A German Advocate of War

DURING the last six months a number of books have been issued from the Press on the subject of Germany and War. One of the most striking of these is an English translation of “Germany and the Next War,” by General F. von Bernhardi. The book was first published in Germany about the end of 1911—two years and a half or so before the present war began—and it contains a remarkable forecast of what is now happening. In fact, Bernhardi manifestly wrote his book with the object of urging on the German people to prepare with a view to make war at the first favourable opportunity. He has exalted ideas of German intellect and culture, but he regards the German people as too peace-loving, and so he takes up the pen with the intention of disabusing their minds of the idea of the virtues of peace, and of imbibing them with that of the excellencies of war. Bernhardi, of course, is only one member of a school in Germany that have advocated this war philosophy, and recent events have shown that they have succeeded too well in their unholy efforts—to the probable downfall of the German Empire. It is not our intention here to follow Bernhardi through all the details and intricacies of his book. We simply purpose briefly to notice, first, the extraordinary view he entertains of war as a thing desirable; and, secondly, the subtle but erroneous arguments which he brings forward in support of his view.

First, then, let us observe Bernhardi’s extraordinary view of war.

He maintains that war is a blessing and not a curse. He is compelled here and there to acknowledge that it has some disadvantages, but these he almost wholly discounts as nothing in comparison with the great benefits. In his “Introduction” he says: “We are accustomed to regard war as a curse, and refuse to recognise it as the greatest factor in the furtherance of culture and power.” Again: “From this standpoint I must first of all examine the aspirations for peace, which seem to dominate our age, and threaten to poison the soul of the German people, according to their true moral significance. I must try to prove that war is not merely a necessary element in the life of nations, but an indispensable factor of culture, in which a true civilised nation finds the highest expression of strength and vitality.” Still again, he concludes his first chapter, entitled, “The Right of War,” with the words: “The inevitableness, the idealism, and the blessing of war, as an indispensable and stimulating law of development, must be repeatedly emphasised. The apostles of the peace idea must be confronted with Goethe’s manly words: ‘Dreams of a peaceful day? Let him dream who may! “War” is our rallying cry, onward to victory!'”

Now, it is not denied by anyone that war may be and has been overruled for moral good to nations and individuals—to vanquished as well as to victors. But it is quite un-Christian to affirm that it is an “indispensable factor” for this end. Spiritual means may accomplish it without war. It is also to be noticed that any blessing that may come through war is not due to the native effects of such conflict, but to other and higher influences that God, in His mercy, exerts over His creatures. War in itself only tends to stir up the most corrupt and violent passions of the human heart, and frequently turns men into fiends for passion and brutality. Witness “the furtherance of culture” by war on the plains of Belgium.

Bernhardi’s view of war is entirely contrary to God’s Word and alien to the spirit of Christianity. War is frequently spoken of in the Old Testament as a divine scourge or punishment for sin. He sent it as such upon His chosen people, the Jews. He made use on certain occasions of “the king of Assyria” as His sword, to execute just retribution for backsliding, but when “the king of Assyria” had done his work in this respect, he was morally no better of it, but boasted in his own strength and wisdom, and the Most High broke the sword in pieces. (Isaiah, chapter x.) The Old Testament does not speak of war after the manner of Bernhardi. Nor, assuredly, does the New Testament. “Glory to God in the highest, on earth peace and goodwill toward men,” is the motto of the Gospel dispensation. The Lord Jesus said on one occasion, “I came not to send peace but a sword”—and Bernhardi (page 29) endeavours to wrest this in favour of his policy—but it is quite apparent to anyone who studies Christ’s address as a whole that He refers to the effect of His gospel as coming in contact with human unbelief, and indirectly arousing hatred and opposition. Though we must certainly gather from the New Testament that Christ sanctioned the use of “the sword” in some circumstances, yet He never commanded His disciples to take the sword to advance the culture which His teaching brings. His command was, “Go ye and preach the gospel to every creature,” to which He added the promise of His spiritual presence and power. On one occasion He positively forbade the aggressive use of the sword by His disciples, when He said to Peter, in the matter of his smiting Malchus, the high priest’s servant, “Put up again thy sword into his place; for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword” (Matt. xxvi. 52). Righteous peace was the great blessing He came to confer on individuals and nations. His apostles re-echoed His teaching as expressed in such exhortations as these: “If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men” (Rom. xii. 18); “Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord” (Heb. xii. 13).

Secondly, let us observe some of the reasons which Bernhardi gives for his extraordinary view of war.

1. The first is based on the untenable theory of Evolution—”the law of struggle.” Bernhardi appears to be a thorough-going evolutionist. He believes in the survival of the fittest. “The law of the stronger,” he says, “holds good everywhere.” Thus he lays the principle down: “War is a biological necessity of the first importance, a regulative element in the life of mankind which cannot be dispensed with, since without it an unhealthy development will follow, which excludes any advancement of the race, and therefore all real civilisation.”

   It is perfectly plain that Bernhardi, like other Darwinians, is not a believer in Bible doctrine in general, and so he takes no account of the Fall and its consequences. He does not perceive that those elements of weakness and conflict that mark the human race, and even the lower animals, may be due to the entrance of the evil of sin at the beginning. If sin had never entered, there would have been no weakness or decay, in the human body or mind, and there would have been no malice or strife between members of the human race. War would never have existed. What fearful perversity of thought it is, therefore, to imagine that a state of disorder, which is directly due to the entrance of sin, should be a “necessity” to life “of the first importance, a regulative element in the life of mankind, which cannot be dispensed with”!

2. He justifies his view of war on the principle that “might is the supreme right.” This is a principle that has been hitherto regarded as utterly false—one that bore its condemnation on its face. But Bernhardi does not think so, nor do his German associates. He considers that if a nation is superior in learning, culture, skill, and material resources to other nations, and is capable of holding the chief place among them, she has a perfect right to take “the sword” to assert her supremacy, and thus, by the way, to convey her store of rich gifts to the other nations. In a chapter entitled, “Germany’s Historical Mission” he writes: “The dominion of German thought can only be extended under the ægis of political power, and unless we act in conformity with this idea, we shall be untrue to our great duties to the human race.” “Carnal weapons” are the grand instruments for extending “the dominion of German thought.”

3. Bernhardi endeavours to justify his view of war as a blessing and a desirable agency, by enumerating the various benefits to the individual and society that have indirectly flowed from it. In one word, he makes in a very subtle way free use of the false Jesuit doctrine that “the end justifies the means.” The Apostle Paul, speaking by the Holy Ghost, strongly condemns the idea that men are to do evil that good may come, and declares “the damnation just” of those who hold such a corrupt principle. No one denies that the Most High has over-ruled wars and the most frightful crimes for the great good of humanity, but that is no reason why we should deliberately lift the sword or commit dreadful outrage with this end in view. Everything depends upon God in Christ as to the benefit, and if He does not choose to bless, He can make war an unmitigated curse to the nations. We earnestly pray that He may, in the riches of His grace, over-rule the present tremendous conflict for the extension of His kingdom and the universal good of the world, and may hasten the day when the whole earth shall be filled with His glory.