Review:The Crime Against Europe with The Crime Against Ireland, by Roger Casement, Athol Books, 2003

This book, when it came out in 2003, was the first time Roger Casement’s work had been published for almost 50 years. 

Brendan Clifford in his introduction refers to an academic book which states that:  “The origins of the modern Irish State lie in its foreign policy”.  But the origin of that policy, which was to ally with Germany against Britain during the First World War, is studiously ignored by academia.  It is as if the “gallant allies” clause in the 1916 Proclamation was created out of thin air—which, of course, it was not. 

A foreign policy is an assertion of sovereignty.  It defines a country’s relationship with the rest of the world.  Casement’s policy was the opposite to that of John Redmond and the Home Rule Party.  Redmond mobilised nationalist Ireland in support of Britain’s War on Germany.  But, as Clifford points out, Redmond’s position was not a foreign policy.  It was merely an opinion since he accepted that, under Home Rule, Ireland would not be allowed to decide on such things.  His support was a gift to the British State. 

Clifford gives a fascinating overview of the geo-political situation of Europe through the eyes of a Prussian General, Friedrich von Bernhardi.  In his 1911 book, Germany And The Next War, Bernhardi describes British Foreign policy as being a Balance of Power strategy to keep Europe at war while it exploited the rest of the World. 

While Prussia had been an important ally and had played a decisive role in defeating Napoleon at the battle of Waterloo, the new United Germany could not count on Britain maintaining peaceful relations:  after all, it was an emerging economic and political rival. 

The problem was that England was not going to give up its pre-eminent position in world affairs without a fight.  As Bernhardi says:

“Those who think themselves capable of impressing on the world the stamp of their spirit, do not resign the headship without a struggle, when they think victory is in their grasp. 

“A pacific agreement with England is, after all, a will-o’-the-wisp…  We must always keep the possibility of war with England before our eyes, and arrange our political and military plans accordingly.  We need not concern ourselves with any pacific protestations of English politicians, publicists and Utopians, which prompted by the exigencies of the moment, cannot alter the real basis of affairs.”

At the beginning of 2025 Donald Trump declared that he would not embark on “forever wars”.  Perhaps there were people in Russia and China who believed him!  But we all know better now.  A State has a logic of its own which is largely impervious to even the good intentions of a President!

It is interesting to note the reaction of the leading intellectuals of the time to Bernhardi’s book. 

Sir Arthur Conan Doyle was indignant.  But he could not deal with the arguments and therefore misrepresented the book as a litany of grievances against England. 

The socialist and British Nationalist, Robert Blatchford, was more straightforward.  He believed that the prosperity of the British working class depended on the wealth that the Empire extracted from the colonies and therefore the principle of “my country right or wrong” applied.

And finally, there was George Bernard Shaw, the court jester of the British Establishment, who displayed his cleverness by pointing out all the flaws in the British case for war, but nevertheless found a way of supporting it anyway!

The mobilisation of such intellectual resources in favour of the War was quite impressive.  But Roger Casement was different.  He understood the causes of the War and had the courage of his convictions to form a coherent political response. 

The War that England started in 1914 had a long gestation period.  The appendix to this book reproduces a series of articles from the Saturday Review, advocating war with Germany in the 1890s.  British Imperialists realised that Germany was now the main rival;  and, applying Darwin’s theory to the field of geo-politics, had determined that the survival of one of the Powers could only be ensured by the destruction of the other. 

Casement was acutely aware of the English disposition, which he described in articles that he wrote from 1911 to 1914.  Ominously, the geo-political situation in 1914 has many parallels with today. 

Casement was aware that for years before 1914 England had “been planning how she could, without danger to herself, destroy the peaceful menace of German prosperity”.  Much like America today, England, as an island nation, could foment wars without incurring the risk of those wars being fought on her own soil.  America’s wars in Ukraine and West Asia are wars of choice, whereas for its adversaries they represent existential threats. 

In 1914 the rising economic power was Germany, whereas now it is China.  It is widely believed that American strategy is to provoke a war with China because, if China is left at peace, its economic and military development will surpass America’s to such an extent that the latter will not be able to catch up.

While it appears America’s present war in West Asia is misconceived, the consequent choking off of the supply of fossil fuels may have a much more adverse effect on China than on the United States:  or at least that is America’s hope!

It is often the case that a foreign policy of a State appears irrational, only because the overall strategic objective is not understood.  In Casement’s time, the Entente Cordiale  appeared “unnatural”.  What had Britain, France and Russia in common?  Casement commented:

“There is nothing in common between the parties to it, save antagonism to someone else… it is a bond of hate not of love.”

And, of course, the “someone else” was Germany.  France wanted to reclaim the territories of Alsace and Lorraine;  Russia wished to detach some of the Slavic territories from the Austro-Hungarian Empire (Germany’s ally);  and England’s objective was to destroy the German Navy, so that it could eliminate German competition in its export markets. 

In the democratic era the base selfish interests of the State must be clothed in a cloak of virtue.  So, in the years preceding 1914, the bogeyman was German Militarism.  But, as Casement pointed out, such militarism had “not been employed beyond the frontiers of Germany until this year” (1914- JM). 

In our time it might also be noted that all Iran’s wars have been wars of defence.  

England’s control of the seas enabled it to foment wars in Europe, while avoiding any consequences for itself.  As Casement put it:

“…there can be no peace, no laying aside of arms, no sincere development of trade or culture while one people, in Europe but not of Europe, immune themselves from all attack, and sure that whatever suffering they inflict on others, can never be visited on their own shores, have it in their power to foment strife with impunity and to call up war from the ends of the earth while they themselves enjoy the blessing of peace” (p74).

But England had a weakness on her western flank!  Although Ireland was a colony, she still yearned for freedom or, as Casement said in his speech from the dock:  “Ireland has outlived the failure of her hopes—and she still hopes”.

Casement spelled out the geo-political consequences of Irish freedom:

“For a free Ireland, not owned or exploited by England, but appertaining to Europe at large, its ports available in a sense they can never be while under British control for purposes of general navigation and overseas intercourse, would soon become of such first-rank importance in Continental affairs as to leave men stupefied by the thought for five hundred years they had allowed one sole member of their community the exclusive use and selfish misappropriation of this, the most favoured of European islands” (p91).

Ireland in 1914 had the strategic significance of the Strait of Hormuz in 2026. Elsewhere, Casement says :

“The German gateway to a free Atlantic can only be kept open through a free Ireland.”

So, the cause of Europe was the cause of Ireland!  England had stunted the development of Europe as well as Ireland. 

Regarding the exploitation of Ireland, Casement gives some interesting statistics for the year 1910.  In that year the value of Ireland’s exports amounted to £63.4 million.  Of that total, £52.6 million related to exports to the UK.  So, £10.8 million was exports to countries other than Britain.  Of that figure, a mere £0.7 million was exported directly from Irish ports.

It was at least understandable (arguably) that exports to continental Europe should have a stopover in Britain (the land bridge!?).  

But, in 1910, Ireland was exporting £4 million worth of goods to the USA.  So, the vast bulk of these exports had to go East (to Britain), before they went West to America with all the unnecessary handling charges accruing to the British ports. 

In February 1914 the British Cunard line pulled out of Cork.  Casement campaigned for the German Hamburg-Amerika line to offer its services, but he was thwarted. 

The British preferred that Irish ports be neglected than for any German enterprise to be involved in their development. 

As well as having a stranglehold over the economy, the British were able to use Irish men as cannon-fodder for its imperial exploits.  In Casement’s time Irish leaders helped in this endeavour as the following speech from John Redmond shows:

“We will, under Home Rule, devote our attention to education, reform of the poor law, and questions of that kind which are purely domestic, which are, if you like, hum-drum Irish questions, and the only way in which we will attempt to interfere in any Imperial question will be by our representatives on the floor of the Imperial Parliament in Westminster doing everything in our power to increase the strength and glory of what then will be our Empire at long last;  and by sending in support of the Empire the strong arms and brave hearts of Irish soldiers and Irish sailors, to maintain the traditions of Irish valour in every part of the world.  That is our ambition.”

This speech was made on 17th March 1913, more than a year before the outbreak of the World War, which suggests that Redmond was complicit in Britain’s war plans.

One of the themes of Casement’s book is that, for Ireland to attain freedom, it must form an alliance with England’s main rival.  In the Elizabethan era England’s adversary was Spain.  He quotes from a letter that Hugh O’Neill and Red Hugh O’Donnell wrote in 1596 to Philip II of Spain:

“But inasmuch as we have felt, to our great and indescribable harm the evil doings and crimes of those whom the Queen of England is in the habit of sending amongst us, we beg and beseech Your Majesty to send someone well known to you and perfectly fit to be the King of this island, for his own welfare, ours, and that of the Christian State (Christendom).”

Casement approved of this letter and only regretted that the Spanish did not take up this offer.  Casement had no fears that Ireland would be replacing one overlord with another.  The relationship with Spain would be one of mutual benefit.  But, even if Spain’s intentions had been malign, the geographical distance and the proximity of Britain would have made it difficult for Spain to exercise control over Ireland.

The Irish with their Spanish allies had some military success against England in the Elizabethan era.  But, like America in our time, when the English suffered military setbacks, they attempted to compensate with diplomatic manoeuvring.  Casement quotes from a very interesting letter from the Earl of Essex to Queen Elizabeth:

“I advise Her Majesty to allow me, at my return to Dublin, to conclude this Treaty, yielding some of their grants in the present;  and when Her Majesty has made secret preparations to enable me to prosecute, I will find quarrels enough to break and give them a deadly blow” (p111).

So, when a Treaty no longer serves a purpose, find a reason to break it!

Casement also notes that the English were adept at decapitation strikes against Irish leaders.  The preferred method was poisoning which could be executed through an extensive spy network. 

Two hundred years later England’s main rival was France.  The French alliance with Ireland failed.  It appears that Napoleon regretted that he did not deploy more resources into this aspect of his campaign.  Casement gives us the following quotation from Napoleon:

“Had I gone to Ireland instead of to Egypt the Empire of England was at an end.”

With the outbreak of the War in 1914, Casement hoped for a German victory.  He even anticipated what the terms of peace would be:

“One of the conditions of peace, and for this reason the most important condition of peace that a victorious Germany must impose on her defeated antagonist, is that Ireland shall be separated and erected into an independent European State under international guarantees.”

Unfortunately, it was not to be.  But, while Germany was defeated, Britain was weakened by its victory.  The War had not followed the course that Bernhardi had predicted.  The gradual extension of the franchise in Britain meant that the political elite felt it necessary to mobilise the masses by appealing to their Non-Conformist conscience. 

So, from the British point of view, the War ceased to be merely about advancing its political and economic interests but became a moral imperative.  The British people were told that Britain was Good and Germany was Evil.  

The problem with this was that there could be no compromise with Evil, even when compromise would have been in British interests.  Also, no amount of resources could be spared in the pursuit of the triumph of Good over Evil. 

There is a joke about preparing a dish of bacon and eggs.  The chicken is involved, but the pig is committed. 

Britain was no longer just involved but committed to the War and exhausted itself in the process!

America emerged as the most powerful country after the First World War.  In the modern era, with the collapse of the Soviet Union, its position has become like Britain’s in 1914.

It may be too early to say, but America appears to be making some of the same mistakes as its Anglo-Saxon cousin.  Democratic pressures are forcing it to satisfy short-term demands at the expense of its long-term strategic interests.  The influence which the Zionist lobby has over American politics, with its attendant religious fanaticism (both Christian Fundamentalist and Jewish) may presage America’s long-term decline. 

Casement’s Crime Against Europe gives a fascinating description of the geo-political situation in the early twentieth century.  Casement’s insights give a perspective to subsequent international developments and remain acutely relevant today. 

John Martin