red and white surfaces for sign-posts in their street. How peculiarly unfortunate for the French soldiers with their red trousers that they could not avail themselves of the result of these tests!
These few instances, which could be multiplied indefinitely, will suffice to demonstrate the correctness of my contention as to the manifold benefits conferred upon industrial development by militarism.
Evidently, therefore, German militarism is not the horrible institution which the English try to make us believe it is. It suits the German people, and it has made Germany one of the most powerful and prosperous nations, and enabled her to compete successfully in commerce and industry with the richest countries in spite of the lack of almost all crude materials, the natural resources consisting only of coal, iron and potash salts. Compare this with our country, which abounds in gold, silver, copper and practically all other metals, besides furnishing cotton and petroleum to the whole world. Yet as the result of wise legislation, incredible thrift and economy, the cooperation of science and technique, and thanks to its militarism, the standing army and general conscription, Germany has reached a most enviable position among all industrial and commercial nations.
German militarism is not the arrogance of a military caste whose intrigues lead to war. To its salient features—compulsory service and the standing army—Germany owes its organized industrialism, which has made possible not only the efficient defense of home and family, but the mighty victories gained by the nation in manufacture, commerce, the arts and sciences. German militarism ultimately means progress along the whole line—law, order and justice.
