderstood in America. I consider it my duty to make a small contribution toward clearing up these misunderstandings.

For some time now, Americans have been hearing a great deal about German militarism, yet they usually have only a vague notion that it poses a threat to European civilization. They have no clear understanding of the actual meaning of this word. In America, we have had, so to speak, brief bouts of militarism—such as during the Spanish-American War or when there is much talk of a possible war with Mexico—but militarism as a permanent state of affairs does not exist here. And if it is not found in the great republic of the New World, why must it exist in Germany? The American who is unfamiliar with Germany and its situation cannot find a satisfactory answer to this question. And yet such an answer is very close at hand.

The Germans are a peaceful people. We Americans know that there is no element within our own population more law-abiding, hardworking, and loyal to the constitution than the Germans. The same virtues distinguish the Germans in Germany. Order prevails in the country; the population is enlightened, disciplined, and raised to respect the law. The rights of even the humblest are jealously guarded. The courts are incorruptible. The Germans’ achievements are the result of careful preparation and tireless diligence. Even business competition is strictly regulated by law, and the laws against anything considered “unfair competition” are enforced with the utmost rigor. No one who lives among Germans and has come to know them can have the impression that they are dealing with a warlike and predatory people. And anyone who, like me, spent the month of August of this year”—he means 1914—“in Germany and mingled casually with the crowds on the streets during the two weeks of mobilization, at a time when public excitement was at its peak—can only be utterly astonished that such a peaceful, self-controlled people was capable of such bold daring, storming fortresses that were supposedly impregnable and winning laurels on land and at sea in a manner that must be admired by all who have not been kept in the dark about the facts. And yet this law-abiding and peace-loving people, a people that not only loved peace but also preserved it for 44 years at great cost while other nations waged war—a people that knew how to acquire wealth and prosperity through the cultivation of the arts of peace—this people has, throughout all these years, trained its male population to be capable soldiers in case of emergency and built up a formidable naval power. Finally, it went to war against a seemingly overwhelming superior force; it was not a single class of the population that took the lead, but the people as a whole. Neither the Emperor, nor the government, nor the officers of the army or the navy are responsible for the popular sentiment that turned this event into a national uprising. Even the Social Democrats and others of a similar persuasion—men whom one could never accuse of servility toward the Emperor and the government, nor suspect of any weakness toward the army and navy—have stood by their fatherland to the very last man and are now fighting with a disregard for death and falling without complaint on the front lines. In the last three months, I have not met a single German in any position of office, from the highest to the lowest, who was not wholeheartedly in favor of the war. I have heard no complaints from parents who sent their sons off to war; I have heard no accusations against the fatherland from those who have lost their dearest ones—I know many who are in this situation.

A strange phenomenon among a peaceful, hardworking people; a people that promotes the arts and sciences just as zealously as industrial enterprises: a civilized people that does not live in some kind of barbarism, so that war would be welcome to them—more a diversion than a misfortune. For the American, who is unable to adopt the German point of view, this is an inexplicable phenomenon. What devil possessed Germany that it made such immense preparations for war? What drives it to fight even against a world at arms and to stake everything on this gigantic struggle?

I would like to help my fellow Americans put themselves in the German position for once. We Americans inhabit a country that is only one-fifth smaller than all of Europe, including Russia. It is 15 times the size of the German Empire and has only 98 million inhabitants; it could thus be compared to a family whose membership must constantly grow in order to fill the rooms of a large, well-furnished house. It never occurs to us that our neighbors, near or far, could pose a serious threat to us. Who could ever hope to successfully attack us? Who could threaten our national existence or subject us to any form of servitude?

To the north we have Canada—an empty house, a country with only 7 million inhabitants who could do us no harm, even if they wanted to. To the south lies Mexico, which may stir up trouble within its own borders and perhaps even cause some Americans to regret having invested capital there; otherwise, it is no more formidable to the United States than a rowdy class in a school. To the west and east, we are surrounded by the vast ocean. Japan might start a dispute and cause some damage to our foreign trade.”

[ 45 ] He's being very optimistic here! But that doesn't matter for the assessment at that time.

“But Japan is far away”—but it will get closer! “And we know full well that it is too poor, and will remain too poor for a long time to come, to be able to wage a protracted war. At most, Japan can harass us a bit. The possibility that European states, individually or in alliance, could destroy us is too remote to even appear on our horizon. We are arming ourselves by sea and land to the extent that seems necessary for our purposes, and it will never occur to us to seek permission from another power to strengthen our army or our fleet. Why should Mr. Carnegie stockpile a large supply of bread in his house to prevent a possible famine in New York State? Why should Mr. Rockefeller hoard gold and silver coins in a sock and hide them under his mattress? We would consider a Nebraska farmer who, in anticipation of a possible emergency, decided to build a seaworthy ship to be insane. We Americans do what seems reasonable and practical to us under the prevailing conditions in America, and we need a German army about as much as a Quaker from Philadelphia needs a revolver at his annual meeting. But whatever we truly believe we need, we will always procure with vigor.

But let us suppose for a moment that our territory were not too large for an enemy invasion. Let us suppose we had to the north a vast country with a gigantic population of more than 100 million, ruled by an autocratic regime and boasting an immense army even in peacetime. Let us further assume that this country has, for decades, been relentlessly striving to expand its borders at the expense of its defenseless neighbors. Let us assume that its population has been at a much lower level of civilization than ours, so low that the overwhelming majority were forced to live in wretched poverty by civilized standards, in dull, passive ignorance, merely a tool in the hands of a bureaucratic class that would suffer the least from the accumulated misery that a state of war would inevitably entail. Let us then suppose that we had learned that this same neighbor had for some time been massing its troops on our borders in a manner that could only be interpreted as a threat.

Let us further assume that to the south we have not Mexico, but a prosperous nation of 40 million people, possessing abundant resources and standing at a high level of civilization, with a strong, well-drilled army that is excellently equipped for war. Let us assume that this country has made no secret of the fact for the past 40 years that it is driven by the most bitter hatred toward us and hopes one day to take revenge on us. Let us further assume that it were allied with the aforementioned power and with a third power, which will be discussed later, so that we would have good reason to fear that the aforementioned powers would act in concert to destroy us.

And now let us extend our hypotheses to include this third power as well. Let us suppose that we did not have the vast ocean on our eastern and western borders, through which the world’s trade routes are open to us, and that there were a third power in such a geographically advantageous position that it would be unassailable from the land and at the same time would directly control our only access to the sea. Let us assume that foreign trade were far more important to our well-being than it actually is; that our prosperity depended to the greatest extent on our exports. Let us assume that the third power in question is wealthy enough to maintain a fleet as large as our own combined with that of another great power with which we might form an alliance, and that this third power makes no secret of its intention to preserve its dominance of the seas by maintaining this balance of power. We assume that naval supremacy would enable this power to cut international cables and to allow only as much of what we produce and what others do against us to reach the world as would serve its political interests. Finally, let us assume that this power is in agreement with the other two powers mentioned above, and we would have to fear that it would join them in a joint attack against us.

How would we Americans act in such a situation? I know my fellow Americans. I lived through the Spanish-American War and saw our university deserted because professors and students alike had rushed to the flags to fight for their country. And yet the Spanish-American War was a matter of very little importance to America. Spain was just as incapable of crushing the United States and forcing it into submission as it was of bringing the moon’s movement to a halt. If our country were truly in danger, or if we seriously believed it to be so, what would the United States do? Would we be peaceful and patient, inclined to make concessions, to cede our territories, to allow ourselves to be forced to limit the size of our army and navy? Would we humbly declare our willingness to withdraw from the competition for industrial success or to seek permission from another power to access the world’s trade routes? I know my fellow Americans, and such questions can only amuse me.

In these pages, I merely wish to attempt to put Americans in the Germans’ shoes for a moment. Whether or not it is desirable for Germany or Austria to be reduced to the level of Poland or Finland; whether France should regain Alsace and Lorraine; whether England should be rid of such an intelligent and capable rival in order to retain its supremacy in peacetime and control over the sea routes to America, Asia, Africa, and Australia—I have no intention of addressing any of these questions. I would simply like to make it quite clear that, under the same circumstances, America would do exactly what Germany has done. It was not without reason that the Germans feared attacks from Russia and France and have been working for many years to preempt them. German science and industry have helped German trade expand enormously, and the Germans were by no means inclined to make their trade dependent on the goodwill of Great Britain. Germany has flourished magnificently under this regime. Militarism—the Germans find it somewhat offensive that the necessary defense against actual dangers, the justified measures of self-defense, are described with this word—militarism has not entangled the Germans in nearly as many difficulties as they had to contend with during the time when they were unable to defend themselves. Militarism is a burden, to be sure. But it has neither hindered Germany’s progress in the fields of art and science, nor has it been an obstacle to its brilliantly implemented social reforms, thanks to which all classes of the German population have been granted an unusual degree of financial security. Nor did militarism stand in the way of the development of Germany’s internal resources or the expansion of its foreign trade, which has made it a wealthy nation. Objectively speaking, it may well be a heavy burden, but it has not crushed Germany, and that is, of course, a fact that carries great weight for the Germans.

Ultimately, no one can escape the impact of a slogan repeated over and over again. Americans have heard so much about German militarism—mostly from foreign sources—that they are bound to believe the Germans are the only nation in Europe with a large army. And yet Russia has a far larger one and has used it for offensive purposes for years. France, which has a much smaller population than Germany, has an army that is almost as strong and could therefore be accused of militarism with far greater justification. And in Great Britain, its colossal fleet—which it maintains at enormous cost and continues to expand from time to time—serves as a perfect substitute for a strong army, making no secret of the fact that it will not permit any other nation to challenge its sole dominion over the sea, that great thoroughfare of the world which all must traverse but which no nation may call its own. The current crisis has shown just how dreadful this substitute for an army can be for other nations. There is no nation in Europe that can sail the Atlantic Ocean, cross the Strait of Gibraltar, send ships into the Mediterranean Sea, or travel through the Suez Canal to Asia without England’s permission. The common highway has been monopolized by a single nation and turned into English private property.

It is a pity that “navalism” is not a proper English word, for it precisely expresses a peculiarity that has characterized England for a century. Navalism can become a far more serious danger than militarism, which essentially threatens only its immediate neighbors, whereas navalism exerts pressure on every single nation across the globe.

I emphatically repeat that this essay does not intend to address the question of whether it would be better for the world if this or that nation were to emerge victorious. Our opinions on such matters are never dictated by pure reason.»

[ 46 ] This man makes a very reasonable point!

“I simply wish to clarify the actual point of contention and avoid the misunderstandings created by all sorts of catchphrases and clichés. I am not speaking of Belgium’s neutrality, nor do I consider it worth the effort to discuss the question of who, on this or that side, declared war first. In light of everything the world has since learned, these are now completely irrelevant matters. The explanation for the German people’s stance lies much deeper. And I maintain that we Americans, under the same circumstances, would have acted just as the Germans did. Would it have been right, or would it have been wrong? I leave it to the Americans to decide.

Some Americans—not many—are naturally inclined to accept the status quo, a somewhat ambiguous term, particularly frequently used by those who find it expedient to press for the continuation of a condition that has long prevailed or has recently come into being. If Austria had accepted the status quo, it would have left Serbia’s revolutionary aspirations within its borders unchecked, allowed the assassination of its crown prince to go unpunished, and offered no resistance to Russia. Had Germany accepted the status quo, it would not have been prepared, would not have reacted to Russia’s mobilization at the borders, and would not have endeavored to prevent the partition of Austria-Hungary. It would have turned the other cheek to receive France’s blow; it would have allowed England to rule the seas at will, in keeping with the good old traditions. And if Austria and Germany had respected the status quo in this way, what would have happened to them? Undoubtedly, this would have had the most unpleasant consequences for the Germans. They were all in agreement on this, and that is why everyone—peasant and nobleman, Catholic and Protestant, conservative and social democrat—set aside all reservations and went to war with unprecedented enthusiasm, with heart and soul.

Should we demand more from Germany—than from other nations—that it respect the status quo and show delicate consideration for the European “balance of power”? Any intelligent, industrious nation that has developed industrially during nearly 50 years of sustained peace and has thereby become rich and powerful will, by the very nature of things, disrupt this “balance of power.” Less civilized, less industrious, or more belligerent nations are at a disadvantage in this regard. And as for the status quo, has Serbia, for example—or has Russia, France, England, or Japan—ever accepted it? And finally, how have the Americans behaved in this regard?

Did we accept the status quo when we drove out the Native Americans? Or when we issued our Declaration of Independence in 1776? Did we show respect for it when we rebelled against Great Britain’s search of American ships and the forcible recruitment of American sailors in the years leading up to 1812? Did we consider the status quo in 1861 when we refused to recognize the rebellious Southern states and insisted on the integrity of the Union? Did we show deference to the status quo during our war with Spain?

The status quo is a buzzword. The balance of power is something that, in the normal course of human affairs, is always being disrupted and must constantly be reestablished on new foundations. I do not consider us Americans to be quarrelsome, but we have long recognized that times change and we change with them. We continually seek to adapt to new conditions, and indeed, we jealously guard everything we regard as our legitimate interests, whether old or new. In an emergency, we would not hesitate to effectively defend them through an immediate show of force. And foremost among our legitimate interests would always be the defense of our national assets and the advantages we have gained through intelligence and industry and through the cultivation of the art of peace.

We are neutral, but we have a right to the truth about Central Europe as well. It is not right that we should be kept in the dark or led, through false representations, to hastily condemn nations with which we maintain friendly relations. When we see a great nation of some 70 million people—a highly civilized, wealthy, cultured nation, well aware that it can flourish like few others if allowed to pursue its aims in peace — when we see such a nation go to war against a vastly superior force, risking its very existence in this struggle, we would truly have to be very foolish to believe that its entire population—a population that by nature loves peace and order—has gone mad or fallen into barbarism. We must acknowledge the problem as unsolvable until we are provided with the proper information and have gained the right understanding.

Americans, forget the conditions under which you yourselves live. Try to put yourselves in the Germans’ shoes. And then ask yourselves what you would have done under those same circumstances.»

[ 47 ] This, however, is how someone speaks who was determined to see things as they are, rather than listen to what the newspapers and publications appearing on the periphery have to say. But after all, were such people the only ones who spoke this way? Such people are endowed with a genuine sense of truth. They spoke this way.

[ 48 ] Yesterday—and this is quite recent—I opened the Basler Nachrichten; it contained a quote that was actually spoken. It is good that it was reported. The passage was spoken in 1908 by an Englishman to an English audience to point out that Germany had good reason to adopt militarism, and that it would have been unreasonable for Germany not to embrace this “militarism,” which is so vilified today as a buzzword. The words that an Englishman spoke to an English audience were:

“Can’t you understand how justified Germany’s fears are? If we were in the same situation as Germany, with Russia on one side and France on the other—both of which would be our enemies in the event of a European war—wouldn’t we arm ourselves? Wouldn’t we prepare for war? Of course we would!”

[ 49 ] Lloyd George spoke in 1908 with the very same tone of conviction with which he delivers his tirades to the world today! For these words were spoken by Lloyd George in 1908!