“Gott mit uns”?

The first work quoted below was published whilst the First World War was still raging:

‘Houston Chamberlain, one of the best known of [the popular German writers, has written] . . . a ponderous compilation entitled Die Grundlagen des neunzehnten Jahrhunderts [The Foundations of the Nineteenth Century], for which he is said to have been paid a large sum out of the privy purse by his appreciative Emperor. This work gratifies German pride beyond all measure, and has therefore been very successful, though as a matter of fact, the author's views are not at all original. In a fawning way he reiterates the statements that Germany is the foremost of nations, and bitterly regrets that in former invasions:

“The Teuton has not exterminated his enemies root and branch wherever he has stretched out his conquering arm . . .”

‘The traditional methods for organizing conquest are [seen as being] rather slow, and so an ingenious professor by the name of Vierordt has written an article for the Badische Landeszeitung [‘Baden State Newspaper’] to show the urgent necessity of killing off Germany's enemies by the million in order that conquered territories may be transformed into deserts, to be populated subsequently by virtuous Germans.

‘These publications give most interesting indications with regard to the mentality of their authors, who long for a far more complete destruction of Europe that that which took place in Attila's day. [And who] would no doubt organize the unravished portions of the Continent into immense factories, where the unsparing lash of the Prussian corporal would keep millions of serfs toiling to enrich the Germans in general and the professors in particular.’

(From: The Psychology of the Great War, by Gustave Le Bon, translated by E. Andrews; published New York, The Macmillan Company, 1916. pp. 164, 166).

In a chapter on ‘Kaiser Wilhelm II and German anti-semitism’ in one of his works on the Kaiser, John Röhl clarifies the different levels of anti-semitism suffered by the Jews in Germany between unification in 1871 and the Götterdämmerung of 1945. He classifies them as ranging from the first (lower) form being: ‘the anti-semitism of the salon, consisting of personal prejudice and collective but still informal discrimination’; and finally at the other extreme (number five): ‘there is the ultimate horror, the anti-semitism of extermination, the anti-semitism of the holocaust.’

And he then goes on to write that: ‘In examining the anti-semitism of Kaiser Wilhelm II, we shall need to be mindful of these five different types of anti-semitism. The baneful truth, however, is that at one time or another in the course of his long life he subscribed to all five.’

Röhl writes that after his abdication and flight to exile in Holland the Kaiser wrote the following to General August von Mackensen on 2 December 1919:

“The deepest, most disgusting shame ever perpetrated by a people in history, the Germans have done onto themselves. Egged on and misled by the tribe of Juda whom they hated, who were guests among them! That was their thanks! Let no German ever forget this, nor rest until these parasites have been destroyed and exterminated [vertilgt und ausgerottet] from German Soil! This poisonous mushroom on the German oak-tree!”

Röhl then goes on:

‘He [the Kaiser] called for a ‘regular international all-worlds pogrom à la Russe’ as ‘the best cure’. ‘Jews and Mosquitoes’ were ‘a nuisance that humanity must get rid of in some way or other’, he proclaimed, and added, again in his own hand: ‘I believe the best would be gas!’ [From notes: ‘Kaiser Wilhelm II to Poultney Bigelow, 15 August 1929. Bigelow Papers, New York Public Library. Two years earlier, Wilhelm had instructed a member of his entourage to ask Fritz Haber whether the Totalvergasung [‘Total Gasification’] of large cities had become a practicable possibility. Wilhelm von Dommes to Fritz Haber, 14 June 1927, Gutssche, Ein Kaiser im Exil, p. 92.’]

(From: The Kaiser and His Court: Wilhelm II and the Government of Germany, by John C. G. Röhl, Cambridge University Press, 1994 [originally published in Germany as Kaiser, Hof und Staat: Wilhelm II. Und die deutsche Politik by Verlag C. H. Beck, Munich 1987]; p. 194-195, p. 210, and notes p. 266).

In line with extremist Germanic thought of the time the Kaiser didn’t envision genocide as being solely reserved and warranted by the Jews as Röhl writes:

‘In September 1914, after the German victory at Tannenberg, the Kaiser proposed that the 90,000 Russian prisoners of war be driven onto a barren spit of land in the Baltic and kept there till they died of thirst and hunger: it was left to one of his generals to point out that that would be ‘genocide’.’ [From notes: ‘Admiral Georg Alexander von Müller, diary entry for 4 September 1914, BA-MA Freiburg. This entry was omitted in Walter Görlitz (ed.), Regierte der Kaiser? Kreigstagebücher, Aufzeichnungen und Briefe des Chefs des Marine-Kabinetts Admiral Georg Alexander von Müller 1914-1918 (Göttingen 1959), pp. 54f.’] (ibid. p. 207, and notes p. 229)

The following is from a late eighteenth-century work first published in 1796:

'Thus the wars, in which the tyrants of the European world are to be subdued, with their widely scattered partisans, being of such mighty influence in deciding the condition of the human race, are foretold, in several parts of the apocalypse, and under different emblems. Such appears to be the import of THE HARVEST and THE VINTAGE, described in the xivth chapter [of the Revelation].’

According to this prophetic interpretation the subduing of these ‘tyrants of the European world’ (also being ‘the enemies of the church and the adversaries of [God’s] people’) would consist of:

‘two most signal slaughters, between which some space of time would intervene, which agreeably to analogy may be represented by the interval, which separates a harvest from a vintage.’

During the second of these ‘two most signal slaughters’ the grapes are described not just as being solely ‘ripe’ but as now being ‘fully ripe’. To continue from the quoted work:

‘The symbolic grapes are described as fully ripe “That is,” says Vitringa, “the period of the divine forbearance had expired, and villanies, no longer to be tolerated, had arisen to their utmost height. The measure of crimes was filled up. — Punishment therefore could no longer be deferred, but the destroyers of the earth were at length to be destroyed, and were in their turn to meet with their reward.” ’

(From: Illustrations of Prophecy, by the Rev Joseph Towers; published London, MDCCXCVI [1796]*. pp. 298, 300).

*For lengthier quotes from this work by the Rev Joseph Towers see the World War Armageddon blog posts ‘The two world wars; & the “Harvest of the earth”, from April 2010; and ‘The best laid schemes of FROGS and men . . .’ from March 2010.

Das Ritter Telegramm

The following post is a fuller translation of “The Ritter Telegram” from Bavarian Documents to the Outbreak of War and the Versailles Verdict, on behalf of the Bavarian State Parliament, ed. by Dr. P. Dirr; from the 1924 edition (p. 206).

“Das Ritter Telegramm”

“Der bayerische Gesandte beim Vatikan, Herr von Ritter, sandte am 24. Juli 1914 folgende Chiffredepesche an die Münchener Regierung:

Telegramm Nr. 216. Rom, den 24. Juli 1914, 18 Uhr 35 Min.

Papst billigt scharfes Vorgehen Österreichs gegen Serbien und schätzt im Kriegsfalle mit Rußland russische und französische Armee nicht hoch ein. Kardinalsekretär hofft ebenfalls, daß Österreich diesmal durchhält und wüßte nicht, wan es sonst noch Krieg führen wollte, wenn es nicht einmal eine ausländische Agitation, die zum Morde Thronfolgers geführt hat und außerdem bei jetziger Konstellation Österreichs Existenz gefährdet, entschlossen ist, mit den Waffen zurückzuweisen. Daraus spricht auch die große Angst der Kurie vor dem Panslavismus.

Ritter.”

{The Pope} {approves} {sharp/harsh} {proceedings/action/approach} {Austria} {against} {Serbia} {and} {estimates} {in the} {event of war} {with} {Russia} {Russian} {and} {French} {army} {not} {high} {one}. {Cardinal Secretary} {hopes} {likewise}, {that} {Austria} {this time}

{holds out/perseveres} {and} {intuited} {not}, {when} {it} {at other time} {still} {war} {conduct} {want/desire} {if} {it} {not} {once} {a} {foreign} {agitation}, {the} {to} {murder} {heir apparent/Archduke} {led} {has} {and} {in addition/as well} {at} {of present}

{political situation} {Austria’s} {existence} {endangered/threatened} {determined} {is}, {with} {the} {arms/weapons}

{must reject/point back to/repel}. {From this} {speaks} {also} {the} {great} {fear} {the} {curia} {before} {the} {Pan-Slavism}.

{Ritter}.

FULL TRANSLATION:

The Bavarian Envoy to the Vatican, Herr von Ritter, sent the following encrypted telegram to the Munich Government on 24 July 1914:

Telegram No. 216, Rome, 24 July 1914, 18 H 35 min.

The Pope approves of Austria’s harsh treatment of Serbia. He has no great opinion of the armies of Russia and France in the event of war. The Cardinal Secretary of State hopes likewise that this time Austria will hold firm; and intuited that he could not see a more desirable time for Austria to make war if she does not do so now in the face of such foreign agitation, which has led to the murder of the Archduke and also to the present political situation which threatens Austria’s very existence - unless she determines to repel this threat by force of arms. Also, from my discussions: it is evident that the great fear amongst the Roman Curia is that of Pan-Slavism.

Ritter.

Bavarian Documents on the Outbreak of War

Das Ritter Telegramm

“Der bayerische Gesandte beim Vatikan, Herr von Ritter, sandte am 24. Juli 1914 folgende Chiffredepesche an die Münchener Regierung:

Telegramm Nr. 216. Rom, den 24. Juli 1914, 18 Uhr 35 Min.

Papst billigt scharfes Vorgehen Österreichs gegen Serbien und schätzt im Kriegsfalle mit Rußland russische und französische Armee nicht hoch ein. Kardinalsekretär hofft ebenfalls, daß Österreich diesmal durchhält und wüßte nicht, wan es sonst noch Krieg führen wollte, wenn es nicht einmal eine ausländische Agitation, die zum Morde Thronfolgers geführt hat und außerdem bei jetziger Konstellation Österreichs Existenz gefährdet, entschlossen ist, mit den Waffen zurückzuweisen. Daraus spricht auch die große Angst der Kurie vor dem Panslavismus.

Ritter.”

(From: Bavarian Documents to the Outbreak of War and the Versailles Verdict, on behalf of the Bavarian State Parliament, ed. by Dr. P. Dirr; 1925 edition, p. 206)

Partial translation of the above as it appears in The Vatican Against Europe:

“The Pope [Pius X] approves of Austria's harsh treatment of Serbia. He has no great opinion of the armies of Russia and France in the event of a war against Germany. The Cardinal Secretary of State [Cardinal Merry del Val] does not see when Austria could make war if she does not decide to do so now.”

[Author's Note: This despatch from Baron Ritter appears in, Bayerische Dokumente zum Kriegsausbruch, III, p. 206.]

“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....'

The Vatican-Serbian Concordat, June 1914 (Part I)

(The above details of the Vatican-Serbian Concordat are taken from the Protestant Truth Society publication of 1918 entitled, Was Rome behind the War? [see the post on this blog from 28 November 2010 for excerpts from this work]. I haven't been able to find the details of this Concordat online - so by clicking on the above image to open it [and then by clicking on it again once opened with the magnifying glass cursor to enlarge it] I hope that a readable version is now available [Parts II & III can be found in posts below this one]).

Back in March 2010 on the World War Armageddon blog thread 'ARMAGEDDON: The Vatican Against Europe' I quoted the following from John Cornwell's Hitler's Pope: The Secret History of Pius XII :

'When Archduke Franz Ferdinand and his wife were gunned down by a pan-Serbian agitator in Sarajevo on June 28, [1914] the emotions prompted by the Serbian Concordat [signed between the Vatican and Serbia a few days earlier on June 24, 1914] became part of the general groundswell of anti-Serbian anger. The concordant nevertheless represented a contribution to the tensions that led the Austrian government to overplay its hand by delivering a humiliating ultimatum to Serbia. There is no indication that Pope Pius X grasped the role of the Holy See in adding to the pressures that brought the Austro-Hungarian Empire and Serbia to the brink. The declaration of war, it is said, threw him into a profound depression from which he never recovered. He died on August 20, 1914 – of a broken heart, it was said.'

(Hitler's Pope; American paperback edition – Penguin Books, 1999, 2000; pp. 57-58).

And I then went on to quote Count Carlo Sforza (the former Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Kingdom of Italy) from a chapter on 'The Origins of the [First World] War', from his work Contemporary Italy: Its Intellectual and Moral Origins (see the post 'Count Sforza, Pius X and 1914' from November 2010 on this blog, for the relevant portion from Count Sforza's work) in which he called the rumour of Pope Pius X succumbing to grief at his 'impotence to advert the disaster' of the war as: 'A legend more tenacious than history'; and then to, 'establish the truth as to that legend', he quoted extensively from one of the official letters (the dispatch of July 29, 1914 from Count Palffy, the Austrian Chargé d' Affaires at the Vatican to Count Berchtold) held within the diplomatic correspondence of the Austro-Hungarian Embassy – correspondence that Count Sforza himself had seen.

On 24 June 1914, it was Cardinal Merry del Val (the “Cardinal Secretary of State” at the Vatican) who signed the Concordat with Serbia on behalf of the Pope which gave the Holy See legal powers within the Kingdom of Serbia; the quote (from Count Sforza's work) below from the aforementioned dispatch from Count Palffy to Count Berchtold - from only one month after the signing of the Concordat - reveals Merry del Val's (and Pope “Saint” Pius X's) true sentiments concerning Serbia and the “war spirit” :

'“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.”'

(ibid. Count Sforza; British edition, Frederick Muller Ltd., London, 1946; p. 154).

“Is Rome behind the War?” (1918)

(Above: cover of the booklet by J. A. Kensit, published by the Protestant Truth Society, 3 & 4 St. Paul's Churchyard, London, E.C.4)

'Lord Robert Montagu's statement [below] as to the political organisation of the Vatican should help Britons to realise the power arrayed against them. The following is the language of a statesman who had had long experience of Vatican diplomacy from within :–

“The Curia is a Cabinet of long standing and knowledge of affairs. It never 'goes out' by the action of an adverse majority in a representative Chamber. All have been carefully trained for their work; while from reports derived from priestly confessors all over the world, the best and most detailed knowledge of the characters and intentions of statesmen, and the passions of the people, are ready to their hand. The Vatican is the centre of all the information of the world; and every bishop has periodically to visit Rome in order that his inmost soul may be probed, and his continual reports may be tested. Such is the Cabinet with which Protestant statesmen hope on equal terms to cope.” – Recent Events, Section V.

'It was only when the noble Lord realised the tremendous anti-national plans of the Papacy that he severed his connection with the Roman Church, and he declared his conviction back in the year 1886 that there existed a well-laid plot whereby Britain should be “crushed under the Pope's feet.” Slowly and silently the Papal hopes have been maturing. Her tread has been cautious, for it has been well said –

“Rome is in adversity a lamb, on an equality a fox, and in supremacy a tiger.”

ROME'S ARMY IN BRITAIN.

'It is surely wise to guard ourselves against her claws. . . . As to the the purposes of Rome's religious army in England, the words of Cardinal Manning addressed to the Romish priesthood are explicit :–

“It is good to be here in England. It is yours, right reverend fathers, to subjugate and subdue, to bend and to break the will of an Imperial race. You have a good commission to fulfil and great is the prize for which you strive. England is the head of Protestantism, the centre of its movements, the stronghold of its powers. Weakened in England, it is paralysed everywhere; conquered in England, it is conquered throughout the world. Once overthrown here, it is but a war of detail. All the roads of the world meet in one point, and this point reached, the whole world is open to the Church's will.”–Sermons on Ecclesiæstical Subjects, Vol. I. pp.166-7.

'Such sentences force upon us the fact that we are faced not simply with the danger of “Deutschland über Alles,” but –“Rome over all.” In other words, the Papacy has not surrendered its mediæval claims.' (pp. 7-9)

* * * * * *

POPE HANKERING FOR A REBUILT THRONE.

'Manning in 1874 declared :–

“There is only one solution of the difficulty, a solution, I fear, impending, and that is the terrible scourge of Continental war, a war which will exceed the horrors of any of the wars of the First Empire. And it is my firm conviction that, in spite of all obstacles, the Vicar of Jesus Christ will be put again in his own rightful place. But that day will not be until his adversaries have crushed each other with mutual destruction.”–Thus spake Cardinal Manning in 1874 (vide Tablet, January 24th, 1874).

REMINISCENCES OF CARDINAL MANNING.

'So the Papacy would not wince even before the horrors of a Continent deluged in blood if thereby the Pope might regain his lost prestige and power. In confirmation of Manning's words, quoted above, we may set the following striking statement from the late Rev. Hugh Price Hughes, who as Editor of the Methodist Times, gave some [insight into them.]

'In the issue of August 6th, 1896, he says :–

“I was simply horrified at the calmness with which he declared that he would be willing to deluge the whole of Europe with blood in order to destroy the unity of Italy and recover the temporal power of the Pope. He also expressed a conviction that the German Empire was very insecure, and would probably be shattered in the course of the great war which he prophesied would destroy both the unity of Germany and the unity of Italy, in order to restore the Pope to the throne of Rome.”

'To realise the Papal workings on the continent a contrast as to the happenings in France and Germany should be of help. . . . [Whilst] France has receded from political Romanism . . . Germany has more and more come under its thumb.' (pp. 12-15)

THE LATE W. E. GLADSTONE AS WITNESS.

'Mr. Gladstone warned us that Rome would involve the Continent in terrible strife to accomplish her nefarious designs. In his Vatican Decrees – which all our statesmen should re-read and study–he says :–

“There is a fixed purpose among the secret inspires of Roman policy to pursue, by the road of force, upon the arrival of any favourable opportunity, the favourite project of re-erecting the terrestrial throne of the Popedom. . . . The existence at this day of the policy, even in bare idea, is itself a portentous evil. I do not hesitate to say that it is an incentive to general disturbance, a premium upon European wars.” –Vatican Decrees, p.50.

'Again he says :–

“I laid stress upon the charge of an intention on the part of Vaticanism to promote the restoration of the Temporal Sovereignty of the Pope on the first favourable opportunity by foreign arms.”–Rome: Newest Fashions in Religion, p. 118.

'In Vaticanism at p. 117 he adds :–

“I warn my countrymen against the velvet paw, and smooth and soft exterior of a system which is dangerous to the foundations of civil order.”

THE CONTINENT WATCHES THE PLOT MATURE.

'England, however, slumbered on whilst the Continent watched the plot being hatched. The Spanish journal, El Motin, published a cartoon on November 17th, 1910, depicting the triumph of the Pope's claim by a formidable procession of priests with swords bayonets – the armed force of which Mr. Gladstone had spoken.

'In keeping with this, Dr. Robertson wrote in his Papal Conquest – published in 1909 – five years before the war [see the post concerning this publication in the archive for January 12th 2010 on this blog] [that] :–

“Italy has long known that the Vatican has been egging on the German Emperor to invade England.”

'Dr. Robertson reproduced a cartoon from a newspaper published in Rome on February 7th, 1909, representing the Pope welcoming the Emperor of Austria and his army with the words, “Come on, come on, my sons, for thirty-nine years we have waited for you in Rome,” i.e., from 1870 to 1909, the date of the published cartoon.

'So Austria was to invade Italy, while Italy's oldest friend (and in 1849, when her first strivings for her present national unity began, her only friend) was to be beaten hip and thigh by Austria's partner, Germany. That was the campaign as seen in both Madrid and Rome five years before hostilities broke out !

[In light of the above, 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 [her supposed 'ally' in the Triple Alliance] or Serbia on what he regarded as numerous favourable occasions between 1906 and 1914.]

'But the warning fell on deaf ears ! John Bull would continue to sleep on – as L'Asino of 4th October, 1908, said –“in an illusion of strength.”

'Moreover, it is clear that Italy has been fighting in this war with one arm all but paralysed by Vatican influence. Mr. Bagot, himself a Roman Catholic, three years ago bore this witness as to the Curia :–

“There are but very few – I believe not half a dozen – of the Cardinals of the Curia who are not entirely pro-German and anti-British. The vast majority of the monsignori and the lay officials of the Papal Court are heart and soul with the cause of the Kaiser, and remarkable for their venom against both France and England.”–Fortnightly Review, May, 1915.' (pp. 15-17)

THE POPE'S LOST OPPORTUNITY

'But what concerns us most is the fact that [before the outbreak of the War] the Vatican never raised a little finger during those critical days [of the war crisis] in the interests of peace. At that moment the Papacy had its opportunity, for no one will dispute that the Emperor of Austria had always been the faithful ally of the Vatican. The Pope as a supposed apostle of peace had his opportunity and failed. The failure was doubtless intentional. At least here is the calm verdict of the Italian [publication] Secolo given in August, 1917 :–

“And if the Pope, who knew even before the world learnt it the horrible beginnings of this new history, had left the torpid cloisters of the Vatican and, trembling with indignation like Hildebrand, had gone to Vienna to stop or cut short the mad folly of Francis Joseph, to-day perhaps we should not be discussing the value of an uncertain proposal of peace. But the Vatican kept silent.”

'The days following the Sarajevo murders were occupied by all friends of peace in seeking to confine the discussion within the narrowest borders. No one can question that Sir Edward Grey did his part as the trusted representative of British policy. Prince Lichnowsky, German Ambassador in London, bears this testimony :–

“I hoped for salvation from an English mediation, because I knew that Sir Edward Grey's influence in Petrograd could be turned to use in favour of peace.”

'Our hands were clean. Britain never desired war. The Papal hands could not be raised, for they were not clean, and future historians will plainly see it.' (pp. 20-21)

[See the posting on this blog for November 6th 2010, 'Count Sforza, Pius X and 1914'; and also that for the 2nd of March 2010, entitled 'ARMAGEDDON: The Vatican Against Europe' for the - since revealed - true opinions of the Vatican in the events leading up to the outbreak of the First World War.]

* * * * * *

POPE versus BRITAIN.

'Rome's desire to crush Britain as a leading world Power has dominated her ambitions for many years. The Rt. Hon. Lord Robert Montagu, Privy Councillor and ex-Romanist, said :–

“It is the aim of the Papacy to weaken and to humble England; to dismember the Empire; to render her the prey to her enemies in a great Continental War.”–Recent Events. Published 1886.

'Cardinal Manning, as far back as 1859, made this utterance :–

“I shall not say too much if I say that we have to subjugate and subdue, to conquer and to rule an Imperial race, we have to do with a will which reigns throughout the world as the will of old Rome reigned once; we have to bend or break that will which Nations and Kingdoms have found invincible and inflexible.” –Tablet, August 6th, 1859.' (pp. 33-34)

Post Bellum

Pope “Saint” Pius X

The posts that are transcribed below (with a few corrections in spellings, etc.) were originally submitted on the Mail on Sunday's journalist Peter Hitchens's blog and formed a brief correspondence between myself and another contributor on that site.

The title of the Peter Hitchens's thread on which these post appeared under was 'Wednesday Night's Debate' (posted at 1:58 PM on [Thursday] 04 November 2010); the title was in reference to the 'Intelligence Squared' Debate that took place in London the previous evening at which Mr Hitchens (along with Lord Carey, the former Archbishop of Canterbury) debated for the proposition that 'Britain is becoming an anti-Christian country'.

In the course of the speech which he gave (and later transcribed to his blog) Mr Hitchens remarks that the prime cause in the decline of the Christian faith in Western Europe, was in his opinion, mainly caused by all the horrors of 'the First World War, [which was] foolishly and wrongly supported by the churches of Europe.'

To which statement the poster below replied (by first quoting Mr Hitchens) with the following:

"This was caused mainly, in my view, by the First World War, foolishly and wrongly supported by the churches of Europe."

Mr Hitchens, I'm not sure which "churches of Europe" you have in mind, but I wonder if this remark is entirely fair.

Nobody did more to try to prevent the Great War from happening than Pope St. Pius X, who died in 1914 - many believe that the effort (combined with the sadness for what he saw unfolding, almost inevitably, before him) brought about his early death.

Pope Benedict XV tried twice to be the intermediary for peace and bring about a speedy end to the war, in 1916 and again in 1917.

The Catholic Church was told by all sides to be quiet and keep out of it, especially in 1917 by 'establishment' (Lloyd George, Clemenceau, Woodrow Wilson...) to mind its own business, stick to 'spiritual stuff', and not be concerned with politics - an idea that is particularly interesting when one considers the same type of people later complaining loudly and unreasonably that Pope Pius XII did not do enough in the Second World War to fight the Nazis...

Posted by: G. Sarto 04 November 2010 at 10:56 PM

* * * * * *

To which I began with the following reply:

G. Sarto 04 November 2010 at 10:56 PM, writes:

“Nobody did more to try to prevent the Great War from happening than Pope St. Pius X, who died in 1914 - many believe that the effort (combined with the sadness for what he saw unfolding, almost inevitably, before him) brought about his early death.”

Concerning the claim that Pius X died of 'a broken heart' soon after the outbreak of war:

That this is the official 'version' can be adduced from the following, which is written in the Concise Holy History used in parochial catechisms:

“Pius X did all he could to prevent the war of 1914 and died of grief when he foresaw the evils it was about to unleash.”

The Italian diplomat and anti-Fascist politician Count Carlo Sforza (1872-1952), the former Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Kingdom of Italy, in a chapter on “The Origins of the [First World] War”, in his Contemporary Italy: Its Intellectual and Moral Origins (published USA 1944/GB 1946) calls the rumour of Pius X succumbing to grief at his “impotence to advert the disaster” of the war, as: “A legend more tenacious than history”. And then to, “establish the truth as to that legend”, he quotes extensively from one of the many official letters deposited in the diplomatic correspondence of the Austro-Hungarian Embassy – correspondence that he himself had seen.

As he writes concerning these correspondences: “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. . . . In these conversations the Secretary of State [Cardinal Merry del Val] spoke expressly in the name of the Pope . . .”

The relevant portion of Count Sforza's chapter – which quotes at length from a dipatch of July 29 1914 from Count Palffy, the Austrian Chargé d' Affaires at the Vatican to Count Berchtold – can be found by clicking on my name below [which linked to my previous posting on the World War Armageddon blog entitled, 'Count Sforza, Pius X and 1914'].

The quote below is from another diplomatic dispatch – this one being that from Baron von Ritter, the Chargé d' Affaires of Bavaria at the Holy See – and was written to his Government on 26 July 1914:

“The Pope [Pius X] approves of Austria's harsh treatment of Serbia. He has no great opinion of the armies of Russia and France in the event of a war against Germany. The Cardinal Secretary of State does not see when Austria could make war if she does not decide to do so now.”

(Source: Bayerische Dokumente zum Kriegsausbruch [Bavarian Documents on the Outbreak of War] III, p. 206; as cited in The Vatican Against Europe, by Edmond Paris; The Wickliffe Press [Protestant Truth Society] edition, 1993; p. 47).

Posted by: B Hughes 06 November 2010 at 03:45 AM

* * * * * *

Mr Hughes,

You can quote "anti-fascist" authors all you wish. The fact remains that Pope St. Pius X did everything he could to avert war in the run-up to 1914.

Similarly the fact remains that Benedict XV twice offered to be an intermediary for peace, and was turned down by the allies.

That is a matter of historical record.

Nor was Pope St. Pius X partisan, and quoting a Bavarian Count, cited in a 'Protestant Truth Society' pamphlet, proves nothing.

The normal thing would have been for the Pope to give his blessing to the Austrian armies going off to war - they were,after all, the Holy Roman Empire, so to speak. The fact that the Pope refused to do so (and was very forceful in telling them why!) ought to speak for itself.

Posted by: G. Sarto 06 November 2010 at 05:20 PM

* * * * * *

From G. Sarto's post of 06 November 2010 at 05:20 PM:

'Mr Hughes, You can quote “anti-fascist” authors all you wish.'

The “anti-fascist” author in question was Count Carlo Sforza; to quote him further from the same work – he writes:

'While all diplomatic Europe kept on repeating, “This Lenin cannot last”, the Pope asked me through [Baron] Monti – but under the seal of secrecy – would I if necessary, be able to facilitate the trip of some Catholic priests to Russia. Seeing my surprise, Monti explained (and it was evident that he was repeating the very words of the Pope) : “His Holiness thinks that even these crimes and this blood will one day be of service if it is going to be possible, when the wave of irreligion has passed, to attempt a Catholic evangelization in Russia. Orthodoxy no longer has any deep-rooted life; its end as the official religion offers possibilities which would never have existed so long as a Tsar, 'Protector of the Church', continued to reign.” It was simple and it was true; but courage was required to express it at the Vatican in 1920. I promised my support in whatever form it might be able to take ...' (p. 169).

And Count Sforza writes that while he had been High Commissioner in Turkey (before his return to Rome – after accepting the post of Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs) that he had had:

'[C]onversations ... at Constantinople with Cardinal Bourne, Archbishop of Westminster, [on the “Roman question”, which] had prepared me to suppose that the problem was almost on the point of being considered. Having arrived at Constantinople on his way from Jerusalem, the Cardinal had been kind enough to visit me at the Italian Embassy and to thank me for the courtesy with which the Italian Government agents had facilitated his sojourn in the Holy Land. Speaking of his pleasure at observing the excellent relations existing everywhere between Italian agents and the Franciscan missions, he told me that he saw in them the proof that the time was ripe for a conciliation [between the Vatican and the Italian Government]. [And in this matter] I could not but agree with him ...' (pp. 276-277).

It is obvious from the above that though Count Sforza was an “anti-Fascist”; he was not necessarily “anti-Catholic”. By all means, if you wish, discount Baron von Ritter's dispatch from the Bayerische Dokumente zum Kriegsausbruch (as cited in the work later published by the Protestant Truth Society). But can you discount Count Sforza's testimony – in which he cites from official documents held within the diplomatic correspondence of the Austro-Hungarian Embassy – correspondence that he himself had seen?

If you have not already done so, I suggest that you read Count Sforza's testimony as to the true opinion of Pope “Saint” Pius X – by clicking on my name below. If you do not wish to reappraise what you've undoubtedly been taught – then that is up to you ...

Posted by: B Hughes 07 November 2010 at 06:10 PM

* * * * * *

Envoi

Pope Pius X was undoubtedly a 'pretended' friend of peace. . . But was he also a pretended friend of Christ . . . ? Or much more besides . . . ? In the words of the Rev. Alexander Robertson, D.D.; words he wrote five years before the outbreak of the War:

'[O]ne feels that it is impiety or culpable ignorance to talk, as so many do, of the Pope being the Vicar of the Prince of Peace, and of the Roman Catholic Church as having a mission of peace and of goodwill to mankind. He [the Pope] is, on the contrary, the Vicar of Christ's Adversary [Satan], [who is] “The Prince of this World”; [John xii. 31, xiv. 30.] he [the Pope] is the “Beast” of the Revelation, to whom the “Dragon” [Satan] gave “his power, and his seat, and great authority . . . to make war with the saints.” [Rev. xiii. 2, 7.]'

The Papal Conquest (1909), p. 316.