“Drang nach osten”: Germany’s drive to the East

(Above: front cover of H Charles Woods' The Danger Zone: Changes and Problems in the Near East, 1911; and below: the title-page of his later work The Cradle of the War: The Near East and Pan-Germanism, 1918).

This post continues on from the theme of the previous post from February concerning the conflict between the “King of the Earth” (Germany and the Central Powers) and the “Kings of the East” (or “sun-rising”: the British Empire with its “jewel in the crown” centered on India).

First from a work I cited from in a post from last year (in the Archive for May 2010 on the World War Armageddon blog):

‘Let us now review our position, and see how we stand with regard to the events which we have shown to be foretold as destined to take place during the era of the sixth Vial in which we are now living. The drying up of the Euphrates has long been going on: the power of Turkey has long been declining. Our statesmen tell us “The Sick Man is sicker than ever.” In our daily papers we read: “The Ottoman Empire exhibits all the signs of a state in dissolution.”. . . Those evil agencies symbolised by the three frog-like spirits, which are yet to embroil the world, have began to show signs of increased activity. No one can deny that there is in the minds of thinking men, whose eyes are open to see the signs of the times, a presentiment that a great crises is approaching in the history of our world. There ever lingers on the horizon the dark storm-cloud of the Eastern Question. Now and again it seems gathering to a head, and threatening to burst. But, as often happens in thundery weather, the storm is averted for a while. Yet there the cloud is still, waiting for the time fixed by God's eternal decree, and when that time comes the cloud of the Eastern Question will once more gather and come down, involving the nations in widespread calamity and destruction. There can be little doubt that in the crises of the end of this dispensation the Eastern Question will play its part.’

(The Rev. Joseph Tanner, B.A.; from: Daniel and the Revelation: The Chart of Prophecy and our Place in it; A Study of the Historical and Futurist Interpretation; London; Hodder and Stoughton, 1898; p. 370).

Before moving on to quote from the latter work detailed above by H Charles Henry, the following quote is taken from H A Gibbons' The Reconstruction of Poland and the Near East, 1917 (pp. 57-58):

“Hemmed in on the west by Great Britain and France and on the east by Russia, born too late to extend their political sovereignty over vast colonial domains, and unable (if only for lack of coaling stations) to develop sea power greater than that of their rivals, nothing was more natural than the German and Austro-Hungarian conception of a Drang nach Osten through the Balkan Peninsula, over the bridge of Constantinople, into the markets of Asia. The geographical position of the Central European states made as inevitable a penetration policy into the Balkans and Turkey as the geographical position of England made inevitable the development of an overseas empire.”

(As cited in, Turkey, The Great Powers, and the Bagdad Railway: A Study in Imperialism; by Edward Mead Earle, Ph.D., Assistant Professor of History in Columbia University; The Macmillan Company, New York, 1924; p. 51).

Now to H Charles Woods' work:

‘[First:] the reasons which have prompted me to call this book “The Cradle of the War.” For many years, and more especially since the re-establishment of the Ottoman Constitution in 1908, the numerous problems connected with the Near East have been a source of continual danger to the world's peace. This was due in part to the fact that the Balkan Peninsula and Asia Minor might at any time be the scenes of insurrection, massacre, or local conflict, and in part — a larger part — to the international rivalry which has existed for years concerning a future domination over many of the areas in question.

‘These localities, together with the waterways which they control, form the great and only corridor from west to east and from north to south, and they constitute the natural highway from Central Europe to Asia and from Russia to the Mediterranean. Thus, ever since the birth of her Mittel-Europa scheme, Germany has been determined to push open the Near-Eastern door, in order to be able to strike a deadly blow at the very vitals of the British Empire, and at the same time automatically to prevent Russia from expanding towards warm water. As I shall endeavour to show, therefore, it is not so much the murder of the Archduke Franz Ferdinand and his Consort at Serajevo on June 28, 1914, as the developments preceding and following that occurrence which make the Near East the region of primary existence of the present conflict — the area in which many of its most important events have been sheltered and nurtured.

‘In the manner that a little cot is made ready for the expected child, so did the enemy prepare for the war which he was designing. This preparation, in progress from the time of the accession of the present [German] Emperor to the throne in 1888, was carried out by the gradual development of Germanic influence and power in Turkey, and by a constant and determined opposition to the establishment of stable conditions in the Near East. From the moment of the birth of his war child, too, the Kaiser has been an ever vigilant mother, for instead of allowing the real primary cause of the world conflict to be forgotten, he has consistently rocked the “cradle” in the apparent hope that she who performs this task rules the world.’

(From the Preface to The Cradle of the War: The Near East and Pan-Germanism; published: Little, Brown, and Company, Boston, 1918; pp. ix-x).

‘Whilst the policies of England and Russia during the thirty years following the signature of the Treaty of Berlin may be described as those of procrastination, the Central Powers and particularly Germany were working and intriguing for the maintenance of a state of unrest in the East destined to prepare the way for the eventual realisation of their policies. Indeed, ever since the accession of the present Emperor to the throne in 1888 that rider has been carefully developing his influence in the East. One year later, and in 1889, His Majesty paid his first visit to Constantinople — a visit more or less connected with the then recent grabbing of the Scutari-Ismid railway and with the concession for the prolongation of that line to Angora as a German concern. Directly afterwards, early in 1890, by the “Dropping of the Pilot” there was in the retirement of Bismarck a clear reversal of the policy based upon the assertions of that statesman to the effect that the whole Eastern question was “not worth the bones of a Pomeranian Grenadier.” Before and particularly after the appointment of Baron Marshal von Bieberstein, who had then been a personal friend of the Kaiser's for many years, as Ambassador in Constantinople in 1897, Germanic policy was run with the sole object of securing concessions in and gaining the favour of Turkey. Indeed although so far as the Balkan States were concerned the Kaiser at this time endeavoured to screen his intentions behind a nominally Austrian programme, he was really preparing the way for the realisation of his Pan-German dreams in the Near and Middle Easts. Thus the power of Von der Goltz Pasha, who introduced the present military system into Turkey in 1886, and of his pupils was greatly increased until the Ottoman army was finally completely under Germanic control.’ (ibid. pp. 5-6)

And on a chapter on “Mittel Europa” H Charles Woods writes:

‘I have already dealt . . . with the question of German intrigues in the East prior to the out break of the War, that I propose here only briefly to refer to one or two points raised in the “Revelations of Prince Lichnowsky”, published in pamphlet form by The New York Times. To begin with, no doubt whatever is left upon the mind of the reader that Germany, and not Austria, made this War, largely with the object of improving her position in the East. Indeed from the time of the Congress of Berlin of 1878, when Prince Lichnowsky says his country began the Triple Alliance Policy, “The goal of our [German] political ambition was to dominate in the Bosphorus”, and “instead of encouraging a powerful development in the Balkan States, we [Germany] placed ourselves on the side of the Turkish and Magyar oppressors.”

‘These words contain in essence and in tabulated form an explanation of the Pan-German policy in progress during the period covered by this book — a policy the existence of which has often been refuted and denied by those who refused to see that, from the first, the Kaiser was obsessed by a desire for domination from Hamburg to the Persian Gulf. What is even more striking, too, is the fact that, in speaking of the Balkan War period, Prince Lichnowsky says, that “two possibilities for settling the question remained.” Either Germany left the Near-Eastern problem to the peoples themselves or she supported her allies “and carried out a Triple Alliance policy in the East, thereby giving up the rôle of mediator.” Once more, in the words of the Prince himself, “The German Foreign Office very much preferred the latter,” and as a result supported Austria . . .’ (ibid. pp. 312-313).

And from the same chapter concerning the “attention with which the Germans have developed their plans for conquest in the East”, H Charles Woods quotes the following:

‘ “Their objective,” as President Wilson said in his address delivered at Baltimore on April 6, 1918, “is undoubtedly to make all the Slavic peoples, all the free and ambitious nations of the Balkan Peninsula, all the lands that Turkey has dominated and misruled, subject to their will and ambition and build upon that dominion an empire of force upon which they fancy that they can erect an empire of gain and commercial supremacy, — an empire as hostile to the Americas as to the Europe which it will overawe, — an empire which will ultimately master Persia, India, and the peoples of the Far East.” ’ (ibid. p. 320).

* * * * * * *

Envoi:

‘The war has been forced upon us, and yet we must look upon it as a stroke of good fortune that the sacrificial death of Archduke Francis Ferdinand led to the premature outbreak of the great anti-German conspiracy. Two years later the war would have been far more difficult, its victims more numerous, and its outcome less certain.’

(Paul Rohrbach, Professor of Colonial Economy in the Commercial Academy of Berlin, writing in the Author’s Preface to his Germany’s Isolation: An Exposition of the Economic Causes of the Great War, 1915).

And again:

‘Must [we] not fight for two hundred fifty million pounds of commerce.’ (Paul Rohrbach, quoting from the Saturday Review article ‘England and Germany’ (September, 1897) in his German World Policies, (p. 181), as cited in The Anglo-German Commercial and Colonial Rivalry as a Cause of The Great War; by Oscar Albert Marti, M.A.; The Stratford Company, Publishers, 1917; p. xiii).

The battle lines were joined:

‘[T]he merchants of Tarshish, with all the young lions thereof, shall say unto thee, Art thou come to take a spoil? hast thou gathered thy company to take a prey? to carry away silver and gold, to take away cattle and goods, to take a great spoil?’ Ezekiel 38:13

(For other posts on the “Kings of the East” click on the link in the Index below).

The Kings of the Earth v The Kings of the East

In his Lectures on the Apocalypse: Critical, Expository, and Practical (1849) Canon Wordsworth (later the Anglican Bishop of Lincoln), writes, after first stating that in his opinion, the term ‘Kings of the East’ was ‘figurative, and [was] to be understood spiritually’, that:

‘[T]he Kings from the East, or Sun-rising, whose Way is prepared, are the faithful soldiers of Christ. Their Kingdom is to serve Christ’; and ‘[The] Kings of the Earth are opposed to [the] Kings of the East . . . Such, then, is the Plague which St. John announces to the World in the Sixth Vial.’ (pp. 434, 436-437, 440).

As can be seen by the title-pages of the two books heading this post: the rivalry between the German Empire and its jealousy of the Imperial splendour and vastness of the British Empire, was one of the factors (taking place under the drying up of the Turkish Empire under the Sixth Vial) that contributed to the destructive passions let loose in the outbreak of the First Word War.

In a recent work concentrating on this aspect of the First World War its author Sean McMeekin remarks:

‘[Kaiser] Wilhelm [viewed himself] strutting across the world stage as a true modern Alexander, taking in Anatolia, Mesopotamia and Persia and toppling the British Raj. . . . Whereas Hitler was willing to concede the British their global, sea-based empire in exchange for recognition of his own domination of the Eurasian landmass, Wilhelm wanted the British Empire too, including its crown jewels of Egypt and India.’ (The Berlin-Baghdad Express: The Ottoman Empire and Germany’s Bid for World Power 1898-1918; Allen Lane/Penguin Books, 2010; pp. 2-3).

And in the chapter entitled “A Gift from Mars: German Holy War Fever” Sean McMeekin writes:

‘We may never know for sure what was said behind closed doors in Berlin as the European diplomatic crisis heated up in July 1914. The key German policy-makers, including Chancellor Theobald von Bethmann Hollweg and Helmuth von Moltke, Chief of the General Staff, all burned their private papers from the period. Although there is clear evidence that Bethmann Hollweg (on Kaiser Wilhelm’s instructions) issued a ‘blank cheque’ inviting Vienna to retaliate against Serbia on 5 July, the extent to which the Germans deliberately sought to provoke a general European war remains controversial. . . .

‘If the evidence of premeditation in July is inconclusive, however, the extraordinary war fever which overcame the German government in August can be documented without a shadow of doubt. Audacious plans for world conquest were openly bandied about in once-conservative government ministries. The ‘gift from Mars’ meant that the gloves were finally off in Germany’s battle with Britain for global supremacy.’ (ibid. pp. 85-86)

And goes on later to state, that:

‘Because of the central role [that] the Kaiser’s jihad stratagem plays in Fritz Fischer’s controversial indictment, Germany’s Aims in the First World War, it has become customary for Fischer’s critics to dismiss these plans as peripheral to Germany’s overall war strategy. In a work still considered the gold standard, Germany and the Ottoman Empire, 1914-1918, Ulrich Trumpener writes that, although the anti-British holy war idea was a ‘recurring theme of the Kaiser’s famous marginalia, there is no evidence that Berlin had any coherent action plans on hand when World War I broke out’. Any measures the Germans did take to launch jihad-style uprisings against the Entente powers in August 1914, Trumpener writes, ‘bore all the hallmarks of hasty improvisation’. Those who have followed Trumpener’s analysis, such as David Fromkin, have likewise dismissed the importance of the jihad campaign, arguing that it had little bearing on either Turkey’s entry into the war or on the way the war was really fought.

‘To dismiss the importance of pan-Islam in Germany’s wartime plans, however, is to fall victim to hindsight. In 1914, if not when they were writing post-war memoirs, Germany’s leaders saw in Islam the secret weapon which would decide the world war.’ (ibid.pp. 86-87).

The quotes that follow below are taken from the two works whose title-pages are reproduced in the heading to this post - both of which were written whilst the First World War was still raging. First, from the uppermost work:

‘Backed as the [Baghdad Railway] project was by the German government, steadily growing in power and aggressiveness since the establishment of the united German Empire, it added to the already complicated Eastern Question an aggravating factor that contributed largely to the outbreak of the great war. The present struggle for supremacy among European powers resolves itself in its ultimate analysis into a rivalry for the control of the East as an adjunct to commercial expansion. The “trend towards the East” did not originate with modern Germany. It began with Greece, was taken up by ancient Rome and has actuated every Western power with ambitions to extend its commerce and its sphere of influence — Spain, Holland, England and France, and in days nearer to us Russia and Germany, Austria and Italy. Through a curious combination of circumstances, superinduced by the gradual weakening of the once dominant Turkish Empire, the struggle has shaped itself into its present aspect for a control of the great highway that is the key to the East — the nearer and the farther East.

‘A survey of the history of Asia Minor, as a resultant of the geographical contour of the region, furnishes the illustration to the thesis that the most recent events are merely the repetition on a larger scale of such as took place thousands of years ago, and at frequent intervals since. The weapons have changed, new contestants have arisen to take the place of civilizations that after serving their day faded out of sight, but the issue has ever remained the same. We are confronted by that issue to-day — the control of the highway that leads to the East. Through the war archaeological investigations and historical researches have been removed from their academic isolation to furnish the explanation for the political import of the Bagdad Railway project. The study of the remote past, so energetically pursued by European and American scholars during the past decades, is brought into the foreground through the stirring events of our days to illumine the bearings of the historic highway of Asia Minor on the issues at stake in the present world conflict. The decisive battlefields for the triumph of democracy are in the West, but the decision for supremacy among European nations lies in the East.’

(From: The War and the Bagdad Railway: The Story of Asia Minor and Its Relation to the Present Conflict; by Morris Jastrow, Jr., Ph.D., LL.D.,; published J. B. Lippcott Company, Philadelphia and London, 1917; pp. 29-30).

And from the second work:

'[T]here is a very serious and a real cause for this great world battle. That cause above all others was the colonial and commercial rivalries of the several nations of Europe as they center, in their interests, around England and Germany[1] who stand at the head of the Triple Entente, and the Triple Alliance respectively. “It has long been evident to students of world politics that there is only one international situation which threatens the peace of the civilized world. That is the rivalry between England and Germany. There is no other rivalry, dispute, or misunderstanding between nations that could not be settled peacefully and quickly if this Anglo-German problem did not, directly or indirectly, retard such a settlement. German and British policies on four continents are determined or conditioned by the mutual enmity and fear of these two powers. Because British policies and interests clash with German policies and interests, Europe is divided into two great groupings of nations, which during the past half decade have almost evenly balanced the military strength of the continent, and it has been the fear of disturbing this balance that has prevented the settlement of more than one grave political and economic and social question.”[2]'

(From the Introduction to The Anglo-German Commercial and Colonial Rivalry as a Cause of The Great War; by Oscar Albert Marti, M.A.; The Stratford Company, Publishers, 1917; pp. xiii-xiv).

From footnotes:

[1] “England with her long history of successful aggression, with her marvelous conviction that in persuing her interests she is spreading light among nations dwelling in darkness, and Germany, bone of the same bone, blood of the same blood, with a lesser force but perhaps a keener intelligence, compete in every corner of the globe. In the Transvaal, at the Cape, in Central Africa, in India and the East, in the islands of the South Sea, and in the far Northwest, wherever — and where has it not? — the flag has followed the Bible, there the German bagman is struggling with the English pedlar. Is there a mine to exploit, a railroad to build, a native to convert, from breadfruit to tinned meat, from temperance to trade gin, the German and the Englishman is struggling to be first. A million petty disputes build up the greatest cause of war the world has ever seen. If Germany were extinguished tomorrow there is not an Englishman in the world who would not be richer. Nations have fought for years over a city or right of succession. Must they not fight for two hundred fifty million pounds of commerce.” — Rohrbach, “German World Policies,” p. 180. Quoted from the “Saturday Review,” September, 1897.

[2] “Review of Reviews,” XLV, p. 281.

And from Chapter I of the same work (entitled, “The Colonial Ascendancy of Great Britain”):

'The tendency of the political development of the English People according to her own historians, and Anglophiles in general, has been one steady trend towards liberty and democracy. The English speaking people have regarded themselves as the torchbearers of that civilization which the world, at the first decade of the twentieth century, realized it had attained. From the standpoint of the Germans, however, England is viewed as the great robber state that, having taken advantage of the misfortunes of the other nations, gobbled up one-fifth of the land area of the habitable world and insists on holding possession, not by virtue of her power to defend, but by reason of her ability to bluff. Germany, also, regards herself as the heir presumptive to the colonial kingdom of the world. To her, England is a colossus with feet of iron mixed with miry clay; while Germany is the stone destined to smite the image on the feet, to its utter destruction, and eventually to become the great mountain that will fill the whole earth.' (ibid. p. 1).

(For other posts on the “Kings of the East” click on the link in the Index below).

War 1914: Punishing the Serbs

Excerpts from official papers : –

'M.N. Pashitch, [Serbian] Prime Minister and Minister for Foreign Affairs, to all the Royal Serbian Legations abroad.

Belgrade, June 18/July 1, 1914.

'The Austrian and Hungarian press are blaming Serbia more and more for the Sarajevo outrage. Their aim is transparent, viz., to destroy that high moral reputation which Serbia now enjoys in Europe, and to take the fullest advantage politically against Serbia of the act of a young and ill-balanced fanatic. But, in Serbia itself, the Sarajevo outrage has been most severely condemned in all circles of society, inasmuch as all, official as well as unofficial, immediately recognised that this outrage would be most prejudicial not only to our good neighbourly relations with Austria-Hungary but also to our co-nationalists in that country, as recent occurrences have proved. At a moment when Serbia is doing everything in her power to improve her relations with the neighbouring Monarchy, it is absurd to think that Serbia could have directly or indirectly inspired acts of this kind. On the contrary, it was of the greatest interest to Serbia to prevent the perpetration of this outrage. Unfortunately this did not lie within Serbia's power, as both assassins are Austrian subjects. Hitherto Serbia has been careful to suppress anarchic elements, and after recent events she will redouble her vigilance, and in the event of such elements existing within her borders will take the severest measures against them....'

*******

'Sir Edward Grey [British Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs] to Sir M. de Bunsen, British Ambassador at Vienna.

Foreign Office, July 23, 1914.

' ... I could not help dwelling upon the awful consequences involved in the situation.... [I]t would be very desirable that those who had influence in St. Petersburgh should use it on behalf of patience and moderation.... [T]he amount of influence that could be used... would depend upon how reasonable were the Austrian demands and how strong the justification that Austria might have discovered for making her demands. The possible consequences of the present situation were terrible. If as many as four Great Powers of Europe – let us say, Austria, France, Russia, and Germany – were engaged in war, it seemed to me that it must involve the expenditure of so vast a sum of money, and such an interference with trade, that a war would be accompanied or followed by a complete collapse of European credit and industry. In these days, in great industrial States, this would mean a state of things worse than that of 1848, and, irrespective of who were victors in the war, many things might be completely swept away....'

*******

'Sir Edward Grey [British Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs] to Sir M. de Bunsen, British Ambassador at Vienna.

(Telegraphic.) Foreign Office, July 24, 1914.

'Note addressed to Serbia, together with an explanation of the reasons leading up to it, has been communicated to me by [the Austro-Hungarian Ambassador] Count Mensdorff.

'In the ensuing conversation with his Excellency, I remarked that it seemed to me a matter for great regret that a time limit, and such a short one at that, had been insisted upon at this stage of the proceedings. The murder of the Archduke and some of the circumstances respecting Serbia quoted in the note aroused sympathy with Austria, as was natural, but at the same time I had never before seen one State address to another independent State a document of so formidable a character. Demand No. 5 would be hardly consistent with the maintenance of Serbia's independent sovereignty if it were to mean, as it seemed that it might, that Austria-Hungary was to be invested with a right to appoint officials who would have authority within the frontiers of Serbia....'

*******

'Sir G. Buchanan, British Ambassador at St. Petersburgh, to Sir Edward Grey [British Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs]. – (Received July 24.)

(Telegraphic.) St. Petersburgh, July 24, 1914.

' ... I said that I would telegraph a full report to you of what their Excellencies had just said to me. I could not, of course, speak in the name of His Majesty's Government, but personally I saw no reason to expect any declaration of solidarity from His Majesty's Government that would entail an unconditional engagement on their part to support Russia and France by force of arms. Direct British interests in Serbia were nil, and a war on behalf of that country would never be sanctioned by British public opinion....

'French Ambassador and M. Sazonof [Russian Minister for Foreign Affairs] both continued to press me for a declaration of complete solidarity of His Majesty's Government with French and Russian Governments, and I therefore said that it seemed to me possible that you might perhaps be willing to make strong representations to both German and Austrian Governments, urging upon them that an attack by Austria upon Serbia would endanger the whole peace of Europe. Perhaps you might see your way to saying to them that such action on the part of Austria would probably mean Russian intervention, which would involve France and Germany, and that it would be difficult for Great Britain to keep out if the war were to become general. M. Sazonof answered that we would sooner or later be dragged into war if it did break out...'

*******

'Mr. Crackanthorpe, British Chargé d' Affaires at Belgrade, to Sir Edward Grey [British Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs]. – (Received July 24.)

(Telegraphic.) Belgrade, July 24, 1914.

'Austrian demands are considered absolutely unacceptable by Serbian Government, who earnestly trust that His Majesty's Government may see their way to induce Austrian Government to moderate them.

'This request was conveyed to me by Serbian Prime Minister, who returned early this morning to Belgrade. His Excellency is dejected, and is clearly very anxious as to developments that may arise.'

*******

'Sir G. Buchanan, British Ambassador at St. Petersburgh, to Sir Edward Grey [British Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs]. – (Received July 25.)

(Telegraphic.) St. Petersburgh, July 25, 1914.

' ... On my expressing the earnest hope that Russia would not precipitate war by mobilising until you had had time to use your influence in favour of peace, his Excellency assured me that Russia had no aggressive intentions, and she would take no actions until it was forced upon her. Austria's action was in reality directed against Russia. She aimed at overthrowing the present status quo in the Balkans, and establishing her own hegemony there. He did not believe that Germany really wanted war, but her attitude was decided by ours. If we took our stand firmly with France and Russia there would be no war. If we failed them now, rivers of blood would flow, and we would in the end be dragged into war....'

*******

'Mr. Crackanthorpe, British Chargé d' Affaires at Belgrade, to Sir Edward Grey [British Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs]. – (Received July 25.)

(Telegraphic.) Belgrade, July 25, 1914.

'The Council of Ministers is now drawing up their reply to the Austrian note. I am informed by the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs that it will be most conciliatory and will meet the Austrian demands in as large a measure as is possible.

'The following is a brief summary of the projected reply:–

'The Serbian Government consent to the publication of a declaration in the “Official Gazette.” The ten points are accepted with reservations. Serbian Government declare themselves ready to agree to a mixed commission of enquiry so long as the appointment of the commission can be shown to be in accordance with international usage. They consent to dismiss and prosecute those officers who can be clearly proved to be guilty, and they have already arrested the officer referred to in the Austrian note. They are prepared to suppress the Narodna Odbrana ['Defence of the People': a Serbian nationalist group].

'The Serbian Government consider that, unless the Austrian Government want war at any cost, they cannot but be content with the full satisfaction offered in the Serbian reply.'

*******

'Sir Edward Grey [British Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs] to Sir G. Buchanan, British Ambassador at St. Petersburgh.

(Telegraphic.) Foreign Office, July 25, 1914.

' ... The sudden, brusque, and peremptory character of the Austrian démarche makes it almost inevitable that in a very short time both Russia and Austria will have mobilised against each other. In this event, the only chance of peace, in my opinion, is for the other four Powers to join in asking the Austrian and Russian Governments not to cross the frontier, and to give time for the four Powers acting at Vienna and St. Petersburgh to try and arrange matters. If Germany will adopt this view, I feel strongly that France and ourselves should act upon it. Italy would no doubt gladly co-operate....'

*******

'Reply of Serbian Government to Austro-Hungarian Note. – (Communicated by Serbian Minister, July 27.)

(Translation.)

' ... The Royal Government [of Serbia] also agree to remove from military service all such persons as the judicial enquiry may have proved to be guilty of acts directed against the integrity of the territory of the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy, and they expect the Imperial and Royal Government to communicate to them at a later date the names and the acts of these officers and officials for the purposes of the proceedings which are to be taken against them.

'The Royal Government [of Serbia] must confess that they do not clearly grasp the meaning or the scope of the demand made by the Imperial and Royal Government that Serbia shall undertake to accept the collaboration of the organs of the Imperial and Royal Government upon their territory, but they declare that they will admit such collaboration as agrees with the principle of international law, with criminal procedure, and with good neighbourly relations....'

*******

'Sir M. de Bunsen, British Ambassador at Vienna, to Sir Edward Grey [British Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs]. – (Received July 27.)

(Telegraphic.) Vienna, July 27, 1914.

'I have had conversations with all my colleagues representing the Great Powers. The impression left on my mind is that the Austro-Hungarian note was so drawn up as to make war inevitable; that the Austro-Hungarian Government are fully resolved to have war with Serbia...'

*******

'Sir Edward Grey [British Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs] to Sir E. Goschen, British Ambassador at Berlin.

Foreign Office, July 29, 1914.

' ... The German Ambassador said the view of the German Government was that Austria could not by force be humiliated, and could not abdicate her position as a Great Power. I said I entirely agreed, but it was not a question of humiliating Austria, it was a question of how far Austria meant to push the humiliation of others....'

*******

'Sir G. Buchanan, British Ambassador at St. Petersburgh, to Sir Edward Grey [British Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs]. – (Received August 2.)

(Telegraphic.) St. Petersburgh, August 1, 1914.

' ... In the evening M. Sazonof [Russian Minister for Foreign Affairs] had an interview with the Austrian Ambassador who, not being definitely instructed by his Government, did his best to deflect the conversation towards a general discussion of the relations between Austria-Hungary and Russia instead of keeping to the question of Serbia. In reply the Minister for Foreign Affairs expressed his desire that these relations should remain friendly, and said that, taken in general, they were perfectly satisfactory; but the real question which they had to solve at this moment was whether Austria was to crush Serbia and to reduce her to the status of a vassal, or whether she was to leave Serbia a free and independent State....'

Count Sforza on “The Origins of the War”

THE ORIGINS OF THE WAR

'In 1914 the Germany of William II and the Austria-Hungary of the Hapsburgs were guilty of the same error as Hitler in 1939 and Mussolini in 1940: they despised their eventual adversaries too much. In 1939 Hitler believed, since they had allowed him to assassinate Czechoslovakia, that he could do the same to Poland; in 1940 Mussolini believed, like Petain and Weygand, that Great Britain would be incapable of resisting after France's fall.

'The former Ambassador of Austria-Hungary at London, Count Mensdorf, said to me one day after the monarchy he had loyally and skilfully served had come to its end: “Yes, you are right; they were mad, at Vienna and Budapest – Berchtold as mad as Tisza to have unleashed the great war after Serajevo. But Berchtold, at least, and all the Austrians with him, always believed from the bottom of their hearts that they would end by letting Austria have her little war with Serbia ; hadn't Europe swallowed without wincing all the acts of violence of the Central Empires? Fundamentally, we were tricked by the Entente; we were sure they had decided never to make war against us. . . .”'

(Contemporary Italy Its Intellectual and Moral Origins, by Count Carlo Sforza; Frederick Muller Ltd., London, 1946; p. 145)

'The assassination of Francis Ferdinand of Hapsburg and his wife at Serajevo on June 24, 1914, seemed to the camarilla of the Court of Vienna and to the feudal Hungarians a fortunate pretext sent by the gods.

'That Serajevo was only a pretext is proved by the compilation of the memorial written in Vienna, actually several days before June 28, formally to request German assistance for an attack on Serbia. . . . The famous memorial presented to the Emperor William after the death of Francis Joseph's heir, to assure Austria the support of her German ally, had been prepared and completely drafted previously, on the morrow of the German Kaiser's visit to Francis Ferdinand at the castle of Konopisht in mid-May, 1914. The assassination of Serajevo had no other result than to add to the already prepared document the following postscript:

'“This memorial had already been completed when the terrible events of Serajevo supervened. One can scarcely realize the full import of this abominable assassination which has, nevertheless, if indeed that were still necessary, produced the irrefutable proof of the impossibility of putting an end to the antagonism between the Monarchy and Serbia, as well as the danger and intensity of the Pan-Serbian propaganda that recoils at nothing. . . . Under these conditions the necessity of breaking with an energetic hand the net in which her adversary wishes to suffocate her is imposed on the Monarchy.”

'The Bosnian crisis had been, as I have said, the dress rehearsal for that of 1914, with this difference, however, that in 1909 the Austrian statesmen dominated the events, whereas in 1914 Aerenthal's successors were but the victims of their passions and puppets of the events.

'Aerenthal had had a view of the future, limited but clear; moreover, he was a man and in a certain sense a new man. Berchtold, his successor, was only the symbol of the old Austria whose real masters were the old narrow-minded bureaucrats, like Count Forgach, who one day said to one of his subordinates at the Ballplatz, Baron Szilassy, a Hungarian like himself: “I wish that in all the offices of the Ministry they would inscribe this maxim: Serbia delenda est” (Serbia must be destroyed.)

'I knew Forgach as a young diplomat at Constantinople and was aware of the hate he already had for anything Slavic, even before the ridiculous part he played before all Europe in the affair of the forgery of the Friedjung case. Minister in China from 1911, I never again saw Forgach, who became all-powerful at the Ballplatz. But from Peking I returned and spent several weeks in Austria in 1912 and 1913. Duke Avarna, then Ambassador of Italy, Dumaine, Ambassador of France, Count Dudzeele, my wife's father and Minister of Belgium who, like myself, had known Forgach intimately at Constantinople, all insisted that the danger in Vienna was that, thanks to Forgach, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, instead of acting as a counterweight to the preference of the military circles for war, excited them still more.

'The memorandum which was to decide the European war could have issued only from a Ministry of Foreign Affairs directed by men of Forgach's stripe.

'The fatal document started for Berlin on the evening of July 4. Count Hoyos, Berchtold's Chief of Cabinet, carried it. The next day, July 5, Emperor Francis Joseph gave a long audience to the Chief of Staff, Conrad, who left an exact report of the conversation:

'“I expressed”, wrote Conrad, “my opinion of the inevitability of war with Serbia.”

“The Emperor: Yes, that's perfectly true, but how do you expect to make war if everyone attacks us, especially Russia?

“Conrad: Doesn't Germany shield us?

“The Emperor: Are we sure about Germany?

“Conrad: But we ought to know, Your Majesty, the situation we are in.

“The Emperor: A note left last night for Berlin; we asked for a point-blank reply.

“Conrad: And if the reply assures that Germany places herself beside us, shall we make war on Serbia?

“The Emperor: In that case, yes.”'

(pp. 147-149)

'Three days after his meeting with Francis Joseph, on July 8, Conrad had a definitive conversation with Berchtold. The meticulous exactness with which Conrad reproduced it in his memoirs* is surprising; it is the language of a conspiracy, and he does not realize it. [*From footnote: 'Conrad's memoirs, Aus Meiner Dienstzeit (My Years of Service), has the advantage of sincerity where other writers, more anxious about public opinion, would have been tempted to gloss over the truth.']

'“Berchtold: What will happen if Serbia lets matters slide until the mobilization, and then yields completely?

“Conrad: Then we invade Serbian territory.

“Berchtold: And if Serbia does nothing?

“Conrad: Then Serbia will remain occupied until all our war expenses have been paid.

“Berchtold: Shall we delay the ultimatum until after the harvest, and after the Serajevo inquest?

“Conrad: Better to-day than to-morrow; we have to exploit the situation. The moment our adversaries suspect anything they are going to prepare.

“Berchtold: We'll take care that the secret will be strictly kept and that nothing shall be known by anyone.

“Conrad: About what date should the ultimatum be sent?

“Berchtold: In a fortnight, July 22. It would be a good idea for you, as well as for the Minister of War, to go on leave for a while so as to dissipate any kind of anxiety.”

'Such was the atmosphere at Vienna when Francis Ferdinand's assassination seemed the most fortunate of opportunities, one which had been lacking in 1913, and one that at no price should be missed again. Apponyi's “At last!” was the avowal of the official world. Those who hesitated, like Tisza, did not do so from love of peace, but because they were not sure of being sufficiently aided by Germany. The moment William II's “Now or never” became known at Vienna and Budapest, there was not a Magyar nor an Austrian-German who was not for the war. At the time of the dramatic interview that took place on November 2, 1918, between the members of the Deutschoesterreicher Staatsrat and Emperor Charles, when the latter protested “not having wanted it” and a Socialist leader indicated approbation, the old Christian-Socialist Dr. Mayer rose and, alone, had the dignity to declare:

'“Let us be sincere, gentlemen. We all wanted the war: even the people wanted it. You need only recall the enthusiasm of the summer of 1914. . . .”' (pp. 149-150)

* * *

'A legend more tenacious than history was formed in 1914 and afterward regarding Pope Pius X's attitude toward the Hapsburg aggression toward Serbia. This legend shows us Pius X praying and fighting against the outbreak of the war, horrified to see Christianity divided into two enemy camps, and dying of grief at the invasion of Belgium and all the horrors of war unchained. The truth is quite otherwise.

'During the war of 1914-18 the religious question had only a minor importance; both camps included Catholics, Protestants, Greek Orthodox members and Mohammedans. Catholic unity did not prevail any more than Mohammedan unity, which seemed so sure of its jihad (the Holy War proclaimed by the Sultan-Caliph, which neither Arab nor Hindu [Indian?] Moslem obeyed). The clergy of the different countries could all invoke Allah or the old God of Armies with opposite hopes.

'One fact, however, during the tragic weeks of July and August, 1914, scandalized European opinion: that the war should have been provoked in the name of God by a powerful and decrepit sovereign, Francis Joseph, Emperor of Austria and Apostolic King of Hungary, the most Catholic of all the sovereigns and the most important of all Catholic sovereigns. When this Prince declared that he made war to chastise Serbia, millions of timorous souls imagined that the Pope would intervene to prevent the catastrophe. This hope gave birth to the legend. It was said at the time that Pius X, the moment he knew of the ultimatum to Serbia, had enjoined his Nuncio at Vienna to admonish the old Emperor and King in the name of the Almighty. Then, since the war happened just the same, it was explained that the Ballplatz diplomats and military men of the imperial entourage had prevented Pius X's messenger from talking with the Emperor. And here is the last act of the legend: The Pope having died suddenly on August 20, 1914, it was affirmed that the good Pius had succumbed to grief, having realized his impotence to avert the disaster.

'It is time to establish the truth as to that legend, and here it is:

'As soon as the danger of war became evident, Count Palffy, Austrian Chargé d' Affaires at the Vatican, several times informed Pius X's Secretary of State, Cardinal Merry del Val, of the intentions and the “duties” of the Dual Monarchy. The Cardinal's replies were deposited in the diplomatic correspondence of the Austro-Hungarian Embassy, correspondence that I have seen. They reveal that the Vatican saw with satisfaction, at least at the outset, an undertaking in which the crushing of Serbia would entail a diminution of the influence of Russia. The latter's prestige was detested by the Roman Church, which viewed it as the principal obstacle to a reconciliation of the Oriental churches with the See of Rome. In these conversations the Secretary of State spoke expressly in the name of the Pope who, he declared to the Austrian representative, deplored that Austria had not earlier inflicted on the Serbs the chastisement they deserved. It is sufficient to quote the following passage from a dispatch of Count Palffy to Count Berchtold on July 29:

'“During the conversation I had two days ago with the Cardinal Secretary of State he spoke spontaneously of the great problems and questions now agitating Europe. It would be impossible to detect in His Eminence's words any spirit whatever of indulgence and conciliation. It is true he characterized the note to Serbia as very harsh, but he nevertheless approved it without any reservation and at the same time expressed, in an indirect way, the hope that the Monarchy would go to the limit. Certainly, added the Cardinal, it was too bad that Serbia had not been humiliated very much sooner, for then it might have been done without putting into play, as today, such immense possibilities. This declaration also corresponds to the Pope's way of thinking, for, in the course of recent years His Holiness has often expressed regret that Austro-Hungary has failed to 'chastise' her dangerous Danubian neighbour.

'“One might wonder for what motive the Catholic Church evinces herself so bellicose at an epoch when she is governed by a chief who is truly a saint, imbued with veritably apostolic ideas. The answer is very simple. The Pope and the Curia see in Serbia the ravaging malady that little by little penetrated the Monarchy to the marrow, and which, in time, would end by disintegrating it.

'“Despite all the other experiments attempted by the Curia in the course of the last decade, Austria-Hungary is and remains the Catholic State par excellence, the strongest rampart of the Faith which stands in our day for the Church of Christ. The fall of this rampart would signify for the Church the loss of its solidest prop; in the conflicts with the Orthodox Church she would see her most powerful champion struck down.

'“Hence, just as for Austria-Hungary there is an immediate necessity of self-preservation to expel from its organism, even by force if need be, the dissolving malady, there is also for the Catholic Church an indirect necessity of doing or approving everything that would serve to attain that end.

'“In this light, a harmony between the apostolic sentiment and the war spirit can easily be confirmed.”

'The widening of the conflict which from Austro-Serb became European changed probably the Pope's frame of mind. But at least in the very first days of the war he considered the march of the German army nach Paris as a punishment that God had inflicted on the “eldest daughter of the Church” who had given him the worst worries of his pontificate.' (pp. 153-155).

[The above paragraph in the American edition published by E. P. Dutton & Co., Inc., New York, 1944 (by the same translators: Drake and Denise de Kay) reads slightly differently; as here follows:

'The widening of the conflict which from Austro-Serb became European did not do much to change the Pope's frame of mind. In his honest but narrow mind the march of the German army nach Paris assumed the form of a punishment that God had inflicted on the “eldest daughter of the Church” who had given him the worst worries of his pontificate.' (p. 189).]

'We have seen that the proceeding of the Nuncio at Vienna is a legend. That Pius X died of grief is still another. I have it from his doctor, my colleague in the Italian Senate, that the malady of which the Pope died had for long months wasted the old man by slow degrees, and that the overwork of the last few weeks could, at most, but have hastened the end that he, Marchiafava, had already declared inevitable and due to occur very shortly.' (p. 155)

“The Position of Britain”

'The downfall of Napoleon in 1815 left Britain in unchallenged dominion over a large portion of the globe. France and indeed the whole continent of Europe was exhausted. A United Germany had not yet arisen and Italy still lay in fragments. Russia was withdrawing from Western Europe. The Spanish and Portuguese peoples were busy in their peninsula and in their tropical possessions overseas. In the following decades revolution and civil commotion smote many of the Powers of Europe, and new nations were born. Britain alone escaped almost unscathed from these years of unrest.'

(From the Preface to Winston S Churchill's, A History of the English-Speaking Peoples, Vol. 4, “The Great Democracies”; Cassel & Company Ltd, 1958, 1974).

What follows is extracted from Chapter VI of, The Approaching War Among the Powers of Europe (1864):

CHAPTER VI

THE POSITION OF BRITAIN

'Whatever be Britain's shortcomings and defections, surely she is a nation in which lives the genius of the gospel of Jesus. Liberty, benevolence, public charity, progress, enlightenment, have all had a starting-point in the land. If there is error, sin, and backsliding, let it be remembered that humanity is in a state of imperfection; and let this also never be forgotten, that Britain has only to be true to the religious foundation on which she rests, to reach national purity and righteousness. The foundation is laid, and needs not to be changed. What she requires to do is to build in harmony with the foundation, and to sweep away her false erections; and when “the time of trouble” comes . . . the day of fiery trial shall purge this land, but shall not destroy it . . . . [T]he trial to which Britain is to be subjected shall be in proportion to her failure to build aright on her true foundation. . . .

'This is the test to which Britain shall be put in the day of European judgment. Her highest wisdom now is to cultivate that righteousness which exalteth a nation; to rid herself more and more of her connexion with Antichrist; and to understand, better than she yet does, the relation of antagonism which she occupies to the despotic powers of Europe, so that she may clearly know the work that has been given her to do, and do it, not from the promptings of instinct and feeling and interest alone, but from a regard for truth and justice, from a conviction of duty, and from a deeper spiritual insight. She is like a great giant, working with half-opened eyes, and in the main she takes the right path, but it is less through judgment than through instinct. What she much wants is a clearer knowledge of her position, and of her high mission in the interests of humanity. Let but her statesmen govern and her people obey, under a knowledge of the truth, and she shall proceed on her high course with immensely increased intelligence and power.

'Britain is the natural antagonist of the despotisms of Europe, and she and they are equally conscious that she is so. She is openly disliked by the whole of them; her liberal laws, her free institutions, her popular government, her protest against oppression, and her unfettered advocacy of human rights, make her hated by those powers whose thrones are based on tyranny and maintained by iron rule — while her physical power makes her feared as much as she is hated. . . .

'Britain proves incontestable that popular government is no vain theory, and that free thought and action lead not to anarchy, but to the safest and securest order. Nowhere in Europe is the majesty of the law so manifest as in this country, where the law-makers are the law-obeyers, and where the highest freedom is found to spring directly out of the strongest necessity. Accordingly, Britain has ever been a stimulative to patriots and peoples who have struggled to be free: to this land of ours all true hearts and panting nationalities turn for sympathy and guidance; Britain is to them the land of the morning, the land of light and hope, the bright beaming star in the darkness of their sky: and likewise, by a correspondence of feeling, the despots and oppressors regard Britain with a common hatred, and view her as the nursery of European revolution. There can possibly be no cordial friendship between her and them; they belong to the doomed past, she belongs to the promised future; they are the offspring of darkness, she is the child of light; they are an incarnate and developed lie, she is the embryo of undying truth. In all things she stands as their antipodes, and though political expediency may cause them to maintain with her an external correspondence, they would gladly hail a safe opportunity to crush and overthrow her.

'She is, however, a divinely-reserved power to work against them. Her place and influence in fulfilled prediction have been prominent within the last fifty years, and her whole history for more than three hundred years back has been a preparation for her grand mission on the earth. She was made the great centre of truth, and she has been a centre of influence for the whole world. Her ideas are not those ideas of conquest or of military glory, which have ever animated heathen and antichristian powers; but they are ideas of peace, of industry, of commerce, and moral and intellectual progress. Thus she has colonised the earth, and planted her race and her principles on distant continents. Her language is spoken, and her institutions flourish, in all parts of the globe; while her power is so far spread as to induce the remark, that on the British Empire the sun never sets. In prosecuting this work, she has by no means kept her garments spotless. She has sometimes been unjust and oppressive towards the tribes whose territories she entered upon; and one serious blot upon her conduct was the introduction of negro slavery into America. But see how the gospel principles she rested on ultimately brought her right on that matter, and caused her, at the cost of an immense sum of money, to emancipate the slaves in her West Indian possessions, and to decree that the moment the foot of a slave rested on British soil, that slave was free! It is the noble characteristic of our country, and one which makes amends for many faults, that she is open to the ingress of truth; and that when she comes to see her duty, she will do it, at whatever sacrifice.

'It was for a very important purpose that Britain rose to supremacy, and extended herself over the globe. The territory occupied by the Babylonian empire was given up to Antichrist There he was to establish his seat — to set up his banner of rebellion; and there he was to reign and triumph in his wickedness, till the time determined should be accomplished. But the world at large was not to be given him for a prey. Christ was to have the heathen for His inheritance, and the uppermost parts of the earth for His possession; and it was necessary that a diffusive and evangelising power should be raised up to spread His truth and maintain His cause, and to prepare the way for His kingdom that was to come. At the very borders of the antichristian territory, therefore, — and so near that Antichrist cast its shadow over it, yet so separated by insular position as to remain distinct and apart, — the Anglo-Saxon people grew into a strong and independent power. Keeping Continental despotism in check, and sending its God-received life and truth into unpeopled wastes and heathen wilds, Britain has shadowed with its wings the very ends of the earth. . . . It has sent its people to occupy the far West, and the still far more distant South. It has sent its missionaries and spread the Bible among the regions of the shadow of death. It is easy enough to sermonise on the sins of our land; but let her be judged by the wide charity of the gospel of Christ, and let justice be done to the efforts she has made, and the achievements she has accomplished, on behalf of human freedom. Fix the thoughts not on particular flaws and blots, but on general tendencies and characteristics, and these will be found to be on the side of truth and for the sake of that Christian truth which she holds, and on which she rests . . .

'Britain is, we say, a divinely-reserved power, and her mission is twofold, — to spread the truth, and take a stand against despotism. This latter work she has most obviously been doing for the past half century. . . . (pp. 84-92)

(“Britannia” Union Flag image modified from image by Charles Ashburner from: “FOTW Flags Of The World Website” at http://flagspot.net/flags)

“The Approaching War Amongst the Powers of Europe” (1864)

TWO YEARS AFTER

AND ONWARDS

OR

THE APPROACHING WAR AMONGST THE

POWERS OF EUROPE

AND OTHER FUTURE EVENTS DESCRIBED AS FORETOLD

IN SCRIPTURE PROPHECY

BY THE AUTHOR OF

“THE COMING STRUGGLE”

LONDON HOULSTON AND WRIGHT

65 PATERNOSTER ROW

MDCCCLXIV

[1864]

PREFACE

'We had no intention of saying more in the way of introduction to this little Work than what we have said in the First Chapter; but inasmuch as the notice of its publication has called forth remarks in various newspapers, we think it just to ourselves and due to our readers, again to protest against the unfounded and absurd assumption that we, and all who write on the subject of Scripture prediction, pretend to possess prophetic power or insight. We do no such thing. We do our best to explain a portion of the Word of God, which is not only extremely interesting but most important, and all the more important because it seems so much neglected and misunderstood. The London Standard, of August 23d, contained a leading article devoted to us and our former works, the spirit, tone, and general character, of which were eminently representative of that hostility which a large portion of the newspapers press manifest towards those who venture to give an explanation of Bible prophecy. Such critics speak as if the very attempt were a presumption, and as if the exposition given must be nonsense. Is that portion of the Bible, then, a sealed mystery, not to be studied, and not to be understood, even remotely? or do the conclusions of interpreters make religion too real for the secular tastes and perhaps sceptical notions of mere political writers? The hostility to which we refer must be based on one or other of these grounds, because it takes the form not of criticism but of scoffing, taunting vituperation; the lowest motives are attributed to those who take up the subject, and, under cover of a notice of their productions, an opportunity is taken to make an attack on the Bible itself.

'The writer in the Standard declares that the eleven years which have elapsed since the issue of our pamphlet, “The Coming Struggle,” have not brought to pass any of the events which we there anticipated. Well, but have these eleven years falsified our interpretation? On the contrary, we assert that the events which have occurred, have been plainly in the direction indicated, and have produced a situation of affairs in Europe which points significantly to such occurrences as we declared, and still declare, to be Bible predictions soon to come to pass. . . .

'It is to the Christian faith and the religious feeling of the people of this country that we address ourselves. Those who believe in the Bible, and love and reverence the sublime truths it reveals, will not scoff or sneer at an effort made to render these truths clearer and more precious by a fuller possession. Believing, as we do most firmly, that the events of latter-day prophecy are on the eve of fulfilment, and that these events are of the character indicated in this little Work, we send it forth in the hope that it will help to prepare the Christian people in this country, or wherever it may be read, for “the time of trouble that is coming upon the earth,” and for the dread realities which the approaching war among the nations shall precede and usher in.

October 1864.'

(pp. v-viii)

CHAPTER I

THE FUTURE

'But whatever diversity there may be amongst expositors of prophecy, there is this general agreement, that the last of the Scripture predictions are on the eve of fulfilment.... All, or nearly all, are agreed that the “seals” and trumpets, with the events they import, are past; that five of the vials are poured out; that the sixth has been running for some time; and that the seventh and last, and most terrible and momentous of all, was in all probability opened about the year 1830. Now, this seventh vial is, as we know, the final boundary of Scripture prophecy. In it the mystery of God shall be finished; it will contain “the indignation” spoken of by Isaiah, “the great day” of Jeremiah, “the time of trouble” of Daniel, and the terrible period of “great tribulation” predicted by Christ in the twenty-fourth chapter of Matthew. And for a full and detailed account of the unparalleled events of the period, read in the Book of Revelation, from the seventeenth verse of the sixteenth chapter to the end of the nineteenth chapter. The language of these chapters is, no doubt, the language of symbolism; but Divine symbolism never exceeds the reality. If the description there is not to receive a literal fulfilment, the events symbolised will be of a character as dreadful as the images employed to shadow them forth. In plain words, they indicate a series of events which are very soon to transpire upon the continent of Europe, involving the whole powers there in war, and resulting in an issue which shall totally alter the character and condition of the world.

'Seeing, then, that the general, almost universal opinion of interpreters is, that this unequalled period of political change and physical conflict is near at hand . . . [Once] the strife [has] begun . . . [it] shall rage as no earthly strife has raged before, and terminate with a catastrophe which the [whole] world shall witness . . . [so] is it not of the very highest importance that Christians should be looking for it, and coming to some understanding of it? Yet how very few Christians in this country are familiar with the subject of Scripture prophecy! The supposed hopelessness of its mystery, and, shall we say, the aversion manifested to it by most of the clergy, have led them away from it, and [so] they have now come to regard the world's relation to God with comparative indifference.' (pp. 11-13)

CHAPTER II

THE SPIRIT OF PROPHECY

'New Testament prophecies, and the predictions in the Old Testament concerning New Testament times, are not less, but more plainly, inspirited by “the testimony of Jesus.” They relate to the rise, progress, and fall of anti-Christ; of a power or powers that should work in the Church and the world in opposition to Jesus, and His doctrines and precepts — to Jesus, as the Redeemer and King of this earth. Here we have sin again as the cause of prophecy. If Christianity had not been oppressed, persecuted, and corrupted; if the precepts and doctrines of Jesus had been received by man, and kept in their purity and simplicity, the wars and revolutions predicted, and in part accomplished in Europe, would never have been matter of prophecy, and would never have taken place. But the antichristian power arose, as God foresaw that it would arise; it arose and put forth its energy against Christianity, it prevailed, and it was punished, — just as the Spirit of God shewed by the mouth of prophets that it should.

'The seventeen centuries of New Testament prophecy that are now past, have contained in their fulfilment nothing which can be looked upon as arbitrary Divine interference. All the events have arisen out of natural causes. God has no doubt arranged them and disposed them for the punishment of the antichristian power, and the progress of Christian truth, but they have fallen with all natural smoothness into the course of human history. The actors were men of flesh and blood, men of human passions and human powers, who, by their deeds and attempts, sought only the furtherance of their own interests, and had no thought whatever of God's plan or of prophetic fulfilment.' (pp. 20-21)

CHAPTER III

THE CONSTRUCTION AND UNITY OF PROPHECY

'The destruction of the present political and ecclesiastical structure of continental Europe is approaching; and we may easily suppose that a change so awful must be preceded and accompanied by events of the most terrible description. A universal war must come, so fierce and sanguinary that no previous war can in its character be compared with it.' (p. 33)

CHAPTER IV

THE TIME OF THE END

'Britain, if she did not miss the [Antichristian] fiend altogether, made a much less closer acquaintance with him; and at an early date caught sight of the true and fair Divinity.

'Here, then, in this little rocky island of the sea a powerful kingdom was established, based professedly on Gospel principles, with a Church whose worship was comparatively simple and pure, and whose constitution rested on principles which are eternal. This was the power which, in connexion with Protestant Germany, fitly came against the Napoleonic democracy, and destroyed it.

'In this work of ridding Europe of Napoleon we obtain a glimpse of the true mission and destiny of our country. Britain is the power reserved by God for maintaining and defending the truth. The despotisms of Europe will war among themselves, and the principles on neither side shall be worthy of victory; but Britain — however defectively she may, in practice, have realised her principles — does stand upon the glorious basis of Christian truth; and is capable of opposing, on a moral and spiritual ground, the power of Antichrist. Britain may be considered the only real antagonistic power which Antichrist has; and by and by we have no doubt that she will have Antichrist to fight with. But geographically, and morally, and spiritually, she is beyond the image territory, and is not one of the toe kingdoms, or ten horns . . . Nevertheless, as the antagonistic or Christian power, she has a great work to do — the first instalment of which was the withstanding and overthrowing of Napoleon. When we come to treat of the events that are future, we shall obtain a more extended view of the important mission and glorious destiny for which our country is reserved.' (pp. 57-58)

CHAPTER V

THE PRESENT TIME

'[The] rise [of the Turkish power] is prefigured in the sixth trumpet [of the Apocalypse], where the four angels were loosed in the great river Euphrates, and came in with an immense army of horsemen. From the time of this inroad of the Turks their power grew, till, in 1453, Mahomet the Great took Constantinople, and established the Ottoman power....

'[The] fate [of the Turkish power] was also shadowed forth under the sixth vial, and it seems almost certain that this vial began in 1820, when the Greeks successfully rebelled against the sultan, and set up a kingdom of their own. The decay of the Turkish power is represented by the drying up of the river Euphrates, that the way of the kings of the East might be prepared. It is somewhat difficult to understand who are meant by “the kings of the East;” but the drying up of the river Euphrates is easily understood. From the time of the Greek rebellion the Turkish empire has been gradually weakened and shaken. It has had to sustain heavy wars against Russia and France, the former of whom wrested from it a large portion of its Greco-Roman territory, while the latter divested it of the province of Algeria. Then it received a heavy blow when, in 1839, Egypt and Syria were taken by Mehemet Ali, who established his kingdom on its southern frontier.' (pp. 64-65)

'So far, then, the sixth vial has been poured out. During the last forty years the Turkish power has been greatly weakened. What with insurrections and rebellions at home, and wasting wars with stronger powers, she is well-nigh exhausted. The waters of the Euphrates are visibly drying up, and but for foreign aid, the Ottoman Empire would, ere this, have been overthrown.' (pp. 68-69)

'The seventh vial, as well as the sixth, is being poured out at the present time. It was to be poured out into the air, thus signifying that it would affect the whole of the social and political atmosphere of Europe. This is the last and greatest vial of wrath, and culminates in the roar of a universal conflagration. In it the awful judgments of a righteous Lord are gathered and concentrated. It contains, as it were, the dregs of all the other vials [including the sixth – so, that under the seventh vial, in the ensuing predicted, “great war”, the Ottoman Empire is finally extinguished!]. . . . Under [the seventh vial] it is “the time of trouble,” and “the last indignation.” Under it nation shall rise up against nation, and kingdom against kingdom; when men's hearts shall fail them for fear, and for looking for those things that are coming upon the earth. Under it shall be national and political convulsions, unparalleled in all past history.' (p. 70)

CHAPTER VII

THE COMING EVENTS OF THE SIXTH VIAL

'The Ottoman empire is to be overthrown, “that the way of the kings of the east might he prepared.” We shall [later] offer an explanation of the meaning of this [passage of the Revelation] . . .' (p. 96)

'[T]he Divine purpose which is required of [the British power, is to initiate] . . . we believe . . . the return to Palestine of its former light and glory, [that is] — the restoration of the Jews to their own land . . . [It will be Britain which will further] the colonisation of Judea, with its old inhabitants the Jews. Thus the way of the kings of the East will be prepared. The kings of the East must mean either the British power which rules in India, or the Jews, who are to be the future rulers in the Holy Land.

'This is the next event which naturally claims our consideration – THE RESTORATION OF THE JEWS.

'Nothing in the form of prophetic interpretation has surprised us more than the opinion seriously expressed by some commentators, that the predictions regarding the future of the Jews will find their whole fulfilment in the conversion to Christianity of God's ancient people. To our view the scheme of interpretation which does not recognise the physical, national, and political restoration of the Jews misses the scope of prophecy altogether. The idea is neither in accordance with its letter nor its spirit; for the predictions regarding the return of the Jews to their own land are abundant, and couched in language so explicit, that nothing but an utter perversion of the meaning of words can make them apply to spiritual conversion, and to that alone. Thus a physical restoration is so evidently in harmony with the spirit of God's gracious dealings, that to leave that out as an event to be accomplished gives a shock both to the reason and the heart, and creates a void in the universality of the Divine restoration of all things. Our conviction on this matter are strong and unwavering. The restoration of the Jews appears to us to be the central point on which Scripture prophecy turns.' (pp. 100-102)

CHAPTER VIII

THE COMING EVENTS OF THE SEVENTH AND LAST VIAL

'Turning now to the prophecy, we read that the outpouring of the seventh vial on the air was immediately followed by voices and thunders and lightnings — that is, by great public agitation, and threatenings of a general conflict. Now, this has been precisely the state of matters in Europe since 1830. Throughout its entire length and breadth it has been excited and alarmed; and frequently have the lightnings flashed and the thunders of war rolled. As yet these lightnings have been fitful, and the thunder-peals not greatly prolonged; but, to every one who has had occasion to consider them, they give indication of a terrible impending storm — the awful character of which, however, is to be gathered from Scripture prophecy alone. It is thus that the apostle John describes it:—

“And there was a great earthquake, such as was not since men were upon the earth, so mighty an earthquake, and so great. And the great city was divided into three parts, and the cities of the nations fell: and great Babylon came in remembrance before God, to give unto her the cup of the wine of the fierceness of his wrath. And every island fled away, and the mountains were not found. And there fell upon men a great hail out of heaven : and men blasphemed God because of the plague of the hail; for the plague thereof was exceeding great.” — Rev. xvi. 18-21.

'Daniel characterises the appalling catastrophe as “a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation, even to that same time.” And Christ, the greatest authority of all, thus prophesies of it:— “And there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars; and upon the earth distress of nations, with perplexity; the sea and the waves roaring; men's hearts failing them for fear, and for looking after those things which are coming on the earth: for the powers of heaven shall be shaken.”

'Can language indicate anything more appalling than this coming war? It will be universal and unprecedented. All the wars that have in former times raged on the earth are as nothing to this final and overwhelming conflict; and we believe it is nigh at hand, even at the door. It comes as a preparation for, and the immediate occasion of, the fall of Papal Rome — an event which is calculated by most interpreters to take place in or near to the year 1866*. In all probability, therefore, it is just on the eve of bursting forth. Let us try to come to some understanding of its political and physical features.

[*1870 saw the actual fall of Rome to the forces of Victor Emanuel; and the Temporal Power of the Papacy was ended that very year.]

'It is a war which, in its various characteristics, shall be final — that is, the opposing powers will instinctively understand that they are fighting for very existence — that their quarrel is mortal, and can only terminate with the overthrow of one side or the other. It is the last and uncompromising struggle between democracy and despotism — between the ancient and the later blasphemies. They well know that they cannot exist together, and conclude that Europe must be ruled either by the one or the other. Despotism, standing on its pedestal of hoary antiquity, and looking upon democracy as a deadly heresy, which threatens its existence, will muster for its destruction; and democracy, imagining in its turn that it is destined to annihilate the old superstitions and oppressions, and realise its wild dream of liberty, will put forth its utmost efforts to hurl the thrones of tyrants to the dust. It is long since the two combatants entered the lists; but hitherto they have been only measuring their strength, and feinting at each other with a few passages of arms. Once before, indeed, they met in deadly determined conflict, and the young demon of democracy was restrained. But its strength has returned, and it looks forward to resume the contest on more equal terms. Thus both sides are prepared for a decisive encounter, and are conscious that they must conquer or die. . . .

'In what direction, or in what manner, is the storm likely to burst? Where, or from what cause, shall the war begin? These questions naturally arise, but the prophecy does not answer them. A very trivial matter may suffice to bring on a contest for which everything is so ripe. . . . We are inclined to think, however, that it will be the Italian question which shall bring on the conflict*. The power most directly opposed to France in Europe is Austria. These two are not only the chief representatives of democracy and despotism, but they are jealous rivals, their interests clash, and in Italy meet in direct opposition.' (pp. 114-118)

[* The following quote is taken from the historian Sidney Bradshaw Fay's work, Before Sarajevo: The Origins of the [First] World War , Vol 1, 1928:

'The most valuable to the historian of all the Austro-Hungarian memoirs is the voluminous work of the Austrian Chief of Staff, Baron Conrad von Hoetzendorf (entitled, Aus meiner Dienstzeit [My Years of Service], 5 vols.; published Vienna, 1921-25). It consists in large part of an undigested mass of important documents of all sorts, copies of which he evidently took from the official files and published in chronological order, with a commentary of his own. It also includes conversations in dialogue form which appear to be taken from a diary kept from day to day. With extraordinary frankness, he recounts the repeated efforts he made to have Austria make war on Italy or Serbia on what he regarded as numerous favourable occasions between 1906 and 1914. In July, 1914, it was probably he, more than anyone else, who galvanised the incompetent and hesitating Berchtold into an active advocate of war against Serbia.']

Returning back to, The Approaching War Among the Powers of Europe (1864):

'[From the] moment [that] the war becomes universal and beyond all control . . . . the strongest passions and the wildest hopes [will be] let loose, [and] further compromise . . . [will then become] impossible. France, Italy, and the oppressed nationalities on the one side, and Prussia, Russia, and Austria on the other, will wage a war, which even unaided reason sees must be unparalleled by all former wars. Reflect what progress the powers of Europe have made in the construction of warlike weapons since the last great Continental war; what an increase has been made on the power of heavy ordnance, and in the capabilities of vessels! There are the tremendous iron ships of the French navy, and the immense guns and mortars, which all the powers possess, both for land and sea service. All these indicate a power of destruction utterly unknown in former times, and render it no difficulty to understand that a great war now must be inconceivable in its effects. How, then, shall we imagine the consequences of a conflict in which the whole world-power is engaged? The destructive power of evil will never become so apparent as then, when it is turned in upon itself. Then, also, will appear the true value of European civilisation and advancement in art and science when cultivated apart from Christianity. The very forces of nature which evil takes to work upon, contribute finally to its overthrow. In connexion with obedience to law, and with the principles of rectitude, Nature and all its powers work for human well-being; but when . . . the conditions of well-being are rejected, nature's forces can be, and are, turned to purposes of destruction. Thus we have the ruining and desolating influence of the engines of war; and these will do their fell work with unexampled intensity in the world's final conflict. The apostle John saw in vision that “the cities of the nations fell.” What particular cities will be laid in ruins, we know not; but the fact that there will be cities destroyed indicates the fierceness and uncompromising character of the contest. A fallen city implies an array of unimagined horrors — a dark and terrible scene of plunder and massacre, and cruelties of the very worst description. And yet it is not one city, but many, that shall be overtaken by this fate . . . . The power of Austria will probably be the first to feel the shock of a wave of retribution from this surging sea of Divine judgment. Austria, as the two-horned beast, has been the chief supporter of Papal Antichrist. It has been the most obedient and zealous servant of the Papacy. It practised all its abominations and cruelties, and shall be dragged first into the whirlpool of wrath.' (pp. 123-125)