The material increase in power which accrued to Frederick’s country by the acquisition of Silesia is not to be underestimated.  But far more important was the circumstance that this country could not be conquered by the strongest European coalition, and that it vindicated its position as the home of unfettered intellectual and religious development.  It was war which laid the foundations of Prussia’s power, which amassed a heritage of glory and honour that can never be again disputed.  War forged that Prussia, hard as steel, on which the New Germany could grow up as a mighty European State and a World Power of the future.  Here once more war showed its creative power, and if we learn the lessons of history we shall see the same result again and again.

If we sum up our arguments, we shall see that, from the most opposite aspects, the efforts directed towards the abolition of war must not only be termed foolish, but absolutely immoral, and must be stigmatized as unworthy of the human race.  To what does the whole question amount?  It is proposed to deprive men of the right and the possibility to sacrifice their highest material possessions, their physical life, for ideals, and thus to realize the highest moral unselfishness.  It is proposed to obviate the great quarrels between nations and States by Courts of Arbitration—­that is, by arrangements.  A one-sided, restricted, formal law is to be established in the place of the decisions of history.  The weak nation is to have the same right to live as the powerful and vigorous nation.  The whole idea represents a presumptuous encroachment on the natural laws of development, which can only lead to the most disastrous consequences for humanity generally.

With the cessation of the unrestricted competition, whose ultimate appeal is to arms, all real progress would soon be checked, and a moral and intellectual stagnation would ensue which must end in degeneration.  So, too, when men lose the capacity of gladly sacrificing the highest material blessings—­life, health, property, and comfort—­for ideals; for the maintenance of national character and political independence; for the expansion of sovereignty and territory in the interests of the national welfare; for a definite influence in the concert of nations according to the scale of their importance in civilization; for intellectual freedom from dogmatic and political compulsion; for the honour of the flag as typical of their own worth—­then progressive development is broken off, decadence is inevitable, and ruin at home and abroad is only a question of time.  History speaks with no uncertain voice on this subject.  It shows that valour is a necessary condition of progress.  Where with growing civilization and increasing material prosperity war ceases, military efficiency diminishes, and the resolution to maintain independence under all circumstances fails, there the nations are approaching their downfall, and cannot hold their own politically or racially.