Eugen von Philippovich, Deutschland und der Weltkrieg (1915)

Eugen von Philippovich’s review examines the wartime volume edited by Otto Hintze, Friedrich Meinecke, Hermann Oncken, and Hermann Schuhmacher. Following its five divisions, he moves from Germany’s institutions and economy to its allies, adversaries, and the diplomatic and moral interpretation of the war. His approving exposition also constitutes a political intervention: military organization, economic development, and cultural achievement become mutually reinforcing grounds for defending German power.

The opening discussion connects Germany’s geographical vulnerability with its political institutions. In Hintze’s interpretation, a strong monarchy and military cohesion answer the pressures of the European state system without excluding federal diversity, legal protection, or social provision. National composition supplies another element of this account:

Deutschland hat nur einen kleinen Teil seiner Bevölkerung, der nicht deutschen Stammes ist, etwa 7%.

English translation: Germany has only a small part of its population that is not of German stock, about 7%.

This demographic framing makes national cohesion appear a structural resource of the German state. Troeltsch’s account supplies its cultural counterpart, locating German freedom in duty and disciplined participation rather than in English or French traditions of individual and political liberty. Philippovich thus presents state authority as a condition of cultural development, not simply a restriction upon it.

Schuhmacher’s economic analysis extends this argument into agriculture, industry, banking, and foreign trade. Technical education, industrial specialization, social insurance, and financial organization together explain Germany’s growing productive capacity. Banking expansion is described concretely:

So haben die Deutsche Bank, die Diskontogesellschaft und die Dresdener Bank zugleich mit der Entwicklung der Depositen eine Erhöhung ihres Kapitales vorgenommen.

English translation: Thus the Deutsche Bank, the Diskontogesellschaft and the Dresdener Bank have, simultaneously with the development of deposits, undertaken an increase of their capital.

The significance is institutional as well as quantitative. Large banks appear as agencies coordinating industrial investment and limiting destructive competition through concentration and cartels. Economic achievement consequently supports the broader claim that organized cooperation, rather than unrestricted individual competition, underpins German strength. Transport provides a further connection between domestic development and international position:

Durch diese große Verkehrsentwicklung wurde auch Deutschlands Seeverkehr unterstützt und die europäische Auswanderung nahm zu einem großen Teil ihren Weg über deutsche Häfen.

English translation: Through this great development of traffic Germany's maritime traffic too was supported, and European emigration took its way for a great part through German ports.

Commercial networks make Germany’s claim to a larger world role seem the consequence of productive development. Solf’s colonial discussion similarly presents expansion as commerce and cultural improvement, relying on paternalistic and racially hierarchical assumptions. Delbrück’s account of military organization, together with Schmoller’s and Hans Luther’s treatments of administration and municipal government, completes a portrait of authority supported by education, civic participation, and social provision.

The discussion of Germany’s allies turns to Habsburg cohesion and Ottoman reconstruction. Tezner explains Austria-Hungary through dynastic administration and the constitutional settlement of 1867. Philippovich introduces a reservation about linguistic equality in practice and favors strengthening German as the state language. Weber presents Habsburg foreign policy as defensive resistance to Russian and Serbian pressure; Becker explains Ottoman alignment through strategic and economic interests alongside the problems of political and educational reform.

The accounts of Germany’s opponents converge on an encirclement narrative. British commercial rivalry, French revenge, and Russian expansion supply the principal explanatory forces. Oncken’s diplomatic history and Schoenborn’s treatment of Belgian neutrality then give this interpretation an ostensibly documentary foundation. Philippovich credits published diplomatic papers and captured Belgian records while accepting allegations of manipulation by Britain and France. He endorses the necessity of Austria’s ultimatum and the conciliatory character of German diplomacy. Anglo-Belgian military discussions become evidence against Belgian neutrality, allowing strategic necessity to justify Germany’s invasion.

The final division gives the defense of Germany an explicitly moral and legal form. Discussions of atrocities, culture, political power, and international law condemn enemy conduct while affirming German humanitarian claims. The perceived failure of wartime legal restraints nevertheless leads toward renewed international law, freedom of the seas, and equal commercial access. The review’s central operation is to universalize a national cause: German organization becomes a cultural ideal, economic expansion becomes a claim to international equality, and victory becomes the promised basis of a freer world order.