Hitler's Invasion of Poland: War Breaks Out

I original attempted to have the post below submitted on Peter Hitchens' blog on the following thread: http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2013/04/and-i-respond-to-mr-jacubss-response.html (there's normally only a 500-word limit to any post submitted on the Hitchensblog but there are exceptions made sometimes - I asked for an exception to the 500-word limit to be made - but was unsuccessful: so I publish what I tried to submit here instead:

[MODERATORS: Please see the request below]

Though initially perturbed by some of Peter Hitchens’ questioning of the ‘standard narrative’ of the Second World War (though I’ve come to different conclusions - which more strongly reinforce the views I did have) I’m indeed grateful to him for his challenging views - as they’ve made me read a lot deeper into  the history of that conflict than I had previously.

If it is permissible with the Moderators could they please see if it is possible to allow the following submission (as it is impossible to - in any way adequately - respond in this matter without recourse to quoting from some historical works at length).

Peter Hitchens writes: ‘Germany did not seek war with us...  Germany, whose ambitions lay in the east, had little interest in us….  [T]he foolish diplomatic bluff of the Polish guarantee failed to convince anyone (except the Poles, who as a result failed to make a territorial compromise with Germany).’

In response to the above statement the following is taken from Gerhard L. Weinberg’s voluminous work on ‘Hitler’s Foreign Policy’:

‘It had originally not been part of Hitler’s plan to attack Poland in 1939. After Munich, he intended to destroy what remained of Czechoslovakia, but that was not expected to involve hostilities. His first war was to be in the west, destroying France and crushing England so that they could not interfere with his ambitions in Eastern Europe. Starting a war in the west, however, meant making sure of quite in the east – just as the earlier plan for an attack on Czechoslovakia had been accompanied by efforts to neutralize the West. The plan to make certain that all was quiet on the eastern front failed. The Hungarians fell into line, but the Poles simply would not do so. From October 1938 on, the German government tried to entice, coax, overawe, and bully the Poles into a position of subservience to Germany… As it became clear to Hitler that the Poles were not willing to give up their status as an independent country without a fight – and this rather than specific details of German-Polish relations was the key issue – he reversed his planned sequence of actions… He was now determined to fight Poland so that the total crushing of Germany’s eastern neighbour would make it safe for Germany to attack in the west. Here would be the lovely little war of which he had been cheated in 1938.’

(Gerhard L. Weinberg, ‘Hitler’s Foreign Policy 1933-1939: The Road to World War II’, (originally published in two volumes) Enigma Books (single volume edition), 2010, p. 801).

On p. 710-711 Weinberg quotes the Führer’s musings as given to his military commanders on 22 August 1939 (from the text in Nuremberg document 798-PS, TMWC, 26:338-39) as follows:

‘[I]t was clear to me that a conflict with Poland had to come sooner or later. I had already made this decision in the spring, but I thought I would first turn against the West in a few years, and only afterwards against the East. But the sequence could not be fixed…. I wanted to establish an acceptable relationship with Poland in order to fight first against the West. But this plan, which was agreeable to me, could not be executed since essential points had changed. It became clear to me that Poland would attack us in case of conflict with the West.’

Also, the following is from the blurb on the inside cover of Esmonde M. Robertson’s ‘Hitler’s Pre-War Policy and Military Plans 1933-39’ (as by ‘E. M Robertson’, Longmans, 1963):

‘[This book] has grown out of a monograph completed in the Cabinet Office Historical Section and which was based principally on official documents, the majority of which had not then been published….’

(During 1951-55 Mr Robertson was a Cabinet Office research worker and had access to German military and diplomatic archives and whilst there he also completed a monograph on Operation Barbarrossa – Hitler’s Invasion of Russia.) But to continue from the blurb:

‘Two general conclusions can be drawn from the book. First, that Mussolini had a much greater influence in stirring up the bellicose state of mind in Hitler than is commonly supposed. Secondly, that there can be little doubt that after November 1937 Hitler was planning a blow against Britain, not Russia.’

Concerning war with Poland and Britain’s figuring in Hitler’s thinking, Robertson writes:

‘After General Keitel had issued the directive of 11 April for Operation White, German planning proceeded on two lines: operations for a localized war against Poland; [and also] for a blockade against Britain. The relation between these two theatres was discussed at length by Hitler at a staff conference of 23 May.’

In these musings Hitler was certain that in the case of Poland: ‘A repetition of the Czech affair was not to be expected. Hitler said there “will be fighting”.’

[From footnote: ‘This passage has been misleadingly translated “There will be war.” According to a Naval Directive of 16 May the government was to do everything to restrict the war to Poland, ND [Nuremberg Documents]: 126-C.’]

To continue back to the thrust of Robertson’s main text:

‘This does not mean that [Hitler] believed there would be a general war, for he went on to say: “There must be no simultaneous conflict with the Western Powers. Germany must not ‘slither’ into war on account of Poland. Should such a conflict arise it would be better to attack in the West and treat the Polish campaign as a subsidiary issue.” Hitler spoke at length on operational conceptions, which had been maturing steadily since his conference of 5 November 1937, for War with Britain. He discussed the relative merits of an air attack on her fleet and a long distance blockade. He did not consider it necessary to land forces in Britain, and he spoke gleefully of the time when German expenditure need no longer be poured into the “bottomless pit” of the army but could go into naval and air expansion. His natural preference for the junior branches of the armed forces, which were capable of striking Britain, rather than for the pedestrian and conservative army, may also have been an additional inducement to plan for a war with Britain. At the end of the conference it was decided that the years 1943-1944 were to be the new target date for the completion of armaments. By that time the ship building programme would have been complete. Although Hitler expressed his preference for a short war, Germany would have to prepare for a long one of perhaps ten or fifteen years.’ (ibid. p. 172-173).

Also, the following information is supplied in the footnotes (p. 173):

‘There is abundant evidence on plans for war with Britain. In March 1938 Raeder addressed German ship builders on a new naval construction programme, ND: 23-C. In naval staff studies for April 1938, war with Britain was taken for granted, and Blitzkrieg tactics for an attack on the British fleet were discussed at an inter-service conference of 20 May 1938. While the Air Force were in favour the Navy were against an occupation of the Low Countries. The Naval High Command was, however, anxious to secure submarine bases off the west coast of France and Norway. See Note on Sources, p. 195. [Where he writes: ‘In accordance with official practice I am not permitted to give the reference numbers of any documents as yet unpublished, with the result that certain statements in my text are not provided with references to the authorities which I have used’]. See also ND: 123-C and ND: 375-PS and Räder, ‘Mein Leben’, Vol. II, Chap XI.’

Concerning the ‘timing’ of the war that did break out in September 1939: The following is taken from Richard Overy’s contribution entitled “Hitler’s War Plans and the German Economy” (to be found in ‘Paths to War: New Essays on the Origins of the Second World War’, edited by Robert Boyce and Esmonde M. Robertson, and published by Macmillan, 1989):

‘The first stage [in Hitler’s war plans] was to create a large, resource-rich area in central Europe, to be achieved without general war. This was to be followed ‘by 1943-45’ by major war with the great powers in order ‘to solve Germany’s problem of Lebenstraum’. Hitler’s strategic plan foresaw a conflict for continental hegemony, and war with Russia for a Eurasian empire. Beyond that lay imperial fantasies: world dominion, war with the United States and the British Empire….’ (p. 107).

‘The new rearmament programmes only made sense in terms of a major war with other great powers; in the east to establish Lebensraum, and in the west, against Britain and the United States, in order to realise Germany's claim to world power status. The naval programme and the strategic bomber plans, including the Amerikabomber on which Messerschmitt began work in 1939, in addition to the range of advanced technological projects on which German research was engaged, all indicate clearly the drift of Hitler's strategy. The important question was one of timing. As Hitler indicated in November 1937, the major programmes would be completed by 1943-5. The air force plans would not be completed until 1942 at the earliest. The Z-Plan covered the whole period from 1939-49. The army motorisation and its training schedules for officers and technicians would run on to 1943. More important, the raw material programmes in oil, rubber, aluminium and iron and steel, including the incorporation of the captured resources of central Europe, would not be finished until the same date. The plans to modernise and strengthen the railway system, begun seriously only in 1939, would carry on until 1944. Had Germany enjoyed a further four or five years of peace, the military forces and economic resources available would have made her, like the Soviet Union and the United States, one of the military super powers of the 1940s.

‘Hitler's problem was to avoid a major conflict until these programmes were complete, and it is here that his strategic competence and political judgement proved seriously flawed. Until late in August 1939 he expected that Britain and France would not fight for Poland.’ (p. 113).

And goes on to say that: ‘From the point of view of German military and economic preparations, the war that broke out in the autumn of 1939 was the wrong war.’ (p. 121).

 

[Addenda:]

[Since writing the above I've since found the following additional items of interest in a couple of other works:

‘[Hitler] wanted to have the war at his supposedly most favorable moment, while at the same time he failed to adequately prepare for it. He regarded England as he once stressed, as “our enemy Number One,” while at the same time hoping to come to an arrangement with that enemy.

‘I do not think that in those early days of September [1939], Hitler was fully aware that he had irrevocably unleashed a world war. He had merely meant to move one step further [in his planned sequence]. To be sure, he was ready to accept the risk associated with that step, just as he had been a year before during the Czech crisis; but he had prepared himself only for the risk, not really for the great war. His naval rearmament was obviously planned for a later date; the battleships as well as the first large aircraft carriers were still under construction. He knew that they would not attain full military value until they could face the enemy on more or less even terms. Moreover, he had spoken so often of the neglect of the submarine arm in the First World War that he probably would not have knowingly begun the Second without preparing a strong fleet of U-boats.’

(Inside the Third Reich, by Albert Speer, Phœnix Paperback edition, 2000; p. 239-40).

Concerning Hitler’s statement that England was Germany’s “enemy Number One”; the following information is given by Speer in the Notes section:

‘On November 23, 1937, at the dedication of the Sonthofen Ordensberg [Order Castle], tremendous cheers erupted when Hitler – after a speech that had been received quietly – unexpectedly shouted to the assembled party leaders: “Our Enemy Number One is England!” At the time I was astonished by the spontaneity of this cheering. I was also surprised at Hitler's suddenly turning against England, for I had assumed all along that England still held a special place in his wishful thinking.’ (Ibid. P. 710).

And also the following which supports the above:

‘[T]he [German] navy's conception of preparing for a major struggle by the mid-1940s was completely upturned when the Polish crisis led to war between Germany and Great Britain in September 1939. In a remarkable memorandum of 3 September 1939, the very date that Britain and France declared war on Germany, the Commander-in-Chief of the navy, Grand Admiral Erich Raeder, coming close to criticizing Hitler for taking Germany into war prematurely, admitted that the navy, which according to the Z-Plan was arming for a war “on the ocean” at the turn of the year 1944-5 was still in autumn 1939 nowhere near sufficiently armed for the “great struggle with England”.

(From Ian Kershaw's, Fateful Choices: Ten Decisions that Changed the World 1940-1941, Penguin Books, 2008; p. 72).]

“Memphis Belle”

“Here it comes – the enemy coast. From up here it looks the same as any other: houses, roads, green fields, factories, waterways – but they are the houses and fields of those who invade and oppress; they are the factories and roads of the people, who twice in one generation, have flooded the world with suffering - suffering in such quantities that the history of the human race has never known.”

From the commentary of the WWII United States War Department movie The Memphis Belle: A Story of a Flying Fortress.

“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.

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....'

“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)

“The Kings of the East” . . . & Armageddon

(The title-page above is that of the second and enlarged edition of The Kings of the East published in 1849; the quotes below - from a post originaly submitted on the Mail on Sunday journalist Peter Hitchens' blog - are taken from the first edition of The Kings of the East, published 1842).

In a post on this [Peter Hitchens'] blog (15 April 2008 at 12:15 AM) on the thread, 'The Gathering Storm' (in the Archives for April 2008), I wrote that I thought that the British Empire was the power that was symbolically prefigured under the symbol of the 'kings of the east' (or, to give another translation: 'the kings from the rising of the sun'); as the 'sun' in the Revelation is used to indicate a power in the ascendancy – in this instance the 'sun' of the British Imperial interest rising over the long-held Turkish lands.

Since then I've come into possession of a most remarkable book written three-quarters of a century before the so-called, 'Balfour Declaration' of November 1917. From its title page I reproduce the following:

“THE KINGS OF THE EAST;”

AN

EXPOSITION OF THE PROPHECIES

DETERMINING,

FROM SCRIPTURE AND FROM HISTORY,

THE POWER

FOR WHOM THE MYSTICAL EUPHRATES

IS BEING “DRIED UP;”

WITH AN EXPLANATION

OF CERTAIN OTHER PROPHECIES CONCERNING

THE RESTORATION OF ISRAEL.

[By Edward Heycock, Esq., Bombay]

PUBLISHED BY R.B. SEELEY AND W. BURNSIDE

AND SOLD BY L. AND G. SEELEY,

FLEET STREET, LONDON.

MDCCCXLII

[1842]

After first determining from biblical prophecy that, 'the Mahommedans were to possess the East'; and from history that, 'India [was] the most eastern Mahammedan empire'; the Author of the work went on to exposit from Scripture that Britain was foreordained to rule over India – the eastern-most part of the 'Mahommedan empire'; and concerning the then status of Turkey, he writes: 'The way is [at the moment] only being prepared; the Turkish empire is not yet dried up.' But looking forwards in time towards Britain's future destiny as a latter-day Cyrus, as revealed in the ancient prophecies – he wrote: 'How, or when, the British will issue this proclamation for the restoration of Israel is uncertain.'

Before returning back again later to Edward Heycock's work, to see the pivotal role that he envisioned Britain would fulfil in the great conflict to arise, it seems necessary to remark, that – like the prophecies concerning the Messiah in His two roles: First as the suffering servant, 'The Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world' (John 1:29); and Second in His Glory as, 'the Lion of the tribe of Juda' (Revelation 5:5) – that the differing Messianic prophecies have been compared to two peaks of the same great mountain separated by the gulf of time. And so in a sense 'Armageddon' (which some term, 'mountain of destruction'. Hebrew Har (Ar) = mountain) should not be seen as a single great conflict at the end of time.

Or as Peter Hitchens remarked on the thread, 'Was World War Two just as pointless and self-defeating as Iraq . . .' (Again, in the Archives for April 2008) :

'The First and Second World Wars, as [Patrick] Buchanan says [in his book, Churchill, Hitler and the Unnecessary War], are really one [great] conflict.'

The following is taken from a book that was written whilst the First World War was still raging – but prior to the October Revolution of 1917 – that would first shake Russia before sending its shock waves throughout the world:

'In Rev. xvi. 18, the seventh angel . . . [pours] out his vial [into the air], which is followed by “voices, and thunders, and lightnings, and there was a great earthquake such as was not since men were upon the earth.” That earthquake is here shown to be unprecedented. It refers to an unprecedented time of trouble. An earthquake in the book of Revelation always means some great political, or religious, upheaval. . . . 'Have we not an instance in the present war? It is the greatest in history. It has characteristics which cannot possibly have been experienced in the past. In the passions let loose, the spirit of hatred which is at work, we have repetitions of former wars, but the instruments used for slaughter, the millions employed in mortal combat, the present war is absolutely unprecedented, so that already we have a political earthquake such as was not since man was upon the earth. But we are only at the beginning, and we may expect that what is yet to be will be far greater than anything that has yet happened. “A time of trouble,” says Daniel, “such as never was.” “Great tribulation,” says our Lord, “such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.” But the present is only the preliminary shock of that which is to come, The worst is yet future, and will eclipse in horror all the trouble of to-day. . . . [pp. 219-220]

'In the last lecture I referred to the interpretation given by some exponents that the “king of the north” refers to Russia and “the king of the south” to Egypt, or rather to the Power that controls Egypt, namely, England, and at the “time of the end,” or the closing epoch of this dispensation, these two powers – Russia and the British Empire – will be in conflict regarding the “glorious land,” or Palestine. If this interpretation proves to be correct, there must come a temporary peace in the present war in order to enable events so to adjust themselves to turn Russia, our present ally, into our chief foe . . . Some, however, hold that Germany is the NORTHERN POWER signified. If that be so, the present war may merge without interruption into the final great conflict . . .' [Emphasis added.]

(Taken from: Light from the Book of Daniel: On History Past, Present, and Future. A Course of Twelve Lectures delivered in the Central Hall, Westminster, 1915-16. By Augusta Cook; London: Robert Banks & Son, Racquet Court, Fleet Street, E.C., 1916).

On the previously mentioned thread from 2008, Peter Hitchens wrote: 'It makes me feel like a traitor to write this ['Was World War Two just as pointless and self-defeating as Iraq . . .']. [For] the Second World War was my religion for most of my life. Brave, alone, bombed, defiant, we, the British, had won it on our own against the most evil and powerful enemy imaginable [those were my former thoughts].'

From the dark days of the 1940s back to the 1840s, and (as I previously mentioned) a return to Edward Heycock's aforementioned work – to see what he saw as Britain's destined role in that coming great conflict:

'Can any description be imagined more awfully sublime than this which the pen of inspiration has given this dreadful conflict? All nature, animate and inanimate, is represented as trembling . . . whilst every feathered fowl, and every beast of prey, is summoned to assemble at the ensanguined battlefield . . .

'This is the day for which Britain is strengthened, and prepared as an instrument to be employed by the hands of the Almighty. Not only is she being prepared with physical means, but also with moral courage to undertake, if needful, single-handed the defence . . . against this powerful coalition. Of the British it is said, “The isles shall WAIT UPON ME, AND ON MINE ARM SHALL THEY TRUST.” Isaiah li. 5. And it is promised that, “They THAT WAIT UPON THE LORD shall renew their strength; they shall mount up with wings as eagles; they shall run and not weary, and they shall walk and not faint.” Isaiah xl. 31.' (The Kings of the East, 1842 [pp. 294]).

General Sir William Dobbie, Governor of Malta during the dark days of that Island's great Second World War siege, would later write the following on that great conflict:

'The summer of 1940 was a time of crisis for the British Empire, and indeed for the whole world. Disaster had come to our expeditionary force in France, and although most of the personnel were saved, we lost nearly all our equipment, and our Army ceased to exist (for the time being) as an effective instrument of war. The French nation, our ally at that time, was brought to its knees, and forced out of the war. The British Empire then stood entirely alone, and faced the victorious might of Germany and her satellites. The heart of the Empire, Great Britain, was exposed to a full-scale attack by sea and air from the near-by bases in France and Belgium, recently acquired by the Germans, and the forces available for the defence of the country were ludicrously inadequate. It was at this time that Italy, the chief satellite of Germany, and till then theoretically neutral, or at any rate nonbelligerent, decided to throw in her lot unreservedly with Germany, and declared war against us. . . .

'The situation in Malta, moreover, was a replica, in miniature, of the general situation in Great Britain. The isolation, the formidable strength of the enemy's forces, the proximity of bases from which his attacks could be launched, the unbelievable paucity of our defensive resources, the great civilian population exposed to a ruthless enemy, the dependence on seaborne supplies and the expectation of attack in overwhelming strength – all these things and many others went to make up the defence problem of Malta, as they did the similar problem in Great Britain on a vaster scale. . . . [pp. 9-11]

'[It was] obvious to us that our human resources were woefully inadequate, and many of us were constrained to turn our eyes to “the hills, from whence cometh my help.” . . . God's Word was a great stand-by to me, and doubtless to many others, too, at this time. In it I read how God had helped His people in old times when they were faced with situations similar to that confronting us. And God reminded us that although outward circumstances have changed since those days in many ways, and although the problem might be enunciated in different words, yet God, the solver of problems, does not change. He is the same today as He has ever been, and “His hand is not shortened, that it cannot save.” The difficulty is likely to rest with us, either that we do not exercise the simple faith which lays hold on that power or that our iniquities separate between us and God, so that He cannot use it on our behalf. Many persons in Malta, both in responsible and other positions, did, I think, realize our need of His help, and were prepared to ask Him to give it us. By no other means could we be sure of holding this vital outpost of the Empire, and so we turned to Him who alone is the Giver of victory. . . .

'I humbly believe that God, in His mercy, answered the prayers offered to Him in this way, and in the two years and more of the siege which followed His help was very obvious and very real.

'At about the same time, I was greatly encouraged by a telegram I received from the chief of the Imperial General Staff, General Sir Edmund Ironside (later, Field-Marshal Lord Ironside). It showed me that others in high places at home were thinking along the same lines as we were in Malta. The telegram, which was addressed to me personally, contained the reference “Deuteronomy, chapter 3, verse 22.” I looked up the reference in my Bible, and I read: “Ye shall not fear them: for the Lord your God he shall fight for you”. This was a very welcome and timely reminder of a great and well-proved truth, and, coming as it did from a person in his position, and being addressed to one in mine, in view of the special circumstances of the time, it meant much to us.

'I have said that the help which God gave was very obvious and real. The same help was noticed at the time of the withdrawal from Dunkirk, and during the “Battle of Britain.” It certainly was so in the “Battle of Malta.” During the two years which followed the declaration of war by Italy, God's protecting hand was so much in evidence that people were noticing it and remarking about it. On a number of occasions officers have come to me and said quite spontaneously: “Do you know, sir, I think that Someone up there (pointing upwards) has been helping us today.” I no doubt replied, “Yes, I think so, too,” and I may have added, “You may remember we asked Him to help us, and today we have been watching Him doing it.” Such a conversation took place not once nor twice, but a number of times.' [pp. 107-109]

(From: A Very Present Help: A Testimony to the Faithfulness of God, By Lt-General Sir William Dobbie, GCMG, KCB, DSO; Third Edition, Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, Michigan; circa 1946).

Nigel Jones in a review of the historian Andrew Roberts' latest book, The Storm of War: A New History of the Second World War, (Sunday Telegraph, 'Seven' magazine, 26/07/09) writes:

'But in the end, as even the super patriotic Roberts recognises, it was not British sang-froid, or evacuations like Dunkirk – no matter how miraculous – that turned the tables of Hitler's war, but the vast manpower, limitless resources and dogged determination of Soviet Russia.'

The quote I give below is taken from the Daily Telegraph, February 25th, 1942:

'By all military logic, the stripped B.E.F. should have been destroyed on the Dunkirk beaches. Then a Britain without defences should, in July 1940, have been occupied by overwhelming German numbers from land and sea if Hitler had not been mysteriously blind to his unparalleled opportunity of ending the war. . . .[Again], we could never have hoped (as we now realize) to cope with the German Juggernaut if it had not been gratuitously thrown into the melting-pot of Russia. . . . The Power behind events . . . has “covered us in the day of battle.”'

'But I will remove far off from you the NORTHERN ARMY, and will drive him into a land barren and desolate, with his face toward the east sea, and his hinder part toward the utmost sea, and his stink shall come up, and his ill savour shall come up, because he hath done great things.' (Joel 2:20).

______________________

ADDENDUM:

From The Kings of the East, 1842

'Britain has been raised up to her present powerful state for the purpose of executing God's righteous judgments upon his enemies, we cannot escape from the conviction “that the hour of His judgment is come,” and that our nation will speedily be involved in wars, which shall terminate to the glory of God, and the overthrow of his enemies.' (pp. 72)

'As Britain is expressly prepared for . . . [this] work, and receives her commission from the Almighty to march under the banner of the Most High, whilst executing together with Him his righteous judgments, we of this highly-favoured land may rejoice in our privileges, and contemplate the coming contest, the gathering storm and mighty conflict, not only without fear, but with full assurance of victory. Let us only wait upon God, and trust on his arm, as it is promised: “The isles shall wait upon me, and on mine arm shall they trust.” Isaiah li. 5. Then shall it be seen in the hour of trial that “they that have waited upon the Lord, shall have renewed their strength; they shall mount up with wings as eagles; they shall run, and not be weary; they shall walk, and not faint.” Isa. xl. 31.' (pp. 339-340)

________

ENVOI

'How consolatory this view of the prophecies, supported as it is by the word of God. The British Christian may hear of wars and rumours of wars, rejoicing when he beholds the rising storm, for the Saviour is with him in the ship and will speedily rebuke the winds, and there shall be a great calm.' (ibid. pp. 340)

- DUNKIRK 1940 -