² For a discussion thereof, see: Hacohen, Malachi Haim, “Kosmopoliten in einer ethnonationalen Zeit? Juden und Österreicher in der Ersten Republik,” in Das Werden der Ersten Republik. … der Rest ist Österreich, ed. Konrad, H. and Maderthaner, W., vol. 1 (Vienna, 2008), 281–316.Google Scholar

³ Chickering, Roger, Imperial Germany and a World without War: The Peace Movement and German Society, 1892–1914 (Princeton, 1975)Google Scholar, 35.

⁴ Schönemann-Behrens, Petra, Alfred H. Fried: Friedensaktivist—Nobelpreisträger (Zürich, 2011).Google Scholar

⁵ Petra Schönemann-Behrens, “‘Organisiert die Welt:’ Leben und Werk des Friedens-Nobelpreisträgers Alfred Hermann Fried (1864–1921)” (PhD diss., University of Bremen, 2004), 168. This is actually an error. The article in Die Friedens-Warte appeared in that journal's Jan.–Feb. 1923 issue; Coudenhove's first article on Pan-Europe was “Panueopa. Ein Vorschlag,” Vossische Zeitung, 15 Nov. 1922.

⁶ See, for example: Ziegerhofer-Prettenthaler, Anita, “Richard Nikolaus Coudenhove-Kalergi, Founder of the Pan-European Union, and the Birth of a ‘New Europe,’” in Europe in Crisis: Intellectuals and the European Idea, 1917–1957, ed. Hewitson, Mark and D'Auria, Matthew (Oxford, 2012): 89–110 Google Scholar, at 92; Ziegerhofer-Prettenthaler, Anita, Botschafter Europas: Richard Nikolaus Coudenhove und die Paneuropa-Bewegung in den Zwanziger und Dreißiger Jahren (Vienna, 2004)Google Scholar, 72; Stirk, Peter, A History of European Integration since 1914 (London, 1996)Google Scholar; 27; Orluc, Katiana, “Caught between Past and Future: The Idea of Pan-Europe in the Interwar Years,” in Reflections on Europe: Defining a Political Order in Time and Space, ed. Persson, Hans-Ake and Strath, Bo (Brussels, 2007): 95–120 Google Scholar, at 104; Lützeler, Paul Michael, “Paris und Wien oder der kontinentale Grundkonflikt: Zur Konstruktion einer multikulturellen Identität in Europa,” in Europas Identitäten: Mythen, Konflikte, Konstruktionen, ed. Mokre, Monika et al. (Frankfurt, 2003): 36–54, at 43.Google Scholar

⁷ In the first category, the classic is: Hay, Denys, Europe: The Emergence of an Idea (Edinburgh, 1968)Google Scholar. See also: The Idea of Europe: From Antiquity to the European Union, ed. Pagden, Anthony (Cambridge, UK, 2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Delanty, Gerard, Inventing Europe: Idea, Identity, Reality (Basingstoke, Hampshire, 1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. In the second category, see, for example: Stirk, Peter, A History of European Integration since 1914 (London, 1996)Google Scholar; Stirk, Peter, European Unity in Context: The Interwar Period (New York, 1989)Google Scholar; Pegg, Carl H., Evolution of the European Idea, 1914–1932 (Chapel Hill, 1983)Google Scholar; Müller, Guido, Europäische Gesellschaftsbeziehungen nach dem Ersten Weltkrieg: Das Deutsch-Französische Studeinkommittee und der Europäische Kulturbund (Munich, 2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Kaiser, Wolfram, Christian Democracy and the Origins of European Union (Cambridge, UK, 2007).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁸ Katiana Orluc, “Caught between Past and Future,” 104. Interestingly, Orluc discounts Fried's importance because he did not call for a political union, but she concludes that one of the main reasons that Coudenhove's Pan-Europe failed was precisely because he envisioned a political union, a goal too far-reaching and difficult to achieve in his time (ibid., 119).

⁹ Schönemann-Behrens, “Organisiert die Welt,” quotation 19. This and all other translations, unless otherwise noted, are mine.

¹⁰ Fried reported feeling that “it [was] time that I knew about the history of my people,” and read Heinrich Grätz's eleven-volume History of the Jews (ibid., quotation 27n).

¹¹ In 1909, Otto Umfrid, an Evangelical pastor and leading German pacifist, made the “intimate suggestion” that Fried convert because his Jewish background jeopardized the effectiveness of the peace movement's propaganda. Fried refused. See: Hamann, Brigitte, Bertha von Suttner: ein Leben für den Frieden (München, 1986), 229–30.Google Scholar

¹² Ibid., quotation 229–30.

¹³ Schönemann-Behrens, Alfred H. Fried, quotation 38.

¹⁴ The novel was an international bestseller. See: von Suttner, Bertha, Die Waffen Nieder! (Dresden, 1899).Google Scholar

¹⁵ Belke, Ingrid, Die sozialreformerischen Ideen von Josef Popper-Lynkeus (1839–1921) im Zusammenhang mit allgemeinen Reformbestrebungen des Wiener Buergertums um die Jahrhundertwende (Tübingen, 1978)Google Scholar, 30.

¹⁶ Ibid.

¹⁷ On the Verband für internationale Verständigung, see: Chickering, Imperial Germany, 148–65.

¹⁸ Ibid., 80.

¹⁹ Belke, Die sozialreformerischen Ideen von Josef Popper-Lynkeus, 4.

²⁰ Ibid., 8. She summarizes the common concerns among progressives as follows: to place restrictions on large-scale manufacturers and landowners; to institute protections for workers and small tradesmen; to promote state welfare for the sick, elderly, and disabled; and to champion reform in public education, continuing education for workers, reform of criminal law, and general, secret, and direct suffrage (achieved for men in 1907).

²¹ There is literature from vegetarian associations scattered throughout the Alfred Fried collection at the League of Nations Archives. See, for example: League of Nations Archives, Geneva (hereafter LoN), Alfred H. Fried Collection, box 82.

²² On Fried's involvement with reform movements other than Esperanto, see: Hoover Institution Archives (hereafter HIA), Alfred H. Fried Collection, box 4. On capital punishment, see: Fried, Alfred H., Das Tagebuch eines zum Tode Verurteilten (Berlin, 1898)Google Scholar. Also, in 1898, he began a book project based on a questionnaire on capital punishment circulated among prominent European public intellectuals. He hoped to assemble a collection of essays against capital punishment, though he did not always get the response he expected—Max Nordau and Ernst Haeckel, for example, did not oppose the death penalty. See: Schönemann-Behrens, “‘Organisiert die Welt,’” 81–82. Regarding Esperanto, Fried corresponded with Esperanto associations throughout Europe and wrote an Esperanto textbook in 1903. See: LoN, Alfred H. Fried Collection, box 60; and Fried, Alfred H., Lehrbuch der Internationalen Hilfssprache “Esperanto” mit Wörterbuch in Esperanto-Deutsch und Deutsch-Esperanto (Berlin, 1903).Google Scholar

²³ Chickering, Imperial Germany, 27–34.

²⁴ Suttner worked on this cause with her husband, Arthur Gundaccar von Suttner, who founded the Society for Resistance against Anti-Semitism. She earned the name “Jew Bertha” in the anti-Semitic press for this work. See: Hamann, Bertha von Suttner.

²⁵ The importance of Fried's relationship to freemasonry is reflected in a letter he wrote to his wife from Switzerland during World War I, in which he told her that if he died there and she found herself in need, she should seek help at the Socrates lodge. Incidentally, he instructed her to write to Carnegie if the masons were not able to help her. See: LoN, Alfred H. Fried Collection, box 31.

²⁶ Historisches Museum der Stadt Wien, Zirkel und Winkelmass: 200 Jahre grosse Landesloge der Freimaurer (Vienna, 1984)Google Scholar; Lennhof, Eugen and Posner, Oskar, Internationales Freimaurer-Lexikon (Zürich, 1932).Google Scholar

²⁷ Fried defined international organization as “a cohabitation of equal states for the purpose of reaching the greatest advantage through the slightest expenditure of energy. It succeeds by way of agreements pertaining to a state's basic necessities of life and it operates and is promoted by the ever-growing interdependence of the cultured world (Kulturwelt), which itself is a result of the technical development of our era. It transforms the old politics of jealousy and the pursuit of hegemony into a politics of commerce and order.” Fried, Alfred H., “Kurzgefasste Darstellung der Pan-Amerikanischen Bewegung” Internationale Organisation 4 (1916): 1–36 Google Scholar, at 6. (“Interstate,” “intergovernmental,” “cross-national,” and “international organization” are all common translations of “zwischenstaatliche Organization.” I will use “international organization” throughout, because Fried used “internationale organization” interchangeably with “zwischenstaatliche organization.”)

²⁸ Hacohen, Malachi Haim. “Dilemmas of Cosmopolitanism: Karl Popper, Jewish Identity, and ‘Central European Culture,’” The Journal of Modern History 71, no. 1 (1999): 105–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar, quotation 115. On Bloch and Austrian multiethnicity, see: Reifowitz, Ian, Imagining an Austrian Nation: Joseph Samuel Bloch and the Search for a Multiethnic Austrian Identity, 1845–1919 (New York, 2003).Google Scholar

²⁹ See Timms, Edward, “National Memory and the ‘Austrian Idea’ from Metternich to Waldheim,” The Modern Language Review 86, no. 4 (1991): 898–910.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

³⁰ Fried, Alfred H., Wein-Berlin, Ein Vergleich (Vienna, 1908).Google Scholar

³¹ Ibid., 11. On the significance of the Ringstrasse, see: Schorske, Carl E., “The Ringstrasse, Its Critics, and the Birth of Urban Modernism,” chap. 2 in Fin-De-Siècle Vienna: Politics and Culture (New York, 1981), 24–115.Google Scholar

³² For Fried, the city's purpose was also reflected in the fashion of its populace. The Viennese had their clothes tailored. They dressed well, not out of personal vanity, but because they considered themselves accessories of the city's beauty. Berliners, in contradistinction, shopped at large, tacky department stores because they could not recognize the difference in quality between store-bought and tailored attire. They had a long way to go before achieving the elegance of the Viennese. Viennese shoppers were also more “honorable” because they did not engage in impulse shopping (like the Berliners), but bought only what they needed and only where they knew they could find the best quality. See: Fried, Wien-Berlin, 20–27.

³³ Ibid., 80.

³⁴ Ibid., 81.

³⁵ Fried founded the German Peace Society, but within a year, he was expelled from it. From the start, the Austrian, with his close ties to Bertha von Suttner, opposed the strong nationalist tendencies of his German colleagues. The fact that Fried was probably difficult to work with may have contributed to his expulsion. Roger Chickering has described him as “combining relentless zeal with no tact whatsoever,” though Schoenemann-Behrens is more positive, describing him as having “a deep-seated optimism, fighting spirit, and refusal to give up even in seemingly hopeless situations.” The specific event that seems to have triggered his expulsion was news that Fried had published what was considered risqué or even pornographic literature. In fact, the controversy began in the right-wing, anti-Semitic press. The book series included Die Liebe mit 45 Jahren: Intime Memoiren, by Restiv de la Bretonne; Die Hygiene der Liebe, Die Physiologie der Liebe, and Die Physiologie des Genusses, by Paul Mantegazza; Der Metaphysik der Geschlechterliebe, by Arthur Schopenhauer; and Die Hörigkeit der Frau (The Subjugation of Women), by J. S. Mill. Regardless, the other members of the Peace Society probably knew of these publications and found them problematic only when they wanted Fried to resign. Without Fried, the German Peace Society lost its most active organizer and quickly became ineffectual. Bertha von Suttner had to defend him before the German pacifists and convince him to continue publishing pacifist literature. See: Chickering, Imperial Germany, 49; and Schönemann-Behrens, “‘Organiziert die Welt,’” 28, 47.

³⁶ Fried, Alfred H., Jugenderinnerungen (Berlin, 1925)Google Scholar, 24.

³⁷ Ibid., 32.

³⁸ On Die Friedens-Warte as a forum for a broad variety of antiwar ideas, see: Schönemann-Behrens, Alfred H. Fried, 99–100. On Fried's continued sympathy with the “moral feeling” that drove Suttner's pacifism, see: Fried, Jugenderinnerungen, 33.

³⁹ For a broader, international view of debates between the promoters of legal versus political forms of international organization before and during World War I, see: Wertheim, Stephen, “The League of Nations, A Retreat from International Law?” Journal of Global History 7 (2012): 210–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Wertheim's discussion of the legalist approach relies on distinguishing a number of categories, including internationalism, pacifism, and organicism, to which Fried's thinking does not seamlessly conform. For example, his approach was largely congruent with Wertheim's description of legalism, though he rejected binding arbitration as a short-term goal; his embrace of organicism was not tied to an idealist perspective and an alignment with those promoting a political organization (which Fried also saw as premature before the war, though he did support the League of Nations, once it was established); nor would Fried probably qualify as a pacifist according to Wertheim's usage of the term. None of this is necessarily to question Wertheim's characterization of the legal/political debate in the Anglo-American and French contexts, but to suggest that perhaps Central European perspectives might complicate the picture.

⁴⁰ Chickering, Imperial Germany, 23–4.

⁴¹ Ibid.

⁴² Ibid.

⁴³ Ibid., 95–96.

⁴⁴ Ibid., 96.

⁴⁵ Ibid.

⁴⁶ See : Novicow, Jacques, La Critique du Darwinisme Social (Paris, 1910)Google Scholar. For publishers' rejections, see: Wigands Verlag to Alfred H. Fried, Leipzig, 3 Mar. 1906; and Carl Winter's Verlag to Alfred H. Fried, 6 Nov. 1909, LoN, Alfred H. Fried Collection, box 86.

⁴⁷ Novicow, Jacques, Die Föderation Europas, trans. Fried, Alfred H. (Berlin, 1901)Google Scholar, 14.

⁴⁸ Ibid.

⁴⁹ Chickering, Imperial Germany, 135.

⁵⁰ Fried, Alfred H., Pan-Amerika: Entwicklung, Umfang und Bedeutung der Zwischenstaatlichen Organisation in Amerika, 1810–1916 (Zürich, 1918).Google Scholar

⁵¹ Alfred H. Fried to Bertha von Suttner, 6 Mar. 1910, LoN, Bertha von Suttner Papers, box 19, folder 220.

⁵² Coudenhove-Kalergi, Richard N., Pan-Europa (Vienna, 1923).Google Scholar

⁵³ Ziegerhofer-Prettenthaler, “Richard Nikolaus Coudenhove-Kalergi,” 92; Ziegerhofer-Prettenthaler, Botschafter Europas, 90.

⁵⁴ d'Estournelles de Constant, Baron, “European Anarchy and American Duty,” Outlook 83, no. 14 (1906): 805.Google Scholar

⁵⁵ Fried, for example, had called for a “continental confederation” as early as 1899. See: Fried, Alfred H., “Die Flottenvermehrung - der Weg zur Abrüstung?,” Die Friedens-Warte 1, no. 19 (1899): 117–19Google Scholar. And in 1901, he endorsed the idea of an economic union of European states. See: Fried, Alfred H., “Die amerikanische Gefahr,” Die Friedens-Warte, 3, no. 35–36 (1901): 137–39Google Scholar. In a letter to Fried dated 20 Aug. 1903, d'Estournelles described the combined purpose of their work as the effort to convince the French and Germans of the necessity of a “European federation.” LoN, Alfred H. Fried Collection, box 57, d'Estournelles de Constant correspondence folder. Similarly, Fried thanked d'Estournelles for support in his efforts to promote the “great cause of Occidental federation.” See: Fried to d'Estournelles, 7 June 1904, LoN, box 57, d'Estournelles de Constant correspondence folder.

⁵⁶ Putting aside, for a moment, the end goal of European unity and the implications of such imperialist precedents of our understanding of the origins of the European Union, it is noteworthy that this call for the common administration of colonial possessions also anticipated the League of Nations and its Mandates System. As Susan Pedersen has argued, the Mandates System served as a forum for debates among representatives of the great powers about whether and how empire should be internationalized. More specifically, according to Pedersen, the system achieved not a “new and specific form of governance,” but rather “particular processes of international scrutiny, consultation, appeal, and publicity.” Its greatest impact was in the “generation and promulgation of international norms,” not in its administrative system. She concludes that the system's legacy lies in the “displacement of some amount of conflict over non-consensual rule into the international realm, and the strategic use of that realm by imperial powers and nationalist movements alike, and not higher levels of development or more enlightened forms of government.” See: Pedersen, Susan, “The Meaning of the Mandates System: An Argument,” Geschichte und Gesellschaft 32, no. 4 (2006): 564–65, 81–82Google Scholar. Fried's proposal anticipates Central European contributions to these interwar debates. The case of mandatory Iraqi is illustrative. Britain faced its strongest opposition to its promotion of Iraqi independence from German and Swiss officials. The Central Europeans opposed stipulations to Iraqi independence granting the British a privileged post-mandatory economic and military relationship with Iraq, a relationship that essentially perpetuated colonialism. Instead, motivated by their own national interest as the only great power without colonial possessions, the Germans' international vision for the post-mandatory period was one of “a world of formally equal sovereign states regulated largely through market competition.” See: Pedersen, Susan, “Getting out of Iraq—in 1932: The League of Nations and the Road to Normative Statehood,” American Historical Review 115, no. 4 (2010): 975–1000 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 990. This German position echoed Fried's earlier position. I would argue that Fried embraced pan-Americanism in part as a means to advance the two main concerns that would drive the Central European agenda concerning the Mandates System: ensuring Germany's status among European great powers and expanding economic access to former colonies over a decade before the debate over the status of Iraq occurred. For Fried, the Pan-American Union was a model for a loose confederation of equal European states fostering international trade and realigning colonial relationships such that trade with and oversight of colonies were undertaken collectively (eliminating privileged status of the original colonizing state).

⁵⁷ Indeed, for Fried, colonialism clearly served the goal of international organization. Colonialism was just one way in which empires—as international and/or interregional communities of interest—were fuel for international organization. They shared this status with federations like the United States and the Swiss Republic. See: Fried, Alfred H., The Restoration of Europe (New York, 1916)Google Scholar, 108; and The German Emperor and the Peace of the World (London, 1912)Google Scholar, 5. The Pan-American Union stood out, however, as a model, rather than as fuel. I hypothesize that Fried's evolutionist paradigm makes sense of this subtle, but important difference. Empires and federations, it seems, were older, more primitive forms among international institutions. Fried regarded the Pan-American Union as the most evolved example, set apart by its voluntary, flexible, evolving nature. Because realization of world organization and, along the way, European organization would be the result of a protracted, evolutionary process, such flexible models were ideal. In other words, the Pan-American Union was useful as the most evolved example of an ever-changing type of institution that would promote an evolutionary path toward world organization. Pan-Americanism should probably be taken more seriously in the ongoing discussion complicating the idea that Woodrow Wilson's America was the model for the view of international organization and international law that formed the foundation of the League of Nations. Mark Mazower has recently argued that empire, specifically the British Empire—rather than Woodrow Wilson's America—was the model for the view of international organization and international law that formed the foundation of the League of Nations. See: Mazower, Mark, No Enchanted Palace: The End of Empire and the Ideological Origins of the United Nations (Princeton, 2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. But given how much of Fried's thinking seems to have anticipated the League—in particular the Mandates System—one wonders whether the inclusion of Central European thinkers would complicate this new narrative. Looking beyond Woodrow Wilson may not only occasion a shift in perspective back to Europe and its empires; rather, it may also reveal a different American model for the League in the form of the Pan-American Union.

⁵⁸ Wild, Adolf, Baron d'Estournelles de Constant (1852–1924): Das Wirken eines Friedesnobelpreisträgers für die deutsch-französische Verständigung und europäische Einigung. (Hamburg, 1973)Google Scholar, 107.

⁵⁹ Schönemann-Behrens, Alfred H. Fried, 100.

⁶⁰ Ibid., quotation 100.

⁶¹ Ibid.

⁶² In addition to offering a window into his views on empire, Fried's thinking regarding the proposed European Colonial Union also reveals his position on the question of tensions between the goals of regional and global international organization. It might appear on the surface that the goal of European regional integration was at odds with the larger goal of global federation, but in Fried's mind, no such tension existed. This is because he took for granted that international organization on a global scale required stewardship and that Europe was destined for that role. In order to set an example for the rest of the world and guide the global process of political and legal integration, moreover, Europe had to be internally stable and secure. In this view, Fried was again representative of a broad consensus concerning colonialism among European liberal internationalist thinkers and promoters of international law. On the centrality of colonialism to the conceptualization and development of international law, see: Anghie, Antony, Imperialism, Sovereignty, and the Making of International Law (Cambridge, 2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. In the case of eventual, global integration, as elsewhere, Fried declined to provide detail about whether and how the various regional international orders would ultimately merge into an overarching international order. His argument, again, was that this would be an evolutionary development that relied on flexibility and an open-minded approach; thus, detailed plans were not only impossible, but also detrimental.

⁶³ Petra-Schönemann-Behrens, Alfred H. Fried, 101.

⁶⁴ Hamann, Brigitte, Bertha von Suttner: A Life for Peace (Syracuse, 1996)Google Scholar, 157.

⁶⁵ In fact, this seems to have been a source of some tension with d'Estournelles. Upon receipt of a copy of Fried's Pan-Amerika, d'Estournelles wrote “I thank you and congratulate you on your fine volume, Pan-America. This is the subject upon which I wanted to work for many years. This is not the first time you have realized my intention, nor, I hope, the last.” See: Fried to d'Estournelles, 17 June 1910, In LoN, Alfred H. Fried Collection, box 57, d'Estournelles correspondence folder.

⁶⁶ Novicow, Die föderation Europas.

⁶⁷ Cooper, Sandi, Patriotic Pacifism: Waging War on War in Europe 1815–1914 (New York, 1991)Google Scholar, 166. D'Estournelles, incidentally, also argued that resolution of tensions over Alsace-Lorraine through the establishment of a permanent French-German alliance would be the basis for the eventual federation of Europe. See: Fried, Alfred H., Handbuch Der Friedensbewegung, vol. 2 (New York, 1972)Google Scholar, 160.

⁶⁸ The contemporary scholar of pacifism Edward Krehbiel described the “internationalist” approach, for which he used Fried's Pan-Europe as example, as holding the position “that nationalism is no longer expressive of the [current] age, but that federation is not, as yet, feasible; that the present sovereignty of states is detrimental, but that one cannot hope to change the theory suddenly.” Internationalists therefore proposed “a sort of confederation, a cooperative union of sovereign states, a true concert of powers.” See: Krehbiel, Edward, Nationalism, War, and Society: A Study of Nationalism and its Concomitant, War, in their Relation to Civilization; and of the Fundamentals and the Progress of the Opposition to War (New York, 1916), 219–20.Google Scholar

⁶⁹ Fried, Handbuch, vol. 1, 114–16.

⁷⁰ Fried, The Restoration of Europe, 108. See also Fried, Handbuch, vol. 1, 114–15.

⁷¹ There are various ways to categorize Hugo's and Bakunin's proposals. Hugo's aligns well with Edward Krehbiel's “federalist” category, made up of ideas holding that “nationalism is out of date; that as long as it and national sovereignty exists, war and its ills will continue, that international law can never remedy these evils ... that the fundamental step toward eliminating war is an organization with power, above the several states, which shall determine what is right and just in any case.” See: Krehbiel, Nationalism, War, and Society, 220. Federalists, however, believed that nations should retain local autonomy in order to cultivate “their own qualities and institutions, their Kultur” (ibid., 221). In fact, federalists believed that the survival of Kultur depended upon the end of absolute sovereignty because it was precisely in the condition of sovereignty that wars “in which one tries to suppress the Kultur of the other” occur (ibid., 220–21). Fried's specific objection to the “great sovereign state” that Victor Hugo had invoked when he called for a United States of Europe was that, from Fried's perspective, international organization was not primarily a political process, but rather, following Novicow, a “process of social evolution.” See: Fried, Restoration, 104; and Fried, Handbuch, vol. 1, 114–15. Bakunin's ideas have been described by Roger Chickering as utopian, by which he means the position that “war [is] an inseparable aspect of a social and political order that is utterly corrupt and beyond rehabilitation,” making withdrawal or revolutionary assault on society the only viable options. See: Chickering, Imperial Germany, 19. Novicow described Bakunin's proposal for Europe as “a pure utopia, which could only appeal to those who live in complete ignorance of social science.” See: Novicow, Die Föderation Europas, 14.

⁷² Fried, “Kurzgefasste Darstellung,” 19–21.

⁷³ Ibid., 20–21.

⁷⁴ Ibid., 21–22.

⁷⁵ For a later summary of these steps, see: Fried, Restoration, 140.

⁷⁶ Chickering, Imperial Germany, 229–30. But by putting arbitration last in his steps toward the achievement of Pan-Europe, Fried was also expressing the frustration he felt after the Second Hague Conference with what he described as the peace movement's preoccupation with arbitration. In 1908, he tried to convince his colleagues that their work on arbitration was pointless, because commitment to arbitration agreements went out the window when real attacks were imminent. Fried argued, therefore, that international organization should be the movement's priority. Specifically, pacifists should focus on a campaign to convince elites and governments that European civilization already existed and needed to be cultivated. See: Cooper, Patriotic Pacifism, 111.

⁷⁷ Fried, Pan-Amerika, 287.

⁷⁸ Fried, “Die amerikanische Gefahr,” 139.

⁷⁹ See: Schönemann-Behrens, 94–117. See also Fried's discussion of his disappointment with German liberals and his decision not to attempt further political alliances, but instead to designate the German Peace Society as a purely humanitarian entity. Fried, Alfred H., Die Moderne Friedensbewegung in Deutschland und Frankreich. (Leipzig, 1908)Google Scholar, 3.

⁸⁰ d'Estournelles de Constant, Paul Henri, America and Her Problems, trans. Raper, George A (New York, 1915)Google Scholar, 16.

⁸¹ Fried, German Emperor, 147.

⁸² Fried, Handbuch, vol. 1, 114.

⁸³ Alfred H. Fried, “Preface,” in Novicow, Die Föderation Europas.

⁸⁴ See: Barnes, Harry Elmer, “A Sociological Criticism of War and Militarism: An Analysis of the Doctrines of Jacques Novicow,” The Journal of International Relations 12, no. 2 (1921): 238–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁸⁵ Fried, “Kurzgefasste Darstellung,” 26.

⁸⁶ Chickering, Imperial Germany, 305–6.

⁸⁷ Ibid.

⁸⁸ Fried, “Kurzgefasste Darstellung,” 32.

⁸⁹ Ibid., 31–32.

⁹⁰ Ibid., 33.

⁹¹ Ibid., 25.

⁹² Ibid., 14.

⁹³ Chickering, Imperial Germany, 288–89.

⁹⁴ In fact, the Union did serve as a platform for Latin American countries to assert their own interests and to press the United States to recognize the principle of state sovereignty. Gradually, beginning in the late 1880s, Latin American nations won incremental concessions on this front and ultimately established absolute national sovereignty as a basic principle among Pan-American Union members by the early 1930s. This was not an unmitigated victory: official recognition of the principle of national sovereignty did not mean an end to U.S. violations of the sovereignty of Latin American states. See: Salisbury, Richard V., Anti-Imperialism and International Competition in Central America 1920–1929 (Wilmington, DE, 1989).Google Scholar

⁹⁵ Fried, Alfred H., “Das Pan-Europäische Büreau,” Die Friedens-Warte 11, no 10. (1909)Google Scholar. Petra Schönemann-Behrens offers a brief summary of Fried's proposed resolution and his response to later criticism, also citing his reports in Die Friedens-Warte in Alfred H. Fried, 172.

⁹⁶ Fried, Alfred H., “Die Brüsseler Generalversammlung,” Die Friedens-Warte 11, no. 10 (1909)Google Scholar: 186. Indicating the degree to which Fried's proposal was warmly received in Brussels (criticism would come later), in the minutes of the congress Fried is recognized for all of his various contributions to the peace movement, including his advocacy for the creation of a pan-European bureau. See: Bureau International Permanent de la Paix, Procès-Verbal de L'assemblée Générale des Déléguées des Sociétés de la Paix, Bruxelles, 1909 (1910), 12.

⁹⁷ Fried, “Die Brüsseler Generalversammlung,” 187.

⁹⁸ See: Anna (Ilona) Zipernowsky to Alfred Fried, 10 Sept. 1910, in LoN, Alfred H. Fried Papers, box 86. And in a letter dated 2 Dec. 1910, she confirms her husband's willingness to support Fried's effort to establish a pan-European bureau and requests details concerning when and where to send funds.

⁹⁹ Fried, “Die Amerikanische Gefahr.”

¹⁰⁰ Fried, The Restoration of Europe, 109–10.

¹⁰¹ Fried, The German Emperor, 128. Interestingly, Fried's perspective differs somewhat from recent scholarly perspectives questioning whether Naumann's Mitteleuropa was more an imperialist rather than a nationalist project. See: Thum, Gregor, “Mythische Landschaften: Das Bild von ‘Deutschen Osten’ und die Zäsuren des 20. Jahrhnderts,” in Traumland Osten: Deutsche Bilder vom Östlichen Europa im 20 Jahrhundert, ed. Thum, Gregor (Göttingen, 2006)Google Scholar, 185.

¹⁰² Fried, Alfred H., “Das Pan-Europäische Bureau im Lichte der Völkerrechtswissenschaft,” Die Friedens-Warte 11, no 12 (1909): 221–25Google Scholar, at 221.

¹⁰³ Fried, “Kontinental oder Mondial?”

¹⁰⁴ Carnegie, Andrew, “Kontinentale oder Nationale Industrie?,” Die Friedens-Warte 9, no. 10 (1907).Google Scholar

¹⁰⁵ Schönemann-Behrens, Alfred H. Fried, 173.

¹⁰⁶ Cooper, Patriotic Pacifism, quotation 140.

¹⁰⁷ Fried, Restoration of Europe, 27.

¹⁰⁸ Ibid., 35.

¹⁰⁹ Ibid., 27.

¹¹⁰ Ibid., 83.

¹¹¹ Ibid., 137.

¹¹² Ibid., 134.

¹¹³ Ibid., 135.

¹¹⁴ Fried, “Kurzgefasste Darstellung,” 26.

¹¹⁵ Ibid.

¹¹⁶ Ibid., 32.

¹¹⁷ Ibid., 33.

¹¹⁸ Alfred Fried to Count Ottokar Czernin, Berne, 2 June 1917, HIA, Alfred H. Fried Papers, “Increment, March 1984.”

¹¹⁹ “Kurzgefasste Darstellung,” 132.

¹²⁰ Given Fried's career-long investment in European unity, his embrace of the League of Nations might seem inconsistent. Indeed, during the war, Fried had rejected the idea that at the war's end, a third Hague peace conference should establish the terms of peace in Europe because “[t]he Hague Conferences include all the nations of the world; to refer the further organization of Europe to all of them would be a mistake.” See: Alfred H. Fried, Restoration, 100. Intriguingly, after the war, he seems to have changed his position. In his introduction to an edited collection of commentary on the League published in 1919, he reasserted that aspiration to a world state was premature, but also that “[e]arlier, I suggested a European Cooperative Union … The world war has taught us that the global interconnections are already strong enough so that the organization of one continent would no longer work. It appears to me that a global cooperative union … is one mechanism that should be encouraged and developed.” See: Fried, Alfred H., “Einleitung,” in Der Völkerbund: Ein Sammelbuch (Leipzig, 1919)Google Scholar, 15. I hypothesize that Fried was willing to give up his investment in the organization of European in favor of world organization because it had become clear from the very outset that the League was a vehicle for the perpetuation of European hegemony, not—as he had feared in 1916—a threat thereto. His investment in European organization, as I have noted above, was driven in no small part by the conviction that Europe had to lead the process of global international organization. Once it became clear that the League would not disturb that trajectory, Fried was on board. The prominent position of the United States did not concern him because he viewed the United States as essentially part of Europe. (The statement that “[o]utside of Europe the United States alone really belongs in the European group” had been part of his argument against non-European involvement in the European postwar settlement. See: Fried, Restoration, 100.) Whether he objected to the fact that the League of Nations Covenant allowed for the perpetuation of American regional organization dominated by the United States in making an exception for the Monroe Doctrine is unclear in the few available relevant sources—Die Friedens-Warte ceased publication from 1916 until 1920 (shortly before Fried's death), and the two relevant books he published in 1919 and 1920 were edited volumes for which he only authored short introductions. See: Der Völkerbund and Der Weltprotest gegen den Versailler Frieden (Leipzig, 1920).Google Scholar

¹²¹ Hans Wehberg, a follower of Fried's and a scholar of international law, took over leadership of the peace movement in Weimar Germany. For more on the shift in focus from international organization to international human rights that followed, see: Porsch, Daniel, “Die Friedens-Warte zwischen Friedensbewegung und Wissenschaf,” Die Friedens-Warte 74, no. 1–2 (1999): 63–78.Google Scholar

¹²² Roobol, Wim, “Ariside Briand's Plan: The Seed of European Unification,” in Ideas of Europe since 1914: The Legacy of the First World War, ed. Spiering, Menno and Wintle, Michael (New York, 2002)Google Scholar, 33, 37; Johansson, Rune, “Ideas on Europe—Europe as an Idea: An Intellectual History of European Unity and Cooperation,” in Europe: The Return of History, ed. Tägil, Sven (Lund, Sweden, 2001), 68–71.Google Scholar

¹²³ Orluc, Katiana, “Decline or Renaissance: The Transformation of European Consciousness after the First World War,” in Europe and the Other and Europe as the Other, ed. Straeth, Bo (Frankfurt, 2000)Google Scholar, 124.

¹²⁴ Coudenhove-Kalergi, Pan-Europe, 83.

¹²⁵ Coudenhove-Kalergi, Richard N., “Die Europäische Frage.” Die Friedens-Warte 23, no. 1/2 (Jan.–Feb. 1923): 9–11 Google Scholar, at 9.

¹²⁶ Fried, Restoration, 136.

¹²⁷ Ziegerhofer-Prettenthaler, “Richard Nikolaus Coudenhove-Kalergi,” 99.

¹²⁸ According to the program of the Pan-European Union, published in 1936, the movement was to promote “a European league of states with the mutual guarantee of equal rights, security, and independence of all states of Europe; a European court of justice for the settling of all conflicts between European states; a Military alliance with a common air force to safeguard peace and symmetrical disarmament; the step-by-step creation of a European customs union; the common development of European economies; a common European currency; the fostering of the national cultures of all European peoples as the basis for the European cultural community; the protection of all the national minorities of Europe against denationalization and repression; and the cooperation of Europe with other groups of peoples within the framework of a world league of nations.” See: Gehler, Michael, “A Visionary Proved Himself to Be a Realist: Richard N. Coudenhove-Kalergie, Austria, and the ‘United States of Europe,’ 1923–2003,” Human Security 9 (2004/2005): 171–86, at 177.Google Scholar

¹²⁹ See: Cooper, Patriotic Pacifism, 162.

¹³⁰ Coudenhove-Kalergi, “Die Europäische Frage,” 11.

¹³¹ Ibid.

¹³² Ashkenazi, Ofer, “Reframing the Interwar Peace Movement: The Curious Case of Albert Einstein,” Journal of Contemporary History 46, no. 4 (2011): 741–66, at 761CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹³³ Coudenhove, Pan-Europe, 154–55.

¹³⁴ Ibid.

¹³⁵ Ibid., 159–61.

¹³⁶ Ibid., 161–71.

¹³⁷ On Coudenhove's description of Europe as a spiritual community, see: Ziegerhofer-Prettenthaler, Botschafter Europas, 329–68.

¹³⁸ Fried, Restoration, 32–35.

¹³⁹ Fried's pan-European proposal had addressed these very concerns about European decline. He had also addressed the “American threat,” but his stance was more optimistic than defensive. He agreed with the popular sentiment that Europe had fallen behind the United States in economic and geopolitical status and that international organization would restore European standing, but he believed that a unified Europe would build a mutually beneficial relationship with the United States. See: Fried, “Die amerikanische Gefahr.”

¹⁴⁰ See: Historisches Museum der Stadt Wien, Zirkel Und Winkelmass; Eugen Lennhof and Oskar Posner, Internationales Freimaurer-Lexikon.

¹⁴¹ Glasshiem, Eagle, Noble Nationalists: The Transformation of the Bohemian Aristocracy (Cambridge: MA, 2005), 4–5.Google Scholar

¹⁴² Ibid., 121.

¹⁴³ Ibid., 5.

¹⁴⁴ Ziegerhofer-Prettenthaler, “Richard Nikolaus Coudenhove-Kalergi,” 98–99.

¹⁴⁵ On the supporters Fried and Coudenhove shared among Viennese masons, see: Ziegerhofer-Prettenthaler, Botschafter Europas, 54.

¹⁴⁶ See Coudenhove's introduction to a 1929 edition of his father's 1901 work on anti-Semitism. Coudenhove, Heinrich Johann Maria, Das Wesen des Antisemitismus: Eingeleitet durch Antisemitismus nach dem Weltkrieg (Vienna, 1929).Google Scholar

¹⁴⁷ Alfred H. Fried to Bertha von Suttner, 30 Mar. 1910, LoN, Bertha von Suttner Collection, Box 19, folder 220. Clemens von Galen was a German Catholic priest educated in Austria who became an outspoken critic of Hitler, in particular of Nazi racial science. Alois von Aehrenthal was an Austrian diplomat who was instrumental in the annexation of Bosnia and Herzegovina in 1908. A conservative, Catholic Austrian monarchist, Aehrenthal was a strong critic of nationalism in the late 1890s, claiming about German nationalists that: “The Germans degrade themselves, when they follow the example of the Czechs and anti-Semites.” See: Glassheim, Noble Nationalists, 36. Although unlike Lueger, not all of Fried's Catholic conservative examples were anti-Semitic, they still represented clerical power, which Fried opposed.

¹⁴⁸ See: Hacohen, “Kosmopoliten in einer ethnonationalen Zeit?”

¹⁴⁹ Ibid. It should be noted that by “cosmopolitan initiatives,” I mean something looser than the rare, uncompromisingly cosmopolitan view held by Karl Popper, among others. On Popper's cosmopolitanism, see: Hacohen, Malachi Haim, Karl Popper: The Formative Years, 1902–1945 (Cambridge: UK, 2000)Google Scholar. For a contemporary discussion of proposals for limiting national sovereignty in the early twentieth century, which emphasizes the scarcity of strictly cosmopolitan proposals, see: Krehbiel, Nationalism, War, and Society.

¹⁵⁰ See: Glassheim, Noble Nationalists, and Guido Müller, Europäische Gesellschaftsbeziehungen.

¹⁵¹ Glassheim, Noble Nationalists, 120.

¹⁵² Historians have not always recognized this. Daniel Gasman's damning introduction to Fried's Handbuch der Friedensbewegung, for example, accuses Fried of being a naive German nationalist and social Darwinist (used as a pejorative) who took at face value the pacifist utterances of European statesmen, most importantly those of the German Kaiser. See: Daniel Gasman, “Introduction,” in Fried, Alfred H., Handbuch Der Friedensbewegung, 2 vols. (New York, 1972), 1:5–19 Google Scholar. Similarly, in a dissertation on Jews and Weimar German pacifism, Virginia Iris Holmes describes Fried as sexist and speciesist. See: Virginia Iris Holmes, “‘The Inviolability of Human Life:’ Pacifism and the Jews in Weimar Germany” (PhD diss., SUNY Binghamton, 2001). If he stood out from his contemporaries in these areas, it was likely as a progressive, so it is unclear whether we learn something distinctive about Fried, or rather about early-twentieth-century gender norms and attitudes toward animals in his rhetoric. Fried was indeed a critic of the brand of moral pacifism embraced by the women's movement in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. However, Fried supported woman suffrage, chose a female role model in Bertha von Suttner (despite her moral pacifism), published in at least one feminist journal, and fought for women's inclusion in the German Peace Society (women were excluded from the preexisting Prussian society). For an example of Fried's publications on feminism, see: Fried, Alfred H., Internationalismus und Patriotismus (Leipzig, 1908)Google Scholar. For Fried's views on pacifism in the women's movement, see: Fried, Alfred H., “Die Deutsche Frau in Der Friedensbewegung,” Friedens-Warte 1, no. 2 (1899).Google Scholar