Bulow on the policies of war and peace

I entirely agree with Your Imperial and Royal Highness that it is inadvisable too frequently to express one’s love of peace, since this gives others too great a feeling of self-assurance. I too am convinced that, if a case involves one’s country’s honor, it is necessary to strike, coute que coute, and whatever the chances may seem to be. But, unless our honor is engaged, we should always ask ourselves what is to be expected from a war. No war in Europe can bring us much. There would be nothing for us to gain in the conquest of any fresh Slav or French territory.44 If we annex small countries to the Empire we shall only strengthen those centrifugal elements which, alas, are never wanting in Germany…. In 1866 and 1870 there was a great prize to be won. Today that is no longer the case. Above all, we ought never to forget that nowadays no war can be declared unless a whole people is convinced that such a war is necessary and just. A war, lightly provoked, even if it were fought successfully, would have a bad effect on the country; while if it ended in defeat, it might entail the fall of the dynasty. History shows us that every great war is followed by a period of liberalism, since a people demands compensation for the sacrifices and effort war has entailed. But any war which ends in a defeat obliges the dynasty that declared it to make concessions which before would have seemed unheard of…. Bulow, response to the Crown Prince in relation to statements made about peace and war. Quoted by David E. Kaiser, Germany and the Origins of the First World War. Source: The Journal of Modern History, Vol. 55, No. 3 (Sep., 1983), pp. 442-474