LITERATURE.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 18198, 19 March 1921, Page 2

LITERATURE.

THREE TYPES OF MIND.* BERNHARDI, lALFOUE, AND LORD . FREDERICK HAMILTON. By Constant Reader. The future, the present, and the past arc all typified in three recently-published volumes. General Yon Bernhardi discourses bn “The War of the Future”; Mr E. T. Raymond takes for a subject “Mr Balfour,” and draws a picture of present-day politics; while Lord Frederick Hamilton, in “The Days Before Yesterday,” recreates the world of a not very remote past. Whether Von Bernhardi , can be accepted as the voice of modern Germany or whether he is only the mouthpiece of a small military clique: whether Mr Balfour represents British_ politics, and whether Mr Raymond is qualified to paint his portrait; whether Lord Frederick Hamilton’s gallery of word pictures reflects only a limited view of life, or whether the personages of whom he tells were actually the leaders of the Empire,—these and a dozen other like questions bristle_ with controversy. The three books being taken, however, for what they are worth, a certain amount of interesting information may be extracted from their pages, especially as they reveal three distinct and different; types of mind. I.—THE MILITARY MIND. The military mind is by no means confined to Germany. It may be found in Ireland; among the Bolshevists in Russia; m France; and oven in New Zealand; but it has reached its pre-eminence in Germany, and probably has no more outstanding representative than General Von Bernhardi. Speaking in the House of Commons on the Gorman Reparation Receiving Bill, Mr Austen Chamberlain is reported to have said: “The attitude of the Germans appeared to bte that as soon as they were strong enough they would regard the Versailles Treaty as a scrap of paper, and would tear it up.” From New York comes an announcement of the discovery by the United States Chemical Warfare Service ot a liquid poison so strong that three drops will kill any person whose skin is touched. The. liquid can be made to fall like rain from airplanes, and will kill everything in its path. An attempt is now being made to invent clothing rendering the wearer im. pervious to this liquid poison. These two statements serve to make Bernhardi’s_ book of supreme importance'. It has been issued in English—according to the publisher’s announcement —“in the hope that it may draw attention to what is still a living danger, and so help in some measure to prevent that blind complacency which was largely responsible for so great a disaster as the late war.” The reality of that danger may best bo expressed in Bernhardi’s own words; There is a certain beautiful • dream of nations living in peace side _ by side, voluntarily imposing restraints upon themselves and recognising their obligation to have regard for the just needs and wishes of other Statps. It is a dream in which the peoples which are _ morally and intellectually the strongest will be m a position to assert themselves as the arbiters of culture, even though such a thing is impossible without a more or less autocratic authority, which is incompatible with equal rights. But it is none the less a dream only. As long as men remain men, force in _ its widest sense will determine the political and cultural importance of States. In the last resort it is the foundation ot all intellectual and moral progress. Bernhardi is careful to explain that his book and its conclusions are “entirely the product of the war,” and that was written either during the actual fighting or shortly after the armistice. Its immediate purpose was “to give all officers who were not in a position to see the war from a central point a survey of the nature of modern war; to present them with a frame into which they could fit, their special knowledge.” In addition Bernhardi proposed to suggest to the Germain officers generally the principles on which the future development of the German army should be based. Regretfully he admits _ "that purpose has now become utterly vain,” for the following reasons: — A large proportion of our' magnificent Corps of. Officers lies on the battlefield; another part has been compelled to give up the splendid profession by wounds or disease; the rest has been dissolved side by side with the Army, and is trying to pick up a precarious livelihood m other walks of lit©. 'Thus the number of my readers in that circle can be but small. But that is not all. There is no longer a German Army, for the few men we are allowed to keep after the Peace Treaty cannot be considered as such. Our colonies are a thing of the past. Our fleet is at the bottom of the sea. It would be sheer madness to think of preparing for war now, even if only in theory; for it is impossible for us to make war. It would be a crime to hanker after war now when peace has just been concluded, and it is the duty of us all to work for the economic recovery of our people. Moreover, qur present Government is doing everything to eliminate war from international intercourse, and there can be no doubt that the success of this attempt will be very welcome so long as tho interests and honour of the German nation can thereby be preserved. Whether this ambition will actually succeed is another question. I do not think so unless Germany submits blindly to the will of the hostile States around her, or human nature entirely changes. But no obstacles should be placed in the way of this effort; it should proceed in the most favourable conditions possible, and in those circumstances it would be a mistake to hint at a coining war. Yet in. the concluding chapter Bernhardi says:—“l know that for the moment we are utterly at the mercy of our enemies, and that we are absolutely unable to create a real army after our present Government has handed us over, tied and bound, to the power of our enemies. I also appreciate that the present interests of our enemies require that we should be helpless for as long as possible. But I know, .also, that a nation of 70 millions, a number which can be. appreciably increased when GermanAustria joins us, cannot be oppressed for ever or reduced to the status of. a race of slaves. I know that there will be changes in the political sphere also, that there will come a moment—and that soon—when we shall be needed on one side or the other, and that this moment will be favourable for our resurrection. I cherish an unshakable confidence that our nation, which at the moment seems to be sunk in self-seek-ing, wifi return to its manhood, _ and _ a chastened and ennobled people will arise, who can prove themselves worthy of their great ancestors, and even look on war as it really is.” Tho words with which Bernhardi and his book are significant i . the extreme, “ Germany,” he exclaims, “ will rise again. She has a great future before her!” While it is true that a large part of this volume is of interest only as a manual of military tactics and technics, there is much in its pages which cannot fail to impress the general reader. “The days of the small State which protected itself with fortifications are over,” declares Bernhardi. “From the military point of view it can only exist if associated with some great State, and political circumstances alone can protect its neutrality. A Belgium is only possible if bound by the closest ties to one of its great neighbours, and Holland, Switzerland, and Poland will not survive after their larger and more powerful neighbours have ceased to have an interest in'their continual existence.” Bernhardi insists that war cannot be won by pure defence. “A defensive victory,” he writes, “is never anything but a half victory, and the hope that the enemy can be forced to make peace by attrition—i.e., the exhaustion of her forces—is in its nature a snare and a delusion. . . . Thus in all circumstances the offensive is the inevitable preliminary to a victorious decision in war.” Bernhardi stoutly adheres to tho idea that in August, 1914, Germany suddenly and unexpectedly found herself faced with war. His comments under this head are certainly illuminating: • Wars like those waged in modern times are not fought with weapons alone, for polities, and especially economics, play a far greater part than in the wars of bygone days. Of course, the influence of politics made itself felt even in earlier times, and economies also lad an indirect effect. To-day, however, these two factors are consciously employed as direct weapons. This was certainly the case with our enemies; not with us, unhappily. The enemy not only tried to

* (1) “ The War of the Future, in the Light of the Lessons of the World Wnr.” By General Von Bernhardi. Translated by F. A. Holt, 0.8. E. London: Hutchinson and Co. Dunedin: Whitcombe and Tombs. (16s net.) (2) “Mr Balfour: A Biography.” By I'. T. Baymond. London: W. Colline, Sons, and Co. Dunedin: Whitoombe and Tombs. (12s 6d net.) (3) “ The Days Before Yesterday.” By Lord Frederic Hamilton. London: Hoddc! 1 and Stoughton. Dunedin: Whitoombe and Tonjbe. (12s 8d net.) '

starve us o.tl, but !of! r- sterc unturned to bring new eneni t ‘ i il. t ic field against us. To all appearances v, e let this go on for years without making the slightest effort to meet it. If we knew what was coming our policy must be judged even more harshiy. In any case we allowed ourselves to bo completely hoodwinked. We looked on quietly while Italy was being out iced away from us. We did not take it amiss that England, France, and Russia entered into an alliance against us, and drew North America on to the , side ot our enemies. We completely overestimated the stability of the Triple Alliance, the ■ internal cohesion of Austria, and the capacity for resistance of Turkey and Bulgaria. We did nothing before the war to strengthen these last two States. Without bothering ourselves with what was going on among other nations, or even noticing their feverish activity, we quietly pursued our peace policy in the firm belief—for which there was no justification—that we should succeed .in coming to a friendly arrangement with England and thus secure the peace of Europe. We never thought of America at all at first. By conceding point after point we allowed our enemies to believe in our weakness, and thus simply provoked war instead of averting it. When we had a chance of malting peace with Russia before the Russian revolution broke out, wc declined lo do so, completely •miscalculating our chances of victory. Thus, in the judgment of history, we shall have the glory of having pursued an absolutely honourable policy and carried out the ethical teaching of Christianity. In the political sphere, however, we have been outrageously deceived. Even in matters of domestic policy we hopelessly miscalculated. We despised the inevitable progress, and credited the German nation with a capacity for resistance which, in fact, it never possessed. Right up to the last we underestimated the revolutionary elements which were at work among the people. Then we stumbled into war without any political preparation at all. Bismarck would have turned in his grave if he could have seen such a lack of proper precautions. Our political action was distinguished by an unprecedented poverty of ideas. From the economic point of view, also, wo a’eted equally thoughtlessly. We made no sort of, preparation for the coming war. We never gave our ships in foreign seas timely warning that war was imminent, and, of course, we did nothing so obvious as to hoard supplies and enable our agriculture to make the necessary arrangements! From this point of view we were hopelessly surprised. Bernhardi is convinced that in time if war “military and political direction should be in one han'd, and for that purpose military and political functions should be combined in one person.” He extols Frederick the Groat as one who “knew how to reconcile the political ancf military influences in the conduct of war in the most wonderful way.” Moreover, he distinctly foreshadows a time when Germany will again engage in another great war —witness the following extract from a chapter on “The Battle” : It is a great mistake, though unfortunately made only too often, to regard the last war as being the one' and only war and therefore to' imagine that the next one nui'll be always on the model of the past. In the case of the World War this Is a double mistake, for it is certain that we have just opened a new world period, and this for two reasons. In the first place the last war obviously represents the beginning of a new evolution; it is a war of development, not the last chap, ter of a historical period which has ended. We must therefore assume that many of its phenomena will undergo very material changes before they attain a certain degree ot permanence, and that the war of. the future will take forms different to any which we have known from past experience. In the second place, it must be remembered that the last war was fought under conditions which it is improbable will ever recur. Germany and Austria stood alone against a world in arms. Thanks to our mistakes of policy, ajl the States, whose power made them serious opponents combined against us, and even savage races found themselves in the enemy’s ranks. We defeated them all, until at length we succumbed to our 'own nation, and the revolution put an end to the war. We were cut off from all maritime communications, surrounded by enemies on all sides, and ~our allies bore the germ of defeat within them. The result of all this was that the war was not concluded in a military sense, but brought to an end by political occurrences. These circumstances are not in the least likely to recur. We shall have a different alliance policy, and therefore occupy a different position in the world. This is not the place to discuss the political prospects which are opening for us as the result of the present situation. But qur inter national position will no doubt undergo a change. We must find allies on which wo can rely, and, above all, make ourselves so strong that we can hold our own and win the confidence of our neighbours, In future it is highly improbable that we shall see another combination of all the Powers against us and the utter collapse of our weak allies. If there is another war—and wars will never be altogether avoided, in spite of all socialistic theories —it will be under different circumstances from those of the World War. lI.—THE PHILOSOPHIC MIND. Eighteen years ago there was published a clever political skit entitled “Lost in Blunderland,” being “The Further Adventures of Clara,” by “Caroline Lewis,” in which “Alice in Wonderland”—Lewis Oar roll’s letterpress and Tenniel’s illustrations combined being taken as the model, Mr Arthur James Balfour’s political adventures were smartly satirised. In 1903, it may be remembered, Mr Balfour was Prime Minister. He had succeeded to that high _ office on the resignation of Lord Salisbury in the previous year, and tariff reform, raised by the fiscal proposals of Mr Chamberlain, was very much in the air. The last chapter of “Lost in Blunderland” describes the Imperial Picnic to which Clara was bidden by the Red Queen, whose manners, however, scarcely satisfied Clara. “There’s a Brummagem something about her after all,” Clara said to herself. There follows a delightful passage which is apropos of events to-day: “But all the time,” said the Queen to Clara, “you’re getting nothing. Let me introduce you to this beautiful Leg of New Zealand Mutton.” “I’d much rather not, if you don’t mind,” said Clara (here.the sound of the drums became almost deafening). “It looks so tough, you know.” . But the Queen only growled: “Clara— Mutton. Mutton—Clara,” “ Oh,” said Clara, “ this is so, Seddon.” However the Leg of Mutton was before her, and she thought they would get nothing to eat if things went on as they wore doing, so she determined to out the Mutton whatever happened. No sooner, however, did she try than the Mutton got up in the dish and glared at her in a way that was positively terrifying. “I have sent,” said the Mutton, in a . oive of the deepest reproach, “a fifth and a sixth contingent, and I was.ready to send a tenth. Ana now" you want to cut me in favour of that Argentine rub bish.” Clara could only gasp, for the sound of the drums was getting so near that she could hardly manage to think. “You may have your knife into me,” went on the Mutton, “but you can’t cut me” ; and the Queen said, “Really, Clara. I’m surprised at you. You’re enougn to spoil anything.” The “Clara” of “Lost in Blunderland,” also known as “Pretty Fanny” in the Cambridge days, when he endeavoured to live up to his blue china, !s the subject of the book called “Mr Balfour,” the work of Mr E. T. Raymond, of “Uncensored Celebrities” lame. In July next Arthur James Balfour will be 73 years of age, and seeing that he entered Parliament in 1874 as member for the borough of Ilerttord, h» forms a link between the politics of the past and the politics of the present, bridging , that significant period when the impetuous ad vaneo of an aggressive Liberalism was held in check by the cautious cynical Conserva tism of which he is so eminent a type. Combined with this innate conservatism is the power of a personality controlled by the Philosophic mind. Mr Raymond quotes ,ord Morley’s comparison of Mr Balfour with Halifax the TWtnraer. as portrayed by Macaulay, to which he appends the comments ot the historian on Halifax’s defects as a man of business: That very fertility, that very acuteness, which gave a singular cnarm to his conversation, to his oratory, and to his writ ings, unfitted him for the work of promptly deciding difficult questions. H© was slow from very quickness. For he saw so many arguments for and against every possible course that he was longer in making up his mind than a dull man would have been. Instead of acquiescing in his first thoughts, he replied <sn himself, rejoined on himself, and surrejoined

on himself. Those who heard him owned that he talked' like an angel; but too often, when he had exhausted all that could be said, and came to act, the time for action had passed. It does not appear that Mr Raymond has any special qualifications for the task of biographer of Mr Balfour, other than the vivacious style and grasp of the essential art of literary portraiture so brilliantly ,di« played in “Uncensored Celebrities” and “All and Sundry.” . That is to say, Mr Raymond has no first-hand acquaintance with his subject. Indeed, he acknowledges his indebtedness for essential facts to Mr Aldereon’s “Life” of Mr Balfour and to ’Mr, Holland’s “Life of the Duke of Devonshire.” He also quotes freely from the second volume of the “Diaries” of Mi* Wilfrid Soarwen Blunt, and had tho publication of his book been delayed he would doubtless have had recourse to the “Autobiography” of Mrs Asquith. Thus the first value of Mr Raymond’s biography is as a comprehensive epitome of English political , progress during a period when world-wide revolution was slowly, but surely, giving way to world-wide reaction. _ “The men who grew up between the fifties and tho eighties,” writes Mr Raymond, _ “were mainly a disillusioned race, lacking in positive faith and scarcely capable of a decisive negative. Their attitude in all that commanded the respect of an generation, from the whiskers of John Bright to the economies of Oobden, was an acquiescence without homage; they had neither energy to oppose nor to admire; all they could offer was a dubious and unconvinced conformity . . i. Of this languid scepticism and exhausted acquiescence Mr Balfour was very fairly representative; and his early temper, persisting throughout life, explains much in his career/” It is an instructive study to. follow Mr Raymond as he traces the stages of that upward career from the time, in 1878, when Mr Balfour became private secretary to Lord Salisbury, then Minister for Foreign Affairs, past his membership of the “Fourth Party,” on to the presidency of the Local Government Board, the secretaryships for Scotland and Ireland, and to the offices of First Lord of the Treasury and leader of the House of Commons, and subsequently that of Prime Minister. Then came the resignation of office in December, 1905, and the overwhelming defeat of 1906 j and the Opposetion leadership of the following -five years, until he was succeeded by Mr Bonar Law, whose retirement from the Ministry by reason of ill-health is just announced. Mr Balfour joined Mr Asquith’s Coalition Government in 1915 as First Lord of the Admiralty, and afterwards became Foreign Secretary in Mr Lloyd George s Government, which office he resigned _to become Lord President of thd Council ;.n_ October, 1919. The fleeting nature, of political reputations is sadly shown in the closing chapters of Mr Balfour’s career. In October, 1918 he left London for France in company with Mr Lloyd George. Mr Raymond SayS For some months afterwards he was much in Paris and at Versailles, but the history of his part in ' the Peace Conference must remain unwritten. Perhaps there was no history; perhaps there was much. Only those who know can say. The surface facts are that in all the great matters Mr Lloyd George took not only the leading, but the only, role; while that part of the peace which concerned the League of Nations was made' a sideshow, and left to Mr Balfour’s kinsman and former subordinate, Lord Robert Cecil. Mr Balfour himself occasionally flits across the kineniatograph film as a picturesque figure. He joined the best ' fawn tennis club in Pans, was frequently photographed in a soft hat, and displayed an amiable interest in Zionism m har- • mony with his famous declaration for a Jewish Palestine under British protection. Once ho emerged in full official dignity; as chief British delegate he signed, m the Prime Minister’s absence, the treaty •with Austria at St. Germain. When_ the German representatives spoke at Versailles, he was observed to yawn. It was the action of a man certainly tired, perhaps bored, possibly disappointed “I am more or* less happy, Mr Balfour once, said, “when being praised; not very uncomfortable when being abused; but I have moments of uneasiness when being explained.” With such warning it would be inhuman, to enter into surmise on this last plea of his statesmanlike activities, to theorise as to the advice he may have offered behind the scenes, or to speculate as to those parts of the Treaty which were his handiwork. It bears no internal evidence of that expanded intelligence, that large knowledge of European Questions, that considerable grasp of political principle which, whatever his oeficienoes as'a social theorist, were certainly Mr Balfour’s as a European statesman. As a neace plenipotentiary, his light was so successfully hidden that the delegates ' of Liberia and Siam were by comparison world figures. It was chiefly the enterprise of tho photographer that reminded the British people that he was in Pans at all Some months after the last scene at Versailles Mr Balfour left the Foreign Office Lord Curzon, whom he had encouraged and promoted as a young man whom as Indian Viceroy he had supported in the difference with Lord Kitchener, and v-ith whom in suite of political differences, h© had steadily maintained relations of cordial friendship, took his place. A few months after this change the Prime Minister happened to want to refer to Mr- Balfour, and had some difficulty in remembering that he had accepted the position of Lord President of the Council! So passes the glory of the world of Westminster. (To be continued.)