Glimpses of World History

by Jawaharlal Nehru

  All this goes to the credit side of this period when capitalistic industry was dominant. Man certainly did wonderful things during this century. And one thing more to the credit side. As greedy and grasping capitalism grew, a check to it was devised in the co-operative movement. This was a combination of people to buy or sell goods in common and divide up the profits among themselves. The ordinary capitalist way was the competitive cut-throat way where each person tried to over-reach the other. The cooperative way was based on mutual co-operation. You must have seen many co-operative stores. The co-operative movement grew greatly in Europe in the nineteenth century. Perhaps it succeeded most in the little country of Denmark.

  On the political side there was a growth of democratic ideas, and more and more people got the right to vote for their parliaments and assemblies. But this franchise, or right to vote, was limited to men, and women, however capable they might otherwise be, were not considered good or wise enough to have this right. Many women resented this, and in England a great agitation was organized by the women during the early years of the twentieth century. The woman suffrage movement this was called, and because men did not treat it seriously and paid little attention to it, the women suffragettes took to forcible and even violent methods to compel attention. They upset the business of Parliament by creating “scenes” and bodily attacked British Cabinet Ministers, so that these ministers had to be under continual police protection. Organized violence on a big scale also took place, and many women were sent to gaol, where they started hunger-striking. Thereupon they were let out, and as soon as they got well again they were put back in prison. Parliament passed a special law to permit this being done, and this was popularly called the “Cat and Mouse Act”. These methods of the suffragettes, however, were certainly successful in attracting widespread attention. A few years later, after the World War began, women’s right to the vote was recognized.

  The women’s movement, or the feminist movement as it is often called, was not confined to asking for votes. Equality with men in everything was demanded. The position of women in the West was very bad till quite recent times. They had few rights. English women could not even own property under the law, the husband took the lot, even his wife’s earnings. They were thus even worse off legally than women are today under Hindu law, and that is bad enough. Women in the West were, indeed, a subject race, as in a host of ways Indian women are now. Long before the agitation for votes began, women had demanded equal treatment with men in other respects. At length, in the ’eighties, in England they were given some rights as to owning property. Women succeeded in this partly because factory-owners favoured it; they thought that if women could keep their earnings, this would be an inducement for them to work in the factories.

  On every side we note great changes, but not so in the ways of governments. The great Powers continued to follow the methods of intrigue and deception recommended long ago by the Florentine Machiavelli, and 1800 years before him by the Indian minister, Chanakya. There was ceaseless rivalry between them, and secret treaties and alliances, and each Power was always trying to overreach the other. Europe, as we have seen, played the active and aggressive role; Asia the passive. America’s part in world politics was relatively small because of her own preoccupations.

  With the growth of nationalism the idea of “my country right or wrong” developed, and nations gloried in doing things which, in the case of individuals, were considered bad and immoral. Thus a strange contrast grew between the morality of individuals and that of nations. There was a vast difference between the two, and the very vices of individuals became the virtues of nations. Selfishness, greed, arrogance, vulgarity were considered utterly bad and intolerable in the case of individual men and women. But in the case of large groups of nations, they were praised and encouraged under the noble cloak of patriotism and love of country. Even murder and killing become praiseworthy if large groups of nations undertake it against one another. A recent author has told us, and he is perfectly right, that “civilization has become a device for delegating the vices of individuals to larger and larger communities”.

  146

  The World War Begins

  March 23, 1933

  I finished off my last letter by pointing out to you how vicious and immoral nations were when dealing with each other. They considered it a sign of their independence to adopt an offensive and intolerant attitude towards others, wherever they could afford to do this, and a dog-in-the-manger policy. There was no authority to tell them to behave, for were they not independent, and would not interference be resented? The only check on their behaviour was fear of consequences. So the strong were respected to some extent and the weak were bullied.

  This national rivalry was really an inevitable result of the growth of capitalistic industry. We have seen how an ever-growing demand for markets and raw materials made the capitalist Powers race round the world for empire. They rushed about in Asia and Africa seizing as much territory as possible in order to exploit it. Having covered the world, there was nowhere else to spread, so the imperialist Powers began glaring at each other and coveting each other’s possessions. There were frequent clashes between these great Powers in Asia and Africa and Europe, and angry passions flared up, and war seemed to hang in the balance. Some of the Powers were better off than the others, and England, with her industrial lead and vast empire, seemed to be the most fortunate of all. But even England was not satisfied, for the more one has the more one wants. Vast schemes for the extension of her empire floated in the brains of her “empire-builders”, schemes of an African empire extending without break from north to south, from Cairo to the Cape. England was also worried by the competition of Germany and the United States in industry. These countries were making manufactured goods cheaper than England, and were thus stealing England’s markets from her.

  If England the fortunate was not satisfied, the others were even more dissatisfied. And especially Germany, which had joined the great Powers rather late in the day and found all the ripe plums gone. She had made vast progress in science, education, and industry, and had at the same time built up a magnificent army. Even in social-reform legislation for her workers she was ahead of other countries, including England. Although the world was largely occupied by the other imperialist Powers when Germany came on the scene and the avenues of exploitation were limited, by sheer hard work and self-discipline she became the strongest and most efficient Power of the age of industrial capitalism. Her merchant-ships were to be seen in every port, and her own ports, Hamburg and Bremen, were among the greatest of world ports. The German mercantile marine not only carried German goods to distant countries, it captured also the carrying-trade of other countries.

  It is not surprising that this new imperial Germany with this success achieved, and fully conscious of her strength, chafed at the limitations placed on her further growth. Prussia was the leader of the German Empire, and the Prussian landlord and military class which was in power has never been known for its humility. They were aggressive and took pride in being ruthlessly so, and they found an ideal leader of this assertive and bumptious spirit in their Emperor Kaiser Wilhelm II, of the house of Hohenzollern. The Kaiser went about proclaiming that Germany was going to be the leader of the world; that she wanted a place in the sun; that her future was on the sea; that it was her mission to spread her Kultur, or culture, throughout the world.

  Europe 1914–15

  Now, all this had been said before by other people and other nations. England’s “White Man’s Burden” and France’s “Civilizing Mission” were of the same family as Germany’s Kultur. England claimed to be, and was in fact, supreme on the seas. The Kaiser said for Germany, rather crudely and bombastically, what many Englishmen had claimed for England, with this difference, that England was in possession and Germany was not. Nonetheless the Kaiser’s bombastic utterances greatly irritated the British; the idea that any other nation should even think of becoming the leading nation in the world was
extremely distasteful to them. It was a kind of heresy, an obvious attack on England, which considered herself the leading nation. As for the sea, this had been considered a preserve of England ever since Napoleon’s defeat at Trafalgar 100 years before, and to the English it seemed highly improper for Germany or any other nation to challenge this position. If Britain ceased to be strong at sea, what would become of her far-flung empire?

  The Kaiser’s challenges and threats were bad enough; what was worse was that he actually followed it up by increasing his navy. This completely upset the tempers and nerves of the British, and they also began to increase their navy. Thus a naval race began between the two, and newspapers of both countries kept up a shrieking agitation demanding more and more battleships and increasing national hatred.

  This was one danger zone in Europe. There were many others. France and Germany were, of course, old rivals, and bitter memories of the defeat of 1870 rankled in the minds of the French, who dreamed of revenge. The Balkans were always a powder-box where various interests clashed. Germany also began to make friends with Turkey with a view to developing her influence in western Asia. It was proposed to build a railway to Baghdad connecting this city with Constantinople and Europe. The proposal was an eminently desirable one, but because Germany wanted to control this Baghdad Railway, national jealousies were aroused.

  Gradually the fear of war spread in Europe and in self-defence the Powers sought alliances. The great Powers lined up in two groups: the Triple Alliance of Germany, Austria, and Italy, and the Triple Entente of England, France, and Russia. Italy was a very lukewarm member of the Triple Alliance and, as a matter of fact, in the event of war she broke her word and joined the other side. Austria was a ramshackle empire, big on the map, but full of discordant elements, with beautiful Vienna, a great centre of science and music and art, as the capital. So in effect the Triple Alliance meant Germany. But of course before the test came no one knew how Italy and Austria would shape.

  So fear reigned in Europe, and fear is a terrible thing. Each country went on preparing for war and arming itself to the uttermost. There was an armament race, and the curious part of such competition is that if one country increases its armaments the other countries are forced to do likewise. The big private firms which made armaments—that is guns, battle-ships, ammunition, and all the other material for war—naturally reaped a rich harvest and waxed fat. They went further, and actually started war-scares to induce countries to purchase more arms from them. These armament firms were very rich and powerful, and many high officials and ministers in England, France, Germany, and elsewhere held shares in them, and were thus interested in their prosperity. Prosperity to an armament firm comes with war-scares and with wars. So this was the amazing position, that ministers and officials of many governments were financially interested in war! These firms tried other ways also of promoting war expenditure by different countries. They bought up newspapers to influence public opinion, and often bribed government officials, and spread false reports to excite people. What a terrible thing is this armament industry which lives by the death of others, and which does not hesitate to encourage and bring about the horrors of war so that it may make profit out of it! This industry helped to some extent to hasten the war of 1914. Even today it is playing the same game.

  In the midst of this talk of war I must tell you of a curious attempt at peace. The Tsar Nicholas II of Russia, of all persons, suggested to the Powers that they should meet together to bring about an era of universal peace. This was the Tsar who was crushing every liberal movement in his empire and peopling Siberia with his convicts! It seems almost a joke that he should talk of peace. But probably he was honest about it, for peace to him meant a perpetuation of existing conditions and his own autocracy. In response to his invitation, two Peace Conferences were held at the Hague in Holland in 1899 and 1907. Nothing of the least importance was done there. Peace cannot suddenly descend from the heavens. It can only come when the root-causes of trouble are removed.

  I have told you a great deal about the rivalries and fears of the great Powers. The poor small nations are ignored, except those that misbehave. In the north of Europe there are some small countries which deserve attention because they are so very different from the greedy and grasping great Powers. There are Norway and Sweden in Scandinavia and Denmark just below them. These countries are not far from the Arctic regions; they are cold and hard to live in. They can support only a small population. But because they are outside the great Power circle of hatred and jealousy and rivalry, they live a peaceful life and spend their energies in civilized ways. Science flourishes there and fine literatures have grown. Norway and Sweden were joined together and formed one State till 1905. In that year Norway decided to break away and carry on a separate existence. So the two countries decided peacefully to break their bonds, and since then they have been separate independent States. There was no war or attempt to compel one country by another, and both continued to live as friendly neighbours.

  Little Denmark has set an example to the big countries and small by abolishing her army and navy. It is a peasant nation, a country of small farmers, where the difference between rich and poor is not much. This equalization is largely due to the great development of the co-operative movement there.

  But all the small countries of Europe are not paragons of virtue like Denmark. Holland, small itself, still holds sway over a large empire in the East Indies (Java, Sumatra, etc.). Next to it, Belgium exploits the Congo in Africa. Its real importance in European politics, however, comes from its position. It is almost on the highway between France and Germany, and in any war between these countries it is almost sure to be dragged in. Waterloo, you will remember, is near Brussels in Belgium. For this reason Belgium used to be called the “cockpit of Europe”. The principal great Powers came to an agreement to respect the neutrality of Belgium in case of war, but, as we shall see, when war did come this agreement and promise went to pieces.

  But the most troublesome of all small countries in Europe or elsewhere are in the Balkans. This hotch-potch of peoples and races, with generations of animosity and rivalry behind them, is full of mutual hatred and conflict. The Balkan Wars of 1912 and 1913 were extraordinarily bloody, and in a short time and within a short area there were enormous losses. The Bulgarians are said to have committed horrible atrocities on the refugee and retreating Turks. The Turks themselves had a very bad record in earlier years. Serbia (now a part of Yugoslavia) developed a most sinister reputation for assassination. A secret murder gang of so-called patriots, named the “Black Hand,” and including among its members many high officials of the State, was responsible for a bunch of peculiarly horrible murders. The King and Queen of the country, King Alexander and Queen Draga, together with the Queen’s brothers, the Prime Minister and some others, were all murdered in a disgusting manner. This was just a palace revolution and another person was made king.

  So the twentieth century opened with thunder and lightning in the air of Europe, and as year succeeded year, the weather grew stormier. Complications and entanglements grew, and the life of Europe was tied up more and more in knots—knots which were to be cut ultimately by war. All the Powers expected war to come and prepared for it feverishly, and yet perhaps none of them was keen on it. They all feared it to some extent, for no one could prophesy with certainty what the result of war would be. And yet fear itself drove them on to war. As I have told you, the two sides in Europe lined up against each other. “The balance of power” it was called, a very delicate balance which a little push could throw over. Japan, although far away from Europe, and not much interested in its local problems, was also a party to its alliances and this balance of power. For Japan was England’s ally. This alliance was meant to protect English interests in the East, and especially in India. It had been made in the days of Anglo-Russian rivalry, and still continued, although England and Russia were now on the same side. America was the only great Power which held aloof from this European sys
tem of alliances and balances.

  So matters stood in 1914. You will remember that at this time England was having a lot of trouble in Ireland over the Home Rule Bill. Ulster was rebelling, volunteers were drilling in the north and in the south, and there was talk of civil war in Ireland. It is very likely that the German Government thought that the Irish trouble would keep England busy and that she would not interfere if a European war took place. The English Government was, as a matter of fact, privately committed to joining France in case of war, but this was not publicly known.

  June 28, 1914—that was the date on which the spark was lighted which kindled the blaze. The Archduke Francis Ferdinand was the heir to the Austrian throne. He went to visit Sarajevo, the capital of Bosnia in the Balkans. This Bosnia, as I have told you, had been annexed by Austria a few years earlier when the Young Turks were trying to get rid of their sultan. As the Archduke, with his wife sitting by him in an open carriage, was going along the streets of Sarajevo, he was shot at and both he and his wife were killed. The government and people of Austria were in a rage and accused the Serbian Government (Serbia was the neighbour of Bosnia) of complicity in this crime. The Serbian Government of course denied this. Inquiries made long afterwards have gone to show that the Serbian Government, though not responsible for the murder, was not wholly ignorant of the preparations made for it. The responsibility for the murder must largely rest, however, with the Serbian “Black Hand” organization.

  The Austrian Government, partly through anger and largely through policy, took up a very aggressive attitude towards Serbia. It had evidently decided to humble Serbia for good, and relied on the powerful help of Germany in case of a bigger war. So Serbian apologies were not accepted, and on July 23, 1914, Austria sent a final ultimatum to Serbia. Five days later, on July 28, Austria declared war on Serbia.