Philip, Prince of Eulenburg

52

Philip, Prince of Eulenburg : biography

12 February 1847 – 17 September 1921

But at the same time, Eulenburg’s rejection of navalism was based on the idea that it was the wrong way to pursue German ambitions. Eulenburg wrote:"Is the purpose behind the building of a Battle Fleet the establishment of German predominance over the entire face of the earth? The destruction of British domination? If so, then the building of a Battle Fleet would indeed be necessary-but even only if there were no other means of attaining this goal".Röhl, John 1914: Delusion or Design? Elek: London, 1973 page 60. Eulenburg wrote that the best way of pursuing German power politics were "The unification of the Powers of the European Continent". Eulenburg stated that the "great Napoleon" thought the unification of all Europe under French leadership was the only way of "breaking England’s domination of the sea". Eulenburg wrote that Napoleon had failed because Russia was unwilling and because "military communications were totally inadequate at the time". By contrast, Eulenburg wrote:"Today, on the other hand, we can assume that Europe’s land armies would be just as well placed as her navies to destroy England’s world position. Indeed, it might actually be more effective to defeat the English colonial army than to attack the English fleet. Using existing railroad lines stretching from Madrid to Siberia and Persia, the nearly completed Baghdad railroad and the Cape-Cairo Railway, the English could be so seriously threatened in Asia and Africa as to make them think twice before they exploit their naval advantage in far-away places against members of the continental European coalition…Our standing German Army would become almost fantastically strong if even one quarter of the billions spent on the Navy were used to expand it, so that it would act as a tremendous magnet to the Powers of the coalition and attract and bind them to the strongest Power despite their unwillingness to lose their independence. The countries of Europe would bow to the peaceful leadership of such a mighty Germany in the same way as the federal German states bow to the leadership of a mighty Prussia".Röhl, John 1914: Delusion or Design? Elek: London, 1973 page 61. Eulenburg argued that the money saved by cutting back on the Navy would allow every German town to have an Army garrison "which would act as an ever-alert military police force against the excesses of Social Democracy". Eulenburg ended his essay by arguing that his proposals were not meant to prevent a war, but to ensure that Germany would win a war against Britain, which Eulenburg claimed was inevitable. Eulenburg ended by writing:"And why not war? We Prussians are accustomed to it. Our recent history, which is still fresh in everyone’s mind, demonstrates the advancement of the State through war and the use of force. We have not fared too badly by using these methods..Only we never pursued this course honestly.Honestly like Napoleon who never denied that he was striving for world domination! Honestly like the English who took whatever they wanted without asking. Honestly like the Russians, who added one Asiatic state after another to the Tsar’s empire without trumpeting promises of peace throughout the world before.For opportunistic reasons we have falsified history, we have written the words "German loyalty", "German truth", "the German temperament" on every street corner and have hidden our carefully laid plans for war behind them.In this sense, however, we have always remained true to ourselves, following in the footsteps of Frederick the Great who, through his troops were already on the march to Silesia, wrote to the Empress Maria Theresa that "he valued peace above all things and would not dream of beginning a war". In the footsteps of Bismarck, who managed to persuade the German people in 1870 that they have been too deeply humiliated by France not to draw the sword.So we now build dreadnoughts, and the Kaiser and his government never stop singing us their song of peace, which we must safeguard as if it were the Holy Grail.Therefore war. If we succeed – tant mieux. Then we can become pour de bon a military state and organise and rule the conquered lands with a firm military hand. Arm in order to conquer. Honestly and ruthlessly"Röhl, John 1914: Delusion or Design? Elek: London, 1973 page 62.