The Rudolf Steiner Archive

Sixteenth Lecture

[ 1 ] When, in response to repeated requests, I decided to speak about certain issues from recent history, I explicitly pointed out that the focus here should be on understanding the facts and that there could be no question of engaging in politics or anything related to politics; I have even repeated this remark on several occasions. Yet it seems that time and again, a certain carelessness—for lack of a better word—regarding such matters creeps in among us, and that people fail to consider that there is a certain obligation to uphold the truth—especially when it is expressed so forcefully—even in the manner of its expression. For here and there, these lectures seem to be discussed as if political lectures were being held here. Recklessness is, after all, the order of the day among some of our members and has prevailed for a long time—among some, of course; I am speaking only of those to whom this applies. And everything that was said and repeatedly emphasized out of concern for our cause has borne no fruit in certain quarters. It is quite evident that, time and again, the matters discussed here are passed on to outsiders in the most peculiar manner. In and of itself, I have nothing against communications, provided they remain within reasonable limits. But from the various publications that have appeared recently—including, for example, the most outrageous ones originating from Vollrath’s side—it is clearly evident that matters are not always conveyed as they have been discussed here, but rather—perhaps out of ignorance—in such a way that the most appalling distortions are possible. I am well aware that this is happening from within our own ranks, and if I remain silent about it time and again and do not attempt to take action—in one direction or another—against so-called members who behave in this manner, it is out of love for our entire movement and our entire society. For it is, of course, not possible to constantly hold, so to speak, trials by public opinion. It would, however, be possible for those members who are aware of such matters to take up the cause and to behave appropriately toward such members, whose attitude toward the spiritual heritage presented here may well be known. In saying this, I do not even mean—although that is sometimes the case—that there must always be a direct moral transgression, but rather a lack of insight into what one is capable of doing. Anyone who wishes to make such statements should always ask themselves, with complete honesty—I would say, self-awareness—whether they have understood the matters well enough to be able to communicate them. It is indeed necessary to draw attention to this again and again from time to time. It does not happen without cause; you can believe me on that. But ultimately, there must gradually be a complete silence regarding certain matters, and what will then become of our movement is, of course, easy to foresee. This is partly caused by members who, time and again, cannot avoid choosing the wildest terms for this or that, which then, naturally, lead to the most appalling distortions. It is simply not necessary to discuss our matters wherever anyone who does not belong to us can hear, nor to choose terms that are convenient but do not at all correspond to the underlying intention here.

[ 2 ] I must admit: Whenever the term “political lectures” is used here and there to describe what I am presenting here as reflections—at the repeated request of others—I cannot help but view this as a very personal attack on myself.

[ 3 ] Now that we have considered the points that were woven into the lectures of the past few weeks, it will be possible today to offer some concluding remarks in order to shed light on connections whose understanding can help us make sense of the present. I will first attempt, in a very dry and purely objective manner, to recount the historical events that have taken place, and then, based on the insights gained in recent weeks, point out some deeper underlying causes. I would like to expressly note that today, in particular, I will strive to weigh every word carefully in my presentation, so that, in a sense, each word defines the boundaries within which the view being presented is to emerge. So, as I said, I will begin by very briefly compiling historical events, perspectives, and impulses in a purely objective manner.

[ 4 ] As you all know, the current painful events arose in connection with the assassination of the Austrian heir to the throne, Franz Ferdinand, in June 1914. This assassination was followed throughout Europe by a press campaign that, in various—I would say surging—waves, revealed the extent to which certain passions had been unleashed everywhere. The whole affair then led to the well-known ultimatum issued by the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy to Serbia, which was essentially rejected by Serbia; and subsequently to the Austro-Serbian conflict, which, according to the intentions of leading Austrian statesmen, was to consist of a military incursion into Serbia—without the annexation of Serbian territory—with the sole purpose of forcing Serbia to accept the ultimatum through military pressure. The ultimatum was intended to prevent agitation against the existence of the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy from taking hold in Serbia via the Austrian South Slavs. Austria, after all, comprises a whole range of ethnic groups—there are thirteen recognized languages, but many more ethnic groups—and in its southern regions it has a Slavic population; further west, the Slovenian-Slavic population; and bordering to the east, the Dalmatian, Croatian, Slovenian, Serbian, and Serbo-Croatian populations; and then the various population groups living in Bosnia and Herzegovina, territories annexed by Austria in 1908 but assigned to it much earlier as an occupied territory. Serbia borders these Austrian South Slavs. Austria believed it could prove—and the evidence is, after all, available everywhere to anyone who cares to look for it—that agitation was emanating from Serbia, aimed at establishing a South Slavic empire under Serbian supremacy by seceding the South Slavic population of Austria. The assassination of Franz Ferdinand had to be linked to these events at all costs, for the following reason: Since 1867, the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy has been a dualist state, which—to use a rather vague expression—comprises “the kingdoms and provinces represented in the Imperial Council” and, as a second territory, the “provinces of the Holy Crown of St. Stephen.” The lands represented in the Imperial Council include Upper and Lower Austria, Salzburg, Styria, Carinthia, Carniola and Istria, Dalmatia, Moravia, Bohemia and Silesia, Galicia, Lodomeria, and Bukovina. The lands of the Holy Crown of St. Stephen include, first and foremost, the Magyar territory, to which the former Transylvania—itself inhabited by a wide variety of ethnic groups—was incorporated; followed by Croatia and Slavonia, which enjoy a form of limited self-government within the Hungarian state. Thus, a dualistic monarchy.

[ 5 ] As was well known, the heir to the throne, Franz Ferdinand, sought to overcome the shortcomings of dualism in Austria-Hungary and replace it with a system of trialism. This trialism was to be achieved by granting autonomy to the South Slavic territories belonging to Austria in a manner similar to that enjoyed by the kingdoms and provinces represented in the Imperial Council and by the provinces of the Holy Crown of St. Stephen. This would have resulted in a trialism instead of dualism. Considering what Crown Prince Franz Ferdinand intended, one can imagine that, had this been realized, it would have led to the individualization of the various South Slavic tribes within a kind of South Slavic community in the Austro-Slavic territories. This would have brought us one step closer to the goal of, so to speak, amalgamating the Western Slavs with Western culture, and of counteracting what I have called “Russification” in these reflections. This would have been entirely possible, for Austria has a thoroughly federalist state structure, not a centralist one, and prior to the war had a tendency to grant the individual ethnic groups an ever-greater degree of federalism. From 1867 to 1879, the aim had been centralism; from 1879 onward, these centralist efforts could be regarded as having failed, and from that point on, the state moved toward federalism.

[ 6 ] In contrast, Serbia sought to establish a South Slavic confederation under its hegemony. This did not originate with the Serbian people, but I have already described how peoples are, in a certain sense, simply led by suggestion. To achieve this, of course, the South Slavic territories of Austria-Hungary had to be torn away.

[ 7 ] I have thus briefly summarized the underlying causes of the Austro-Serbian conflict. For within the context of what I have just attempted to express, we are dealing with the Austro-Serbian conflict. It would have been conceivable that this conflict—I have used this term before—could have been “localized.” Then—hypothetically speaking—the European world war would have been avoided. What would have happened if the strictly limited intentions of the Austrian statesmen had been realized? A portion of the Austro-Hungarian army would have marched into Serbia and remained there until Serbia had agreed to accept that ultimatum, which would have eliminated the possibility of a South Slavic confederation forming under Serbian hegemony—and, of course, under Russian supremacy. Had none of the European powers intervened in this matter—had everyone, so to speak, remained at the ready—nothing else would have occurred but the acceptance of that ultimatum. For it was guaranteed that no annexation of Serbian territory, of whatever nature, was to take place under any circumstances. The consequence would then have been that assassinations such as those that occurred on multiple occasions—for the assassination of Franz Ferdinand was, after all, merely the culmination of a whole series of assassinations instigated by Serbian agitators—could no longer have taken place, and without such agitation, the establishment of a South Slavic confederation under Russia’s supervision is, of course, impossible. Had things turned out that way—again, let us assume this hypothetically—this war could never have come to pass.

[ 8 ] How, then, is this Austro-Serbian conflict connected to the World War? If one wishes to understand this connection, one must look beyond the external circumstances—I would say—and delve into the deeper mysteries of European politics. We do not wish to engage in politics, but rather to bring to light what was at the heart of that politics. I would like to answer the question for you: How did the Austro-Serbian conflict become a European conflict? How is the Austro-Serbian question connected to the European question?

[ 9 ] We must focus our attention on what I just said about the South Slavic Confederation. This South Slavic Confederation—independent of Austria but linked to Russia, so to speak under Russian supervision—was in the interest of the British Empire, and all the more so as that empire took on a more defined form. It was precisely the establishment—as it was called there—of the Danube Confederation, by which they meant this South Slavic Confederation, which was to encompass the South Slavic peoples together with Romania and include the Austrian South Slavs, that was explicitly mentioned in those circles of which I have spoken. Thus, in the 1890s, we find references throughout the occult schools of the West—but under the direct influence of British occultists—to the necessity of such a Danube Confederation coming into being. Every effort was also made to steer European politics in such a way as to bring about the formation of such a Danube Confederation through the cession of the Austro-Slavic territories.

[ 10 ] Why was this Danube Confederation—hostile to Austria and friendly to Russia—in the interest of the British Empire? The powers that have clashed most intensely in recent times as a result of the imperialism that has swept across the world—because they are the greatest powers within the territory in question and, in reality, live in the deepest enmity with one another (such internal hostilities can, of course, be outwardly documented as friendships or alliances)—are the British Empire and the Russian Empire. And when two powers are such mortal enemies yet still coexist side by side in the world, something very specific results from such hostile coexistence—because our Earth has a very particular characteristic. The characteristic of our Earth to which I refer is its spherical shape. If our Earth were a plane that extended in every direction, such conflicts could not arise. But since our Earth is spherical, not only does one return to the starting point if one travels straight ahead from a given point, but it is also the case that expanding empires collide at a certain point, and that when they clash, they must act out their opposing interests. This happened between the British and Russian empires, and—among many other things—became evident in the most precise way during the clash in Persia, where the two sides came into sharp conflict. And the question was: Should Russia move southward toward India and gradually encroach upon the British Empire there, or can the British Empire put up a defensive line?

[ 11 ] If one pursues goals of domination, one can do so through war or by other means, depending on which seems more advantageous. For the British Empire, the most advantageous course initially seemed to be—for the time being, since with states one always calculates in terms of limited time periods — to prevent Russia from advancing toward India and to provide it with another outlet, to occupy it in another direction, in order to satisfy the natural ambition of the Russian Empire—empires are always ambitious. This was to be achieved by granting Russia supremacy over the so-called Danube Confederation. The British Empire thus had an indirect interest in making the Danube Confederation as large as possible, for the Slavs in the south wanted to belong together, and this sense of belonging was fostered in the manner I have already described to you. The plan, then, was to play this South Slavic Confederation into Russia’s hands so that it would withdraw its tentacles in other directions. In this respect, the South Slavic Confederation to be established under Russian supremacy was in Britain’s interest. This was a long story that had been prepared well in advance.

[ 12 ] Thus we see one of the threads linking the Austro-Serbian question to the question of the great world order, for this drew the entire relationship between the British and Russian empires into the matter. This was not merely a matter of Austria and Serbia; rather, the Austro-Serbian question naturally became the question: Should Austria take a step toward trialism, which would have diverted the South Slavic Confederation from its course, or should a step be taken toward a Russified South Slavic Confederation? — In a sense, this linked the Austro-Serbian question to the European question.

[ 13 ] If something like this exists—and what I have just discussed are very real impulses that live within people—then it is like an electrical charge that will eventually discharge. So we have pointed to one of the threads here.

[ 14 ] It is, of course, still very much an open question whether, if nothing else had been present besides what I have discussed so far, the Austro-Serbian conflict would have led to the World War. It is, in fact, highly unlikely that it would have done so if nothing else had been present. But there were plenty of other factors at play that served to intensify the situation. Above all, within the European context, there was the Franco-Russian alliance. The Franco-Russian alliance had existed since the 1890s, an alliance that—if one views the situation objectively—is as unnatural as can be. Hardly anyone can doubt that France entered into this alliance with the aim of regaining Alsace-Lorraine; for it is simply inconceivable that there could have been any other reason for this alliance. Any other reasons would only have spoken against such an alliance. But ultimately, such reasons are not all that important when it comes to the driving forces behind it; what matters is that such an alliance exists; for by its very existence, it is a real power: it is there. And far more important than what the ultimate goal of this alliance was is the fact that we are dealing with a Western and an Eastern power, which together represent a colossal military force, and which had Germany between them—a country that, of course, had to feel constantly threatened by the combined, overwhelming military might of France and Russia. This encirclement of Germany between the West and the East has, through the Franco-Russian Alliance, become a driving force in Europe.

[ 15 ] If one wishes to look for other possible factors, one must consider the following: The imperialism of recent decades has led to a general thirst for expansion. One need only look, for example, at the immense extent to which the British Empire has grown. In terms of territorial expansion, France in recent decades has grown far more significantly than France at any earlier time, when it, as it put it, marched at the forefront of European civilization.

[ 16 ] The events of the past decades are linked together like a chain: things always unfolded in such a way that what followed could not have occurred without what preceded it. The next starting point—though, of course, one could go back even further—lies in the British Empire’s assumption of supremacy over Egypt. In today’s thinking, such actions are justified by the argument that one must, in a certain sense, round out and secure one’s possessions. This expansion of British rule over Egypt was justified by the argument that a bridgehead toward India was necessary. It was also hoped to include Arabia in this, so that a direct connection with India would have been established.

[ 17 ] The fact that the British Empire extended its power over Egypt served, in a sense, as a kind of bulwark against an unwelcome westward expansion of the Russian Empire; for such a westward expansion could not do the British Empire too much harm as long as this connection to India—through Egypt and via Egypt—remained in place.

[ 18 ] Now, in the case of expanding empires—since the Earth is a sphere and one cannot find land indefinitely, as nations inevitably collide—the expansion of one empire inevitably sparks the desire of another to expand as well. And the expansion of British rule over Egypt was the direct cause of the expansion of French rule over Morocco in two stages, in 1905 and 1911. By mutually recognizing each other’s rule—France recognized British rule in Egypt, and the British Empire recognized French rule over Morocco—the groundwork had already been laid for a political alliance between the French and British Empires. But because the German Empire was encircled in the middle, efforts were made, as you are well aware, to establish the Triple Alliance: Germany-Austria-Italy. With this division of Morocco and Egypt and the consequences that followed, it was possible—notably with the help of a veteran Italian politician who was well versed in these matters—to draw Italy, even at that time, into the sphere of influence of the Western Alliance of France and England at the so-called Algeciras Conference. After the Algeciras Conference, reasonable people in Central Europe no longer believed that Italy could remain part of the Triple Alliance. Given the way Italy had behaved, the French seizure of Morocco was bound to have consequences for Italy. And what followed was: permission for Italy to establish a foothold in Tripoli. With that, however, Italy had, in a sense, received the West’s permission to wage war against Turkey. Thus, Egypt was followed by Morocco, Morocco by Tripoli; and since the Turks began to be weakened anew as a result of Tripoli, Tripoli was followed by the Balkan War. These events are linked in a chain; one is inconceivable without the other: Egypt–Morocco–Tripoli–Balkan War. Since Turkey had been weakened by the Italo-Turkish War—the Tripoli War—the South Slavic peoples, who drew the others along with them, and the Greek peoples believed themselves strong enough to now win the Balkan Peninsula for themselves. As a result, however, the trend toward a South Slavic confederation—which I have described to you—became intertwined with the national aspirations of the Balkan countries. And now these two chains have converged, and you will find that the Balkan War unfolded in such a way that Serbia emerged as the clear winner. Serbia has become very powerful, far more powerful than it was before. This has recently reignited those ideals of establishing a South Slavic confederation under Serbian hegemony and Russian supremacy. Hence the agitation that culminated in the assassination of Franz Ferdinand, and hence the Austro-Serbian War. Now we have linked these two elements together. The Austro-Serbian question was linked to the European question through the entire course of history.

[ 19 ] People who had been following these developments, however, had already seen—many years earlier, under such circumstances—the coming war hanging like the Sword of Damocles over European culture. Wherever these matters were discussed, one could hear it said countless times: It is clear that Russia’s pretensions were bound to lead to a conflict between Central and Eastern Europe. — This conflict was inevitable. No one who truly studies history would say that this conflict between Central and Eastern Europe was not based on what one might call an intellectual necessity. Just as conflict arose in ancient times between the Roman and Germanic peoples, so too was conflict between Central and Eastern Europe bound to arise in more recent times. The form it would take could vary in the most diverse ways, but this conflict was bound to arise. The other issues, insofar as they concerned the East, were encompassed within this conflict.

[ 20 ] So they were dealing with the pretensions of Russism, and now they told themselves: Something will happen somewhere that will lead Russia to assert its claims to extend its supremacy over the Balkan League. — That was to be expected. Given the geographical circumstances, a clash between Russia and Austria was inevitable. At the moment of that clash, everything else—as anyone who had been thinking about these matters for many years had long said—would automatically fall into place.

[ 21 ] “What would the situation be like, given the existing alliances, if Russia were to attack Austria?”—that was the question people were asking themselves. Of course, no one thought that Austria would attack Russia on its own initiative, nor could anyone have imagined it; Austria could not possibly find itself in a position to attack Russia. So one had to expect that things would somehow unfold in such a way that Austria would be attacked by Russia. Very well! As a result of the alliance between Austria and Germany, Germany would have to stand by Austria and, for its part, attack Russia. Because Russia would be attacked by Germany—I am now recounting what was assumed—the Russo-French alliance would come into effect. France would have to attack Germany alongside Russia. Due to the relations between France and England—whether or not they are set forth in a treaty—England would have to attack alongside Russia and France. These developments were foreseen. The alliance relationships and pacts would, so to speak, take effect automatically.

[ 22 ] Well, things didn’t turn out quite the way one heard every day from people who were concerned about Europe’s future, but how did they turn out? Essentially, they unfolded as follows: I have already described the story of the ultimatum, the rejection of the ultimatum, and Austria’s consistent insistence on its acceptance. What did not happen was that the European powers remained uninvolved; rather, it immediately became apparent that Russia laid claim to acting as Serbia’s protector. With that, however, the idea of confining the Austro-Serbian issue to a local context was no longer feasible. The British Empire put forward all sorts of fruitless proposals—the kind one makes either when one wishes to intervene thoughtlessly in events, or when one wants to establish from the outset a reputation for having sought to settle the matter peacefully: one does not actually want to do so, but one wants to be able to say so later.

[ 23 ] A futile proposal was made to convene a conference—of all countries—comprising England, Germany, France, and Italy to decide on the pending issues. Now just imagine what the outcome would have been! A majority vote would have been required to decide whether Austria’s demands on Serbia were justified or not. Imagine the vote that would have resulted—but based on the actual circumstances, please! Italy had secretly withdrawn its support; France was on Russia’s side; Russia, of course, would only be satisfied if Austria were denied the right to issue its ultimatum; England was in favor of the Danube Confederation; apart from Austria, this resulted in a majority consisting of Italy, France, and England. Germany would, of course, have been outvoted under any circumstances. This conference could have led to nothing other than the failure, under any circumstances, to fulfill what Austria, from its standpoint, was necessarily compelled to demand. In other words, this conference could have been held, but it would have remained a farce; for either Austria would have had to abandon its demands, or it would have had to insist on the acceptance of its ultimatum even after the conference, regardless of its outcome. Thus, this proposal for a conference was a mere bluff, as they say. If, on the other hand, you examine the documents closely, you will see that from the very beginning Russia had the ambition to interfere in the Serbian-Austrian question, and whether the world war came about through the automatic process described earlier or by creating a situation that was bound to lead to war—well, in the end, it makes no difference.

[ 24 ] And this situation was, in fact, created. For among the various factors, you must also take into account a very specific mood. Perhaps no world event, no historical event, was as dependent on a very specific mood as this particular event. The state of mind of the people involved in the outbreak of war at the end of July 1914 is certainly one of the most important causes. There may well have been agitation during earlier outbreaks of war, to be sure, but they did not break out as violently, as stormily, as the events between July 24 and August 1, 1914. In just a few days, an immense upheaval built up for those involved, into which everything that had accumulated over the years—all the anxiety about this impending event—was concentrated. And this mood must certainly be taken into account. Anyone who refuses to take this mood into account will always speak only in platitudes.

[ 25 ] Well, if one were to characterize the mood to some extent, one could certainly cite a wide variety of perspectives. But I want to draw attention to just one. This was preceded by an event that, while indirectly related to the outbreak of war, was nevertheless very closely connected to it—an event that must be viewed entirely within the context of other European events if one is to assess it correctly. This is the German military bill passed after the Balkan War, which provided for an expansion of the German army through a one-time, large military levy. This expansion of the German army—which, incidentally, had not even remotely been carried out by the time war broke out—can be studied by anyone in connection with the outcomes of the Balkan War. These outcomes demonstrated precisely that a clash between Russia and Austria was being pushed toward an indefinite future. Only due to circumstances—which I do not wish to describe here—was Russia prevented in 1913 from attacking Austria at that time in order to secure supremacy and control over the Balkan Confederation. The expansion of the German army took place for no other reason—as I said, I want to be very precise in my statements today—than the threat of a conflict with the East. Nevertheless, the French reaction followed promptly: If Germany expands its army, we must also take action to strengthen our own army. But this means nothing other than that what was a fate, an inescapable necessity for Central Europe—taking precautions against the East—always led to reinforcements in the West, which, of course, in turn had a knock-on effect.

[ 26 ] And that is precisely how things turned out. It was precisely everything related to this defense bill following the Balkan War that caused terrible concern in Central Europe, for people saw the entire periphery of Europe turning against Central Europe. The only difference was that some believed Italy would nevertheless align itself with Central Europe in some way, while others no longer assumed that would be the case.

[ 27 ] Now, one could still imagine—hypothetically—that the World War would not have broken out. However, that could only have happened under the single condition that Russia had not immediately responded with threatening military measures—that is, mobilization, which, under the prevailing circumstances, constituted a threatening military measure. For Central Europe, it was unthinkable that France would not side with Russia; rather, one had to expect that an attack would come from two fronts. Faced with this attack, those responsible could naturally only consider how to paralyze it in some way. No one in a position of responsibility in these matters could possibly have thought: “We can hold talks for fourteen days!” — Aside from the fact that, as I have shown you, nothing at all could have come of this conference, it would have meant certain defeat. But one cannot count on certain defeat from the outset. The only possibility was to offset the immense military superiority from the west and east through swift action.

[ 28 ] However, this could not have been achieved in any other way than—as I have already indicated to you—by violating international law, namely by marching through Belgium. Any other course of action would have inevitably led to nothing other than wearing down the bulk of the German army in the West in a protracted defensive war and facing an invasion from the East. That was precisely one of those historic moments when—whether one chooses to express it more or less skillfully or clumsily—a state is compelled to commit a breach of international law for the sake of its own survival. The person responsible for the state cannot act otherwise. But—and I am weighing my words today, as I said, so that they are strictly limited—for some people in Central Europe who mattered, it was utterly outrageous to take on a war on two fronts.

[ 29 ] And so an attempt was made to perhaps manage with a single front. Careful—or at least well-intentioned—efforts were made to keep France neutral, and there was a belief that it might be possible to keep France neutral. No one in Central Europe ever thought of doing anything to France. One can say this with a sense of the greatest responsibility: no one in Central Europe—and certainly no one in Germany—really wanted to do anything to France. What then happened was done solely with the aim of finishing the war in the West as quickly as possible in order to prevent the impending invasion in the East. And so one cannot help but be constantly astonished that there is so much talk in the world about all the terrorism that Germany allegedly unleashed against the West. All that terrorism would have been avoided if France had declared its neutrality.

[ 30 ] France certainly had the power to protect itself and Belgium from any attack. The fact that France was forced to honor its treaty with Russia is France’s own business; that should not be brought up when speaking out against German terrorism, for the alliances of other states are none of the hostile states’ concern.

[ 31 ] Since it was not possible to keep France neutral directly, an attempt was made to do so via England, but nothing could be achieved there either, and I have already touched on the circumstances surrounding this on several occasions: how England, in turn, would have had the power to save Belgium, but just as easily to save France. These matters must truly be considered in a factual and objective manner. For I ask you to regard this as a completely objective statement: Every effort was made—since the war could not be confined to Austria and Serbia, as Russia would not allow it—to at least prevent it from spreading to the West. The folly of wanting to fight on two—or later even three—fronts did not, in fact, take hold of the people of Central Europe.

[ 32 ] But the fact that everything else has since fallen in line with this distortion of reality is hardly surprising in this day and age, when one can truly be astonished anew every single day at the things that can be said, written, and printed. Before I came in here, I found a pamphlet placed on the table for me, written by one of the participants in the debate on neutrality with Georg Brandes. On the English side is William Archer, in whose pamphlet one reads, side by side, the black wickedness of Germany and the complete innocence of “the Allies.” There are ten points listing Germany’s dark depravities and the angelic, complete innocence of the Allies; but it suffices to focus on just one—the second point: The second point states, with regard to Germany, that there is certainly a considerable faction there that openly advocates for further territorial expansion, whether within or outside of Europe. This must be contrasted with the position of the Allies—in English, please: the Allies have no desire for any territorial expansion, least of all at Germany’s expense; even France’s sentiment toward Alsace-Lorraine is exclusively peaceful.

[ 33 ] My dear friends, so much can be printed and said these days! The other nine points are of the same ilk. Just imagine what has happened in recent decades regarding the expansion of England and France, and then read this: These countries have no desire for territorial expansion. — It is indeed entirely possible today for the exact opposite of the truth to be said and printed, and for people to believe it—for countless people to believe it. People do believe such things.

[ 34 ] This is how things stand from a purely external, historical perspective. Now we must hold this external historical course in conjunction with what may become clear to us when we understand which impulses have been at work from the West over long periods of time. We have not yet considered all those impulses that make use of certain more or less occult forces, as has been discussed, even if we merely—I might say—point to the outermost tendrils of these occult impulses: to Freemasonry. For, as you have seen, much is brought about through Western Freemasonry. There are those who pull many strings. And I have told you: In these matters, one must reckon with long periods of time.

[ 35 ] Let us now consider, in light of the points I have outlined for you, that modern Freemasonry in England—building, of course, on earlier traditions—became established in the early 18th century. Within the British Realm—not the Empire, but the United Kingdom—Freemasonry essentially remains—and I would like to be precise here—such that very respectable interests are pursued. But everywhere else, in many places outside the British Empire proper, Freemasonry pursues exclusively or primarily political interests. Such political interests in the most explicit sense are indeed pursued by the “Grand Orient de France,” but also by other “Grand Orients.” Now one might say: What business is it of the English if, in other countries, political tendencies are pursued by certain Masonic orders that have an occult background? But consider this in light of the fact that the first high-degree lodge in Paris was founded from England, not from France! It was not the French, but the British who founded it; they merely brought the French into their lodge. Also bear in mind the fact that, following this high-degree lodge—which was founded in Paris from England in 1725—a lodge corresponding to the first one was sanctioned in Paris itself by the Grand Orient in 1729. Then, again originating in England, lodges were founded in Gibraltar in 1729, Madrid in 1728, Lisbon in 1736, Florence in 1735, Moscow in 1731, Stockholm in 1726, Geneva in 1735, Lausanne in 1739, and Hamburg in 1737. I could go on at length with this list; I could show you how, through a network—albeit of a different character than that within the British Empire itself—these lodges were founded as the external instruments for certain occult-political impulses. Alongside the sweeping transformations evident historically—such as in the fervor of the Jacobins, the political activities of the Carbonari, the Cortes in Spain, and other similar contexts—they also play a significant role in cultural-historical development and send out tendrils that can be traced all the way to the works of the greatest minds of that era. Consider the philosophy of nature originating with Rousseau; the increasingly cynical—though initially Enlightenment-inspired—critical philosophy of Voltaire; and the efforts of the Illuminati and similar circles to overcome the cynicism of their time. These progressive circles were crushed by the reactionary forces but continued to exert a multifaceted influence underground. And now you have the origin of much of what I have already described to you. But you must attach some importance to the fact that today the English Freemason can say: Look at our lodges—they are very respectable—and the others are none of our business. However, if one sees through the historical context and the driving forces that interact and oppose one another, then it is indeed high British politics that lies behind it all.

[ 36 ] If one asks about the deeper reasons behind this policy, one must turn to recent history to understand the matter. Since the 17th century—with preparations already underway in the 16th—this history has been aimed at democratization, proceeding at a faster pace in some countries and a slower pace in others, by taking power away from the few and spreading it among the masses. I am not involved in politics, so I will not speak out either for or against democracy, or for or against anything else; I merely wish to present the facts. The drive toward democratization has been proceeding through modern times at a more or less accelerated pace, resulting in the formation of various currents. But it is a mistake, wherever multiple currents are at play, to focus solely on one of them. Currents in the world simply run in such a way that one is always the complement of the other. I would like to say: a green and a red current run side by side, whereby the color has no occult meaning, but is merely intended to indicate that two currents are running side by side. But people are usually—I would say—hypnotized into looking only at one current and thus fail to see the parallel historical current. If you press a chicken’s beak into the ground and draw a line, it will, as is well known, follow that line. That is how people are today, especially university historians; they always look at only one side, which is why they can never truly understand the course of history.

[ 37 ] As a movement running parallel to the democratic one, the use of occult motifs emerged in various orders, and in some cases also within Freemasonry. Intellectually speaking, they are not driven by such purposes and goals, but, let us say, an intellectual aristocracy developed in parallel to the democracy that was at work during the French Revolution—the aristocracy of the lodge emerged. If one were to see clearly as a human being in the present age, in order to face the world openly and understand it, one would not have to be blinded by democratic logic—which is, after all, justified only within its own sphere—or by rhetoric about democratic progress and so on; one must also point out that element which asserted itself in the effort to secure dominion for the few through the means available within the bosom of the lodge—the ritual and its suggestive power. One must also point this out.

[ 38 ] In this materialistic age, people have apparently forgotten this, but even before the 1950s, people were already pointing out these things. And if you consult philosophical historians from before 1850, you will see that they point out the connection between the French Revolution and all subsequent developments and the lodges. In the periods that can be considered preparatory to the present, Western historical development—the Western world—has never emancipated itself from the lodges. The influence of the lodges has always been strongly felt; Freemasonry knew how to find the channels to steer people’s thoughts in certain directions. And once such a network has been woven—of which I have shown you only a few individual links—all one needs to do is press a button, and the process continues to take effect.

[ 39 ] Emancipation from all these circumstances and a focus purely on unadulterated humanity truly came about only under the influence of such great intellectual depth as had developed—building on Lessing, through Herder and Goethe, and extending all the way into German philosophy. There you have a spiritual current—one need only consider Goethe’s “Fairy Tale of the Green Snake and the Beautiful Lily”—that took into account everything that existed within the lodges, but in such a way —you can also read about these things in Wilhelm Meister’s Journeyman Years and other works by Goethe—that the mystery was drawn out of the darkness of the lodges and made into a purely human matter. This was material through which one could emancipate oneself, material that still makes emancipation possible today. That is why you see the entire development of the German spirit—with reference to the part I have described in my book The Riddle of Man—as a forgotten echo, entirely independent of all the machinations of Freemasonry.

[ 40 ] You will easily be able to find examples everywhere within Western culture of the past few centuries—those preceding the present—that demonstrate how the esoteric teachings of the lodges have shaped thought in the exoteric world. Of course, this does not apply to the time before Elizabeth I, before Shakespeare; but it does apply to what came later. The German intellectual culture associated with Lessing, Herder, and Goethe stands apart from such a connection. You will say: There is, after all, a German Freemasonry—in Austria, as is well known, it is banned, so it does not exist there—and a Hungarian Freemasonry. But they did not allow the others to participate. It is a rather harmless society that, while making a great show of its secrets, does so only in words. Those real, powerful impulses that emanate from the sources I have described to you—you truly will not find them in German Freemasonry, which I certainly do not wish to offend, and one can therefore easily understand how all sorts of very strange things can occur. Just imagine if it were to occur to someone to bring up in Germany the things I have told you about orders, their secret connections, and their outermost branches—the Masonic lodges. — It might indeed be very useful to bring these matters up there, but what would happen? One would, of course, ask experts—and in this case, the experts are the Freemasons themselves—what the situation is; but no Freemason in Germany would think to say anything other than that the English lodges have absolutely nothing to do with politics. They deal with matters that are entirely respectable. — He knows that; he doesn’t know the rest, however. One might even, as has happened, receive the reply—when listing this or that name—that, “Yes, he’s not on the Masonic lists.” — They already have the list, but they lack the awareness that perhaps the most important people aren’t on the lists. In short, German Freemasonry is a rather harmless society.

[ 41 ] Nevertheless, it remains a fact—and this can truly be said without arrogance or any sense of national pretension—that spiritual life, insofar as it is cultivated by certain Western occult brotherhoods, does indeed originate in Central Europe. Take a historical approach. Robert Fludd: a student of Paracelsus; Saint-Martin in France: a student of Jakob Böhme. If you seek the origin of the movement itself, you will find it in Central Europe. From the West comes the organization, the division into degrees—certain Western lodges, after all, confer ninety-two degrees; just think how high one can rise—there are people with ninety-two degrees!—the use of these things in a political sense, and the introduction of certain external trappings.

[ 42 ] Here we have yet another example that is truly characteristic, and one to which I have already drawn your attention. I am describing all this solely to draw your attention to the objective reality of things, just as one describes phenomena in natural history, not out of any sense of national pride. I have brought to your attention that a book has now been published by Sir Oliver Lodge in which he recounts messages from his son, who fell on the battlefield, which he received through various mediums. The book by such an outstanding scholar will undoubtedly cause quite a stir. Now that I have received the book, I need not retract anything I told you some time ago. I did say, after all, that I would return to the subject. The strongest evidence Sir Oliver Lodge provides is as follows: séances are conducted with various mediums, and the soul of the late Raymond Lodge, who fell on the battlefield, manifests itself. The other séances really reveal nothing that anyone familiar with such matters would not already know; they would hardly have made a particular impression either. But one fact did make a strong impression on the great scholar Sir Oliver Lodge and on his entire family, who until then had been very skeptical about such things. That is, during one séance, mention was made of a group photograph in which, along with others, Oliver Lodge’s son was also pictured. This group photograph, which had apparently been taken several times in a row, was described roughly as follows: although the same people are always seen in the same location, their arrangement changes each time a new photograph is taken; thus, one always sees the same people, but with different poses. Raymond Lodge described this group photograph through the medium during the séance that took place in England. However, Sir Oliver Lodge and his family knew nothing about this photograph, for it had been taken during the final days of Raymond Lodge’s life on the Franco-Belgian front and sent by him to his relatives, but had not yet arrived. Thus, the medium described a group photograph that existed but which the family—that is, the séance participants—did not know about; they only became aware of it after it had been described by the medium.

[ 43 ] This is, of course, incredibly convincing to occult amateurs; for what else could one think when a picture—a group photograph—is described that no one present at the séance is familiar with? The family and the séance participants do not know them, nor, of course, do the mediums, since the family has not even arrived in England yet—they are still on their way. They arrived only later. And yet a very precise description is given of where Raymond Lodge is sitting, where the others are sitting, and even how he places his hand on a friend’s shoulder. What could be more convincing than this?

[ 44 ] But you see, this matter—just as Sir Oliver Lodge does—can really only be interpreted by occultists who are mere amateurs. For if Sir Oliver Lodge knew nothing special at all, but had merely examined the literature—for example, that of Schubert or similar figures who were still writing about such matters in Germany during the first half of the 19th century—he would have found numerous examples of what is well known to every true occultist: that the future can be seen even when consciousness is subdued. The simplest case of seeing into the future is when, during a somnambulistic episode, someone sees a funeral procession that will not take place for a few days; the person in question has not yet died at all, but one sees the funeral procession. This is seeing into the future. It is something quite common when consciousness is subdued. Now consider what has taken place: A photograph has been taken in Flanders; the photograph is on its way to England; the moment will come when they will have their eyes and minds fixed on it, when the relatives will be thinking of it. The medium foresees this as a vision of the future. Whether one predicts that one will see a funeral procession, or whether one predicts that this family will receive a group photo of their son in a few days—a photograph that will be such and such—this is, in essence, exactly the same phenomenon. It is simply a future event being predicted. This is a phenomenon.

[ 45 ] If one had known anything about genuine occult facts, one would not have been able to offer such an interpretation. But this entire interpretation arises precisely because occult values and occult laws are materialized—because people do not wish to participate in the development that encompasses the spiritual world through inner processes, but instead want to approach the spiritual in a laboratory-like, purely materialistic manner. It is a materialization of the spiritual that is also practiced by Sir Oliver Lodge. But this is only one example of how things stand with everything spiritual. One can already observe these things when one sees how the line of thought continues from Paracelsus to Fludd, from Jakob Böhme to Saint-Martin; there one finds materialization everywhere.

[ 46 ] And indeed, as the Anthroposophical Society, we were only able to save ourselves from materialism by emancipating ourselves from the Theosophical Society. For the impulses emanating from such associations—as I have characterized them—penetrate deeply into social life. Of course, I must ask you once again not to misunderstand me. I am not saying that this is inherent in the nature of Western peoples; but it is there, it has gained influence over the course of history, and it is certainly not without influence on the dishonesty that is now making itself felt in such a terrible way. And I feel particularly obliged to draw your attention to this insincerity, for this insincerity manifests itself in such a way that it actually always takes the form of an accusation, of blaming the other. What, after all, is the sad note from New Year’s Eve other than an accusation crafted with the same distortion of the facts, just as distorted as what I have read to you here from Mr. Archer? But one can see that people are already beginning to believe these things; they are already beginning to play their part. And once a few weeks have passed, people will have long since forgotten that, in a way that was impossible for the world to overlook, the possibility of achieving peace existed—but that this possibility was thwarted by the peripheral powers; and people in Europe will once again begin to believe that the peace offer was rejected by the Entente powers purely out of love for humanity, out of a higher sense of humanity, with the strange justification that, because one strives for peace, one must prevent it. But even such grotesque untruths are believed today. The fact that they can be believed is due to the groundwork laid by that occultism I have described to you. For, fundamentally speaking, it takes a grave corruption of the mind to write sentences side by side like the two I have cited to you—those about the black and the white raven. But this corruption of the mind arises in an atmosphere influenced by such organisms as I have described to you.

[ 47 ] In this regard as well—and this can be said objectively—there was a tendency toward emancipation in Central Europe. Everything that has been brought forth as Central European intellectual life by Lessing, Herder, Goethe, and so on—as you have seen amply from the various presentations given in the course of our anthroposophical life—is all designed to gradually develop into the spiritual world; but it is not intended to eventually reach any compromise with what lives in those Western currents that I have described to you. That is not possible. And that is why things present themselves in a different way. Let us return to Fichte—who is, after all, already reviled in the West today—and his “Addresses to the German Nation.” What is the goal Fichte has in mind? The self-education of the German people! He does not want others to be affected by his “Addresses to the German Nation”; rather, he speaks of the Germans being moved, of their improving themselves. But there is a true—let us call it “genius”—for misunderstanding precisely that which arises in Germany. Just as people have taken the harmless national anthem “Deutschland, Deutschland über alles” —which means nothing other than loving one’s fatherland, as one need only read the following lines to see that it merely lists the parts of the fatherland—into something grotesque, so one can also, if one wishes, misunderstand Fichte, for he begins his “Addresses to the German Nation” with the following words: “I speak for Germans pure and simple and of Germans pure and simple.” But why does he say that? Because Germany had disintegrated into a multitude of small, individual states, and he did not want to speak to the Prussians, the Swabians, the Saxons, or—who knows—the Oldenburgers, the Mecklenburgers, the Austrians, and so on, but to Germans. To bring these individualities together—that was what mattered to him. So it is a matter he settles with the Germans themselves. I do not wish to praise the Germans, but such things may certainly be cited as characteristic. I am led to this topic today because there really is a tendency to strike a different tone at the center than at the periphery. And if our anthroposophical cause plays a part in this different tone, then that should certainly be acknowledged among ourselves as well. Just today I received a pamphlet from our friend Ludwig von Polzer, who, after all, worked here. Ludwig von Polzer: “Reflections During the War.” You see, it’s quite interesting—whether or not one agrees in detail with what our friend Polzer says—that he doesn’t spend much time railing against or attacking others, but instead really gives his Austrian compatriots a piece of his mind. Above all, he is intent on speaking to them. Of course, by virtue of his karma, he is Austrian, but he gives his Austrian compatriots a stern talking-to. There we do not read: “We are innocent, we never did this or that, we are pure white angels and everyone else is a black devil”—but rather we read:

“Why does humanity hate and tear itself apart? Is it really external political differences of opinion that necessitate so much suffering? The warring parties think they know what is at stake, but in reality, none of them knows.

A declining, decadent culture is fighting its death throes. The Central Powers, who are fighting for the first seeds of a new culture, do not yet know what it is; they are fighting for something still unknown to them and are themselves thoroughly imbued with the very mindset against which their own soldiers are shedding blood in battle.

The degenerate old order is, as it were, to be spewed out, and that is why we see it sprouting vigorously one last time. Do we not also encounter it at every turn here at home—the mindset of the Entente, which sustains the old, decadent culture? Has it not infected us as well? — It is paraded through the streets in fashion; it is embodied in architectural style; it grins at us in advertising; it runs riot in business life; it swells in organizational madness and bureaucracy; it lies to itself in a hypocritical, self-important humanism; the press strives to outdo its Entente comrade in love of truth, and so on.

There she is, the Entente, raging and rampaging in her own country and boasting that she is working for the brave soldiers and compatriots, almost all of whom have already died as martyrs. — Everything that is sprouting so hideously here as well—hopefully for the last time before the downfall—is not German.”

[ 48 ] So whatever he has to criticize in his own country, he calls “not German.” He wants, first and foremost, to appeal to the conscience of his own countrymen. There are even more such things in this book. It is good that it has finally been published in harmony with our aspirations and in connection with them. After all, we do not need to agree with everything—sentence by sentence—that emerges among us. That, precisely, will be our greatest achievement: that we process everything independently, that we preserve our individuality, that we accept nothing on the basis of dogma or authority. The ideas that are meant to prevail are already capable of prevailing on their own merits, not by virtue of authority. But we can stand together in unity if our Society is to have meaning. This, of course, requires that we pay attention to what is happening among us, that we show a certain appreciation for those who walk with us and who strive to present to the world what is happening in our Anthroposophical Society in a way that truly reflects the intentions of our Society. It is precisely the thoughtful processing of the impulses of our time from our own perspective that we can do to help this era. We must not let our courage falter, no matter how unfavorably things may develop; for even if circumstances in the temporal realm were to become as dire as possible, we can recall Lessing’s thought: “Is not all eternity mine?”—a thought that concerns every single human being.

[ 49 ] Especially when it comes to correctly evaluating and assessing what is gaining ground among us, we should, I would say, adopt good manners. In this context, without wishing to say anything unpleasant to anyone, I might nevertheless mention one thing. Alexander von Bernus’s journal Das Reich goes to great lengths to align itself with our movement. Now, what does it matter whether one agrees with one article or another in this journal? One can certainly disagree with many things. But it is precisely in relation to this effort that many mistakes have been made on the part of our members. When one sees how insults are being hurled from all sides, one must say: it is truly not right to throw obstacles in the way of efforts that are honestly intended in the spirit of our movement. Of course, everyone was free to form their own judgment about the writings Alexander von Bernus produced in connection with certain historical occult teachings found within our ranks. However, I consider it entirely unnecessary for a flood of crass letters to pour in from our membership. For where will we end up if we treat those who stand up for us poorly, while generally paying very little attention to those who insult us—and simply let people rant?

[ 50 ] I wanted to take this opportunity to draw your attention to the journal Das Reich, which strives to promote our endeavors, because I would like to respond to the question that might be asked: “What can we do?” — These reflections were, after all, intended to provide the answer to that very question! — What can we do? We can take a sensible stance on current affairs in accordance with our anthroposophically oriented spiritual science! — For what good would this spiritual science be to us if we were truly unable to rise above the perspective of those people who, throughout Europe today, speak of national aspirations and the like, and shape events in accordance with these national aspirations? No one within the community that serves anthroposophically oriented spiritual science needs to become an unfaithful son of his people or deny anything that he should not deny, because he is bound to a certain people through his karma. But no one is truly an anthroposophist who closes their eyes to the monstrous events taking place in the present, who allows themselves to be numbed by all those anesthetics that certain rulers use today so as not to have to say what they are actually striving for. Therefore, let us point out what is easily believed when it approaches us in a sentimental form, while that which has always been concealed behind the veils of occult events—and must still be concealed there today—remains hidden behind those very veils behind which the occult events unfold.

[ 51 ] For it must be clear to us that a time may come again—and I am choosing my words very carefully today, so I say: may come—when, because there is absolutely no desire for peace, the fighting will become very cruel, perhaps even crueller than it already was, unless something happens on some side to prevent this cruelty. Then people will once again find an opportunity to talk about the atrocities in Central Europe, and the fact that they, for their part, could have prevented these atrocities if they hadn’t responded to the calls for peace like a bellowing bull will be buried in the rubble and debris. It was, after all, in the hands of the peripheral powers to bring about peace. But the time will come—and it is by no means out of the question that this time will come nonetheless—when people will once again say: “In defiance of all international law, the Germans are doing this or that.”

[ 52 ] Yes, my dear friends, to reproach someone who is surrounded and trapped—accusing them of defending themselves on all sides—after having prevented what could have stopped them from doing what they are doing—this is indeed common practice now—but one must recognize it in all its monstrosity. Therefore, alongside everything that may have happened in Belgium, for example, one must also acknowledge the fact that the British Empire could have prevented everything that happened in Belgium.

[ 53 ] Therefore, however harsh it may sound, it remains a falsehood to speak of Belgian atrocities without even considering how easily they could have been prevented by the British. And of course, it goes without saying that one sympathizes with France’s tragic fate. But France really did have the power to choose not to participate in the war.

[ 54 ] The Central Powers had no choice but to wage a futile defensive war once they realized that France would intervene under any circumstances. It is easy to say that they could simply have faced each other across the border; but that was simply not possible, because Russian-French militarism is so overwhelming compared to what is called Prussian militarism.

[ 55 ] We can resolve to face these things as they truly are, despite our affiliation with one group or the other—I do not say “must,” but “can.” And if we come to terms with this and let it become the substance of our lives, then everyone can do in their own way what they wish to do, by asking the question: What can the individual do? — If more and more people do not come to embrace the idea of mounting a united European resistance against the warlike intentions of forces operating in secret, then—yes, then—the collapse of European culture will be inevitable. Already, a will to war is roaring toward us from the East—from Japan, where an imperialism is taking shape that may prove far more powerful than that of previous empires. This will to conquest is expressed in the refrain of the new national anthem, which, echoing the English hymn “Rule Britannia,” now proclaims “Rule Nippon.” So that you may see that the European powers would have had good reason not to mock the word “peace” or the very idea of peace at this time, I would like to read to you the following hymn, which appears in Japanese newspapers:

When Nipun, at the Lord’s command
Emerges from the flood in the morning glow,
A call resounds through the vast world
From the blue canopy of the heavens:
Japan, you were born to rule,
Rise proudly with the morning sun:
I have chosen you to be the lord of this earth.
Torn apart by hatred and blind rage
Europe sinks in its own blood,
But you, pure of guilt and error,
Shall be this earth’s guardian.
You were born to rule, Japan.
Rise proudly with the morning sun!
I have chosen you to be the lord of my earth.

[ 56 ] This is how it sounds from the East. This is how the East responds to a Europe awash in blood. And yet, in Europe, there are people who want to mock the call for peace! This is a fact we cannot ponder deeply enough.