Why Submission Buys No Safety
Is submitting to a conqueror ever the safe course? Clausewitz judged it dishonourable and, on the evidence of the states already allied to France, unsafe as well.
A people, he holds, owes nothing higher than the defence of its dignity and freedom. His credo renounces two comforts: the hope of rescue by chance, and the hope of calming a tyrant by disarming. Then comes the record: Spain, Holland, Italy and northern Germany showed what alliance with France was worth, since it had protected none of them. He wrote as a major speaking for officers called fools, revolutionaries and intriguers for wanting to fight, and that same spring he acted on it, resigning to enter Russian service.
- honor
- courage
- political courage
- patriotism
- political resistance
- resistance
- political dissent
- fear
- alliances
- diplomacy
- political judgment
- public opinion
- national character
Enter a dialogue
- Spain and Holland allied with Napoleon's France and lost their independence anyway. Do they really prove that an alliance with a stronger power never protects anyone?
- Napoleon left Prussia neutral instead of forcing it into an alliance. Why do you call that apparent generosity a snare?
- Those who wanted to fight were branded fools and members of a 'League of Virtue' that hardly existed. Why does fear so readily turn dissent into conspiracy?
- An alliance with France would calm the markets for a moment. Why can only a fight for independence end the uncertainty that ruins trade and credit?