New York Times Current History The European War, Vol 1, No. 1 Part 39

_Theodore Niemeyer, Kaiser Wilhelm Exchange Professor at Columbia University for 1914-15, and well-known Professor of Kiel University, has addressed the following letter to the editor of The New Yorker Staats-Zeitung._

KIEL, 14th August, 1914.

_To the Editor of the New Yorker Staats-Zeitung_:

Dear Sir: English papers publish a telegram from Mr. Andrew Carnegie, in which the view is expressed that the German Emperor, "in declining to take part In the peace conference proposed by Sir Edward Grey, an advocate of peace," proved unfaithful to that love of peace which he has shown during the past twenty-five years--that he, on the contrary, has taken up the role of a disturber of the peace of Europe.

To the best of my knowledge, the German press has only referred to this telegram with the simple remark that intelligence of the real state of affairs has evidently not yet reached the ears of the sender of the telegram.

This att.i.tude of the German press is in conformity with its firm consciousness of the justice of its cause and its confidence in the ultimate triumph of truth. Both in this consciousness and in this confidence I will not be surpa.s.sed by any one, but to observe silence in the face of such accusations is beyond my power. To allow such a misconstruction to pa.s.s unchallenged through the world seems to me (and doubtless to many thousands besides me) unbearable.

The misunderstanding about the Peace Conference is easily put right. Sir Edward Grey did not propose any peace conference at all, but a conference of the Amba.s.sadors of those four powers which were at that time not directly concerned, namely Germany, England, France, and Italy.

These powers were to attempt to exert their influence on Austria-Hungary and Russia in the same way as the Amba.s.sador's Conference (or rather Amba.s.sadorial Reunion) in London had done, in 1912 and 1913, on the Balkan States and Turkey. What the united six powers at that time undertook toward the Balkan States was now to be done by four--discordant--powers upon two others who are in a state of highest political tension. To this proposal Germany replied that the apparatus of an Amba.s.sadorial Conference does not work quickly or effectually enough for the emergency of the moment, or to be able to ease the tense political situation.

*The Kaiser's Efforts.*

In place of this, however, the German Emperor undertook to negotiate in person with the Russian and Austrian monarch and was overwhelmed with grief when the leaders of Muscovite policy frustrated all his exertions by completely ignoring his efforts for peace, (made at the express desire of the Czar,) and then in real earnest ama.s.sing Russian forces on the German frontier, evidently resolved to force on a war under any circ.u.mstances--even against the will of the Czar.

It is here that the clue to all the terrible events of the present day is to be found.

The incessant intriguing of the Russian military party for many years past has at last succeeded in drawing first France and then England to their cause, by turning the mistrust, the dread of compet.i.tion, the hopes of revenge, and the ever-increasing armaments to their use with incomparable skill. The task was facilitated by Germany's industrial up-growth, which--in willful misconstruction of the truths of the laws of international communities--has been represented as a calamity for other States.

*England's Growing Friends.h.i.+p.*

In quite recent times people in England began to recognize this misconstruction of facts as such. They began to understand that friends.h.i.+p with Germany might be a blessing and that in this way peace would be possible. This, however, meant the possibility of the Muscovite policy being completely frustrated. An Anglo-German understanding seemed already to be shaking the very foundations of the Triple Entente. Russia had been obliged during the two Balkan wars (the London Amba.s.sadorial Conference was in fact the clearing house for this) to make important concessions to the detriment of her proteges, Servia and Montenegro, in order to retain the friends.h.i.+p of England, which ardently strove for peace. Now, however, it was highest time for Russia to pocket her gains; for the English people were slowly beginning to realize that in St.

Petersburg they were trying to engage England in the cause of Pan-Slavism. The unnatural alliance was becoming more and more unpopular from day to day. How long would it be before Russia lost England's help forever?

Before this took place Russia must bring about a European war. The iron, which had been prepared with the help of the English military party, had to be forged, for never again would there be a moment so favorable for the complete destruction of Austria and the humiliation of Germany.

Servia was thrust to the front. Russia's Amba.s.sador managed that wonderfully. The fire was set in so skillful a manner that the incendiaries knew in advance there was no possibility of extinguis.h.i.+ng it. The conflagration must spread and soon blaze in all corners of Europe.

What was the use of a Peace Conference in such circ.u.mstances? Conscious of the irresistible consequences of their action the real rulers of Russia sent forward their armies; it was now or never, if the work was to be done with the help of England. And without England perhaps even France would not consent to join.

Thus it came about, and thus we have seen the peaceful policy of the German Emperor, which he has upheld for twenty-five years, completely wrecked.

We are now fighting not only for our Fatherland, but also for the emanc.i.p.ation of our culture from a menace that has become insupportable.

Yours faithfully,

TH. NIEMEYER,

Kaiser Wilhelm Professor, Columbia University.

*Comment by Dr. Max Walter*

To the letter addressed by Prof. Th. Niemeyer to the editor of The New Yorker Staats-Zeitung (see No. 237, 3, 2, of Frankfurter Zeitung) I should like to add the following remarks: During my activity as Professor of the Methodics of Foreign Language Teaching at Teachers College, Columbia University, New York, (January-June, 1911,) I was introduced to Mr. Andrew Carnegie, with whom I had a long interview. He expressed his views upon the peace question and arbitration, and spoke for a long time about the German Emperor who had repeatedly received him during his visits to Germany. He expressed his great appreciation of the important services rendered by our Emperor for the maintenance of peace, and declared that he, above all others, deserved the t.i.tle of the Peace-loving Monarch, (Friedensfurst.) To him it was chiefly due that, during the various crises which had repeatedly brought Europe to the brink of war, the disaster had again and again been averted. The German Emperor, he considered, looked upon it as his chief pride that no war should take place during his reign, that Germany should develop and prosper in peaceful emulation with other countries, and his greatest desire was that other nations should recognize ungrudgingly that all Germany did to raise the moral and ethical standard of mankind was for the benefit of all.

If now Carnegie has really declared, as this letter maintains, that he considers the German Emperor the "Disturber of Peace," it shows clearly how baleful the influence of the English press has been--that it could shake such a firm conviction in our Emperor's love of peace. Let us hope that this letter of Prof. Niemeyer's and other explanations to the same effect will induce him to recognize the horrible misrepresentations of English papers and to return to his former conviction.

It was on this occasion, too, that Andrew Carnegie indorsed Prof.

Burgess's view, that the three nations--America, Germany, and England--should unite, and then they would be able to keep the peace of the world. When I expressed my doubts in the real friends.h.i.+p of England, he replied, then America and Germany, at least, must hold together to secure universal peace. Hitherto I have refrained from publis.h.i.+ng this interview, but now I consider it my duty to make known the views that Carnegie once held, and to which, if he has really changed them, we may hope he, who has done so much in his n.o.ble striving after peace, will return right away.

If there should remain the least doubt in Mr. Andrew Carnegie's mind, he has only to read the telegrams exchanged between the Emperor William and the Czar on the one hand, and King George and the Emperor on the other.