The Kings of the East

British India: Colour Party of the 15th Sikhs

IV. Britain extends her Eastern possessions westward, prevents the immediate occupation of Judea by Russia, and initiates its colonization by the Jews.

‘The many and severe wars which our country has had to sustain, in order to preserve her Eastern territories, have by many been considered as too dear payment for their possession. We do not here however, enter on this question, but beg to inform such, that a far higher purpose than commercial interest or extended empire is to be served by the presence of the British power in the East. So far, indeed, as she herself is concerned, this may have been the real aim; and now that she is in possession, the commercial advantages which accrue from them will be a sufficient incitement to their retention. To preserve the East India market, and keep a path open to it, Britain will strive much and do much; but while her rulers may think they are merely serving the nation, they are really accomplishing one of the grand designs of God, and evolving events, while they cause her to take measures for the preservation of this distant part of her empire, will really and only produce occurrences which will facilitate the great design of Jehovah. Both God and Britain had a special design in the annexation of the Indian territory to the lion power, but these designs were as different in nature and object as the finite is from the infinite. While Britain thought only of wealth and conquest, God thought of his ancient people, and of his covenant, and placed the British Lion in the East to prepare a way for his ransomed, and to become their protection in the infancy of their restoration. Such is God's design, and he has enlisted the energy of the Anglo-Saxons in its accomplishment, by making it their interest to bring it to pass. The value of these lands to the nation is the inducement he has given it to retain them at all risks; and one means of their retention, which will by-and-bye become very obvious, will be to do that which will tend to introduce the accomplishment of Jehovah's long promised purpose — the restoration of the Jews. The idea has long been held, by those few who do believe in a restoration, that it must be preceded by a conversion. This is erroneous. The Jews, to some extent, will return to their own land as faithless in Jesus as the Christ as when they left it. . . .

‘It is needless, therefore, to look for the conversion of Israel as an indication of the coming of the latter days. It is the preadventural partial colonization of Judea that becomes an evidence of this; and we can imagine with what surprise the conversion-theorists will witness the approaching colonization of the land of Israel by its former inhabitants. . . . [The Jews will] be colonized [again] there, and . . . Britain [will] become the principal agent in the work . . . .’

(From: The Coming Struggle Among the Nations of the Earth . . . Described in Accordance with Prophecies in Ezekiel, Daniel, and the Apocalypse, Shewing also the Important Position Britain will Occupy During and at the End of the Awful Conflict; by John Thomas; published Toronto: Thomas MacLear, 45, Yonge Street, 1853; pp. 24-25).

‘Britain . . . [will] favor the formation of a Jewish colony in Palestine; and thus, it will appear, that the Euphrates is drying up in order “that the way of the kings of the East might be prepared.” The drying up of the river, which is in part the destruction of Turkey, will render it necessary for the British power, which then extends to the Euphrates, to promote the return of the Jews to their own land, by extending its protection over it, and holding out every inducement for the sons of Abraham to repair to it. Be this, however, as it may, it is Britain that favors the return of the sons of Judah, as we learn from the eighteenth chapter of Isaiah, where the prophet is furnished with a command to “the land shadowing with wings, that sendeth ambassadors by the sea,” enjoining it to render service in the presentation to the Lord of “a nation scattered and peeled, a nation terrible from their beginning hitherto, a nation rooted out and trodden down, whose lands the rivers have spoiled.” What a powerful and graphic description is this of the present and past state of the Jews! How their former greatness and present degredation and desolation is associated and contrasted! But how, it may be asked, do we identify the “land widely over-shadowing with wings?” We are told that it is from beyond to the rivers of Cush. Now, going east, from Judea, across the Euphrates and Tigris, we reach to the “beyond,” that is, to Hindostan, the most important of our Indian possessions and therefore governed by a power that “sendeth its ambassadors by the sea,” in other words, by an island state, which shows that the reference is to Britain, and to her alone. The allusion will, however, become more apparent in a short time, when our empire is greatly extended in that quarter, and when the lion-flag waves o'er many an island and country, proving as much its protector as its ruler. There can then be no doubt as to the fact that this country will open up a way for the despised and persecuted race of Abraham, to stand once more in their father-land, and raise anew the songs of David upon the holy hill of Zion . . . But, first of all, this country must seize a great amount of territory adjacent to the Holy Land. In the present state of affairs, there would neither be peace nor safety for the Jews in their own country. The Sultan has “divided it for gain,” and his pachas lay it waste and hold it waste at their pleasure. It will, therefore, be necessary to occupy Egypt, Ethiopia, and Seba, besides other places, in order to make these a wall of defence for the Jewish colony, and hence the language of Jehovah to his restored people — “I gave Egypt for thy ransom, Ethiopia and Seba for thee.” By possessing these she will also lay her hands upon Edom, Moab, Ammon, and other places on the Red Sea, till at length shadowing “to the rivers of Cush,” and on every side the new colony, under the wings of this great maritime power, will grow and prosper, like a cedar on their own mountain of Lebanon.’ (ibid. pp. 27-28).

BRITAIN'S STEAM MARINE FORETOLD BY ISAIAH.

‘ “Which sendeth by sea whirling things even upon vessels of fleetness on the surface of waters.” Tzirim uvkli-gma ol-pni-mim pronounced tzirim uviklai gome al-penaimayim, — This is the orginal which I have rendered “whirling things even upon vessels of fleetness on the surface of waters.” Could any thing be more descriptive of steamers as they appear to a spectator when gliding over the water? He sees a vessel moving with rapidity, and observes something on its sides whirling with remarkable velocity. After beholding such a vessel for the first time in motion from a position exterior to it, its fleetness and whirling things would be the two characteristics by which he would describe it to others, I do not doubt the prophet understood that in the evening time there would be a great maritime power sending swift vessels by sea to its possessions in India, propelled by whirling things instead of by sails: It is a fact, that such a power exists, and navigates the waters of the Red Sea with fleet vessels without sails; which before his day bore on their surface the sluggish craft of Solomon and his Tyrian ally in their voyages to the Indian Tarshish. The fact is foretold in the prophet's description of the shadowing land.’ (ibid. pp. 108).

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

“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).

“Observations on the Unfulfilled Prophecies of Scripture” (1835)

Ensign of the Honourable East India Company, 1801

'It is a very general impression among the students of prophecy, as we have before noted, that we see at this present hour, in the decay of the Turkish power, that “drying up” of “the waters of the Euphrates,” which was to mark the pouring out of the sixth vial. The effect predicted is, “that the way of the kings from the east,” or “from the sun-risings,” may be prepared. Many conjectures are abroad respecting the “kings from the east.” Some imagine the restored Israelites are signified. There seems no analogy afforded by prophetical language, indeed, to fix the epithet directly and absolutely upon them; though, as the time is evidently drawing nigh, a way must be made for that first restoration, and even for that second, of which we have been treating.

'On this supposition, however, we cannot determine, whether the Israelites themselves are designated, or some powerful sovereigns of the eastern part of the world, who are to become the instruments of their restoration; and for whom, by the decay of the Turkish and Mahomedan powers, access to the Holy Land in this direction is to be afforded.

'And in this point of view, that extraordinary extension of the British empire in that part of Asia, in connection with what has been said respecting the “merchants of Tarshish and the lions thereof,” cannot but awaken many conjectures, as to what may be the designs of Providence in the raising up of this novel power in the east, through whose protection we see the foundations of an Apostolic Church already laid on the banks of the Ganges. However this may be in the secret counsels of God, the eyes of all expectants must be intensely fixed on this quarter of the globe, to mark for what future changes in the political state of the eastern nations, the way may have been prepared, by the present minishing and decay of the Turkish and Mahomedan powers.

'Others have supposed that by the kings of the east, or the kings that are from the risings of the sun, Christ and his risen saints – “The word of God and the armies of heaven which follow him,” are denoted. To this it has been objected, indeed, that the minishing or decay of an earthly power can remove no obstacle that stood in the way of these. And the weight of this objection we must acknowledge. But we cannot exactly determine with what latitude the prophetic language, “that the way of the kings from the east may be prepared,” is to be understood. It is not impossible, that “the way prepared” may denote an opening to the production of such an arrangement of affairs, and of such a relative position of the nations upon earth, that the Son of Man, with the saints of the Most High, may come and take the kingdom, in the way and circumstances which have been ordained and predestinated of God.

'Respecting the approach of Zion's Deliverer, there does, indeed, seem to be some allusion in Scripture to a progress from the east. I cannot think that prophecy in the forty-first of Isaiah, respects either Abraham or Cyrus:

“Who hath raised up the just one from the east, Hath called him to his feet?

Hath given up nations before him, Hath subdued kings?

Hath rendered his sword as a column of dust, And as the driven stubble his bow?

He pursued them, he went on prosperously, He touched not the road with his feet.”*

[Footnote: * '“The road with his feet he seemed not to measure.” — Bp. Stock. Compare Jeremiah xxxii. 24.']

'And again, verse the twenty-fifth:

“I have raised him up from the north, and he shall come, From the rising of the sun shall he invoke my name;

And he shall trample princes like mortar, And as the potter treadeth the clay.”

'If this, however, is the true application of the prophecy, we must look for the fulfilment, not at the first restoration of the Jews, but at the great day of the Lord, which we shall come afterwards to consider: and we must say, “the way,” indeed, is being “prepared,” by the drying up of the waters of the Euphrates, but those, who walk in the way, appear not as yet. Nor is it impossible, that, as in other prophecies, there may be observed in this, first an inceptive, and afterwards an ultimate and more full accomplishment. In the predicted scenes of that great day, we may be able to trace, perhaps, not only the Mighty God “riding upon the heavens” “as of old,” or “from the east,” to the help of his people; but some parts of Israel miraculously conducted by the Divine presence in the same direction towards restored and rescued Jerusalem. This must be the subject of future inquiry.'

From: Observations on the Unfulfilled Prophecies of Scripture, which are yet to have their Accomplishment before the coming of the Lord in Glory, or at the Establishment of His Everlasting Kingdom; by the Rev. John Fry, B.A., Rector of Desford, in Leicestershire; published, London: James Duncan, Paternoster Row, 1835; pp. 37-40.

“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 -

Empire of the Sun

(Above: colour plate displaying flags of the British Empire – taken from Our Flags and Their Significance; by K. C. Byrde; Bristol British-Israel Association, 1920).

From The London Express of February, 1902:

A BRITISH EMPIRE FLAG

_________

A Design Is Preparing for a New Ensign

to Give the Colonies

Representation.

An empire flag!

At last an ensign which shall adequately represent Great Britain both at home and beyond seas seems assured.

The Express is able to announce that the King has received with favour the suggestion that a new flag was needed to keep pace with the growing empire, and that a finished design for the same will be submitted to his Majesty next week.

Mr. C. D. Bennett, the cousin of a distinguished Colonial Governor, and himself well known in several of the colonies, has been intrusted with the responsibility of preparing this design.

Mr. Bennett has had many difficulties to contend with in evolving a harmonious and artistic design, which should fittingly express British sovereignty.

He has succeeded, however, in giving our colonial possessions full representation, without sacrificing the chief feature of the old flag – the Cross of St. George – which is in itself a familiar emblem of England's power in every quarter of the globe.

The following is a description of the new empire flag, as given officially to The Express:

On an absolutely white ground is embroidered a golden sun – typical of a race on whose dominions the sun never sets – shining on a large red Cross of St. George, representing, of course, the empire at home. In the left-hand corner is an imperial crown, the sign of one great empire, embracing all creeds, tolerating all beliefs, but under one great imperial idea.

Underneath the crown, on a blue scroll is inscribed the Latin rendering of the motto, “The empire on which the sun never sets,” which is the proudest boast of every Englishman:

“Imperium cui nullus Solis occasus.”

In the right-hand top corner of the flag will be placed the particular device representative of the empire beyond the sea. For instance, the flag to be used in India will contain the Star of India in the right-hand top corner.

The flag as used in Australia will contain instead the device of the new Commonwealth, while the Canadian and other Colonial Governments will add to the design their own badge, for use on all “empire flags” in that particular part of the world.

This design has been warmly commended by several persons high in authority to whom it has been exhibited. It now remains for his Majesty to place the final seal of approval.

Mr. Bennett has notified the King that the design awaits his Majesty's pleasure, and it will probably be exhibited to him next week. Should it be approved by his Majesty, the new design will become “official” without delay.

To the King himself is due this idea. His Majesty has realized that the present national emblem does not fully express the dignity and importance of the empire.

When the Prince and Princess of Wales started on their tour, nearly a year ago, they were especially instructed to carefully note every shade of colonial opinion on the subject – whether a new flag was desired and what each colony expected.

Everywhere the answer was the same: “Give us a new flag.” When the popular verdict was reported to the King, his Majesty at once signified a desire to have a proper design prepared.

After weeks of toil the design is ready, which many people believe will eventually be flying at the mastheads of our warships and over British possessions at home and abroad.

“The kings from the rising of the sun”

(The post below dates back to April 2008 where it was first submitted on the blog of the Mail on Sunday's journalist Peter Hitchens - on his blog thread dealing with the Second World War entitled, The Gathering Storm. I reproduce it below in its entirety with a few minor corrections).

In 1942 Churchill remarked that he had not become “the King's First Minister in order to preside over the liquidation of the British Empire.”

Perversely, while the ending of the First World War saw the dissolution of the the empires of the defeated Central Powers of Germany, Austria-Hungary and Turkey; the ending of the Second World War would ring in the death knell of the victorious British Empire.

At the expense of the defeated Central Powers, the First World War saw the British Empire make its last great imperial acquisitions. But the former age of empire-building had in fact come to a close – all of the newly won territories captured by the Allies were to be held in “trust” as “Mandates”, under the auspices of the, then, newly formed League of Nations.

When it came to sharing-out the spoils of that first, great conflict of the 20th century, Great Britain and her Empire were in a position to take the “lion's share”. From the defeated German empire, fell the following spoils:

German East Africa (modern-day Tanzania – excluding Zanzibar): vast majority to Great Britain (the remainder to Belgium). Togoland: jointly divided between Great Britain and France. German West Africa (Cameroons): two thin strips to Great Britain (majority to France). German South-West Africa (modern-day Namibia): to the Union of South Africa. German (north-eastern) New Guinea: to the Commonwealth of Australia. German (western) Samoa: to the Dominion of New Zealand.

But it was in – what was then termed the “Near East” – the modern-day Middle East, that the most far-reaching repercussions would be felt. In 1882 Great Britain had occupied Egypt (though it was still nominally under Ottoman suzerainty). In 1914, with the start of the First World War, Egypt was declared a British Protectorate – as was the Ottoman province of Kuwait to the east; and in 1915 with the entry of Turkey into the war on the side of the Central Powers, the former Ottoman held island of Cyprus (leased and administered by Great Britain since 1878) was also declared a British Protectorate.

By the war's end the British Empire had acquired for herself a swathe of territory captured from the defeated Ottoman empire (and now held by her under the proviso of the newly formed League of Nations): stretching from Palestine (which originally included Transjordan), on the Mediterranean seaboard; on through the vast, oil-rich deserts of Iraq, to the shores of the Persian Gulf in the east. And incorporated within the League of Nations' remit for British Mandate Palestine was the proviso to establish within that land a “Jewish National Home”, as had been first echoed by the so-called Balfour Declaration of November 1917...

In the explanatory notes of our family's nineteenth century Bible (which does not contain the year of its publication – but is inscribed with the year 1866 in a hand-written presentation), is the following note concerning Revelation 16:12 – and the final exhaustion of the Ottoman empire:

“The Euphrates is here used for 'the empire founded by the Euphratean horsemen [the Turks] of the sixth trumpet,' and the drying up of its waters 'to imply the exhaustion of all the political sources of wealth and power which contribute to the strength and greatness of . . . [that] empire . . .'”.

In Isaiah 8:7, God compares the conquests of the Assyrian empire to a river in flood: “Now therefore, behold, the Lord bringeth up upon them the waters of the river, strong and many, even the king of Assyria, and all his glory: and he shall come up over all his channels, and go over all his banks.”

In Revelation 16:12, the same imagery is used – but in reverse – to show the drying up of an empire. Sir Isaac Newton (1642-1727) wrote the following concerning this interpretation:

“Analogous to the loosing of these [four] Angels [of the sixth Trumpet (Revelation 9:13-21) – being the second, and Turkish phase of Islam's conquests] is the drying up of the waters of [the] Euphrates in the sixt[h] Vial. For these two actions must correspond because the beginnings of this Trumpet & Vial which are contemporary. Now by the waters of this river we are to understand the people situate upon it . . . that is, the Turkish Sultanies. And by the pouring [out of] a Vial upon this River the inflicting of some great calamity upon that people: such as was the Tattarian invasion. And by the consequent drying up [of] the waters thereof the wasting of the power & dominion of that people . . . that is, the [final] dissolution of the Turkish Sultanies by that invasion.” (Untitled Treatise on Revelation by Isaac Newton. Source: Yahuda Ms. 1.8, Jewish National and University Library, Jerusalem. From online transcript on the University of Sussex's “The Newton Project”).

Richard Lattimore, who was for many years Professor of Greek at Bryn Mawr, made a translation of the Revelation in the 1960s. In the Preface to a reprint of his translation he remarks:

“It was while I was teaching various Greek texts to beginning students that I was struck by the natural ease with which Revelation turned itself into English. . . . [In my translation] I have held throughout to the principle of keeping as close to the Greek as possible, not only for sense and for individual words, but in the belief that fidelity to the original word order and syntax may yield an English prose that to some extent reflects the style of the original.” (From, The Four Gospels and the Revelation: Newly translated from the Greek by Richard Lattimore, Hutchinsons of London, 1980).

Richard Lattimore translates Revelation 16:12 thus:

“And the sixth [angel] poured out his bowl upon the great river Euphrates; and its water was dried, so as to make ready the way of the kings from the rising of the sun.”

For comparison, the Authorised (King James) Version translates the above passage so:

“And the sixth angel poured out his vial upon the great river Euphrates; and the water thereof was dried up, that the way of the kings of the east might be prepared.”

Who then are these eastern kings – “the kings from the rising of the sun” ? In his book End Time Delusions, Steve Wohlberg makes the following observation: “Cyrus came from 'the east' to conquer ancient Babylon (see Isaiah 44:26-28; 46:11).” He also observes that, “the name 'Cyrus' [in Persian] means 'sun'.”

For an explanation of the apocalyptic imagery used in the Revelation, it is to the Old Testament that we must turn . . .

Between 606-604 BC, the Babylonian empire conquered Jerusalem and carried the Jews off captive to Babylon. In 539 BC, Cyrus the Great, the king of the Medes and Persians, conquered the ancient city of Babylon. And in the succession of “world” empires (which was given in an apocalyptic revelation to Daniel), the Babylonian empire was replaced (at its appointed time in the prophetic scheme) by that of Media-Persia.

In the British Museum is the ancient Cyrus Cylinder, which records Cyrus' conquest of Babylon. The river Euphrates ran through double doors into the ancient city of Babylon. Cyrus and his army had earlier dug trenches up-stream to divert the flow of the river. During the night of Belshazzar's drunken feast, the waters of the Euphrates were literally “dried up” and thus allowed Cyrus and his men access under the double doors, and into the city. The Babylonian empire had been, “weighed in the balances” and “found wanting”; that very night – the night of the “[hand]writing on the wall” - it was to be no more . . .

I am of the opinion that this eastern power, which in the Revelation is symbolised by the sun, is none other than that of the British Empire – it was the British Empire, which after the First World War took the “lion's share” of the former territories of the Ottoman empire from the Turks. But more importantly: it was the British Empire – like Cyrus' empire, two and a half millennia before – that would have a policy of allowing the Jews to return back to their ancient homeland.

I can think of a no more fitting symbol for the British Empire than that of the rising sun: for due to its vastness there was always a corner of the world, over which – from dawn to dusk each day a Union Flag – fluttering in the breeze, would be flying. During its heyday, the British Empire was truly, “an empire on which the sun never set . . .”

“The sun never set on the British Empire, Because the sun sets in the West, And the British Empire was in the East.” Anon.

It was Disraeli who bestowed upon Queen Victoria the title, Empress of India, and it was Disraeli who said that Britain was an ORIENTAL and not a EUROPEAN power. Lord Curzon remarked that, “As long as we rule India we are the greatest power in the world. If we lose it we shall drop straightaway to a third-rate power.”

The Oxford Dictionary of Current English gives the following definition:

“orient 1 . . . n (Orient) the East, the countries east of the Mediterranean, esp. E. Asia. [F f. L oriens . . . rising sunrise, east]”.

During the days of the British Raj, the Viceroy of India's flag was a Union Flag, in the centre of which, on the St George's cross, was superimposed “The Star of India”, surmounted by the Royal Crown. This, “Star of India” badge was a SUN-BURST in the centre of which was a five-pointed star, surrounded by a garter, bearing the motto: “Heaven's Light Our Guide”.

But does not the Revelation say “kings (plural) from the rising of the sun”? The capture of Palestine was a joint venture – which not only involved troops from Great Britain and her Indian Empire; but also troops from her far-flung, and more easterly dominions of Australia and New Zealand. The troops from these fledgeling dominions would play a major rôle in the conflict.

Also the following information is of interest: In 1619, Shah Abbas of Persia, granted the English East India Company a monopoly in Persia's silk trade and the Persian port of Bandar Abbas became the Company's headquarters in the region.

Due to instability in the region and Arab piracy, the East India Company, in 1763, moved its Persian headquarters from Bandar Abbas to the more secure port of Bushire. Here a British Resident was installed. The “British” presence in the region originated from her Indian Empire – for a while in the 19th century there were rival British legations in Teheran: one from HM Government in London; and the other from Britain's Indian Empire. Brian Lapping in his 1980s book End of Empire, (which was based on his Channel 4 TV series of the same name) included a chapter on the ending of “British rule” in Iran (Persia) – though nominally it wasn't even part of the British Empire, he felt that it warranted an inclusion due to the high level of British influence in the region.

In 1839, the East India Company extended its power still further, when – with 700 men, supported by a couple of Royal Navy sloops, Captain Stafford Haines of the Indian Navy annexed Aden to the Company's Bombay Presidency. This act made Aden the first imperial acquisition of Queen Victoria's reign.

In the May/June 2007 edition of Sword magazine (the successor magazine to Prophecy Today / Prophecy Today International), the Australian Kelvin Crombie – in the first part of an on-going article on “Britain's Destiny: Restorer of Israel?”, wrote:

“In . . . [the] ancient power play [of Cyrus' Persian empire allowing the Jews to return to their land] we see already the seeds of Britain's role several thousand years later – as the restorer of Israel. Three elements are present in this Persian connection: 1) the Land of Israel as strategic centre-point of the geo-political axis; 2) the Land of Israel as critical economic centre point and 3) the restoration of the Jewish people to the Land of Israel as a proxy group to fit in with the geo-political policy of an Empire.”

Returning back to the “[hand]writing on the wall” of Daniel chapter 5: it has been pointed out by W Edmund Filmer in his book, Daniel's Predictions (Regency Press, London, 1979), that:

“'The inscription actually contains a string of weight names, viz mene, tekel and peres, with the meaning mina, shekel and half mina, the last named word being documented in the Mishna and other Jewish writings', peres signifying the half mina. Since a mina consisted of fifty shekels, a shekel of twenty gerahs, the total weight in gerahs signified by the writing was:

Mina (MENE) 1,000 gerahs; Mina (MENE) 1,000 gerahs; Shekel (TEKEL) 20 gerahs; Half-mina (PERES) 500 gerahs: Total 2,520 gerahs”

On the [Peter Hitchens' blog] thread “Gaza proves that any Middle East deal will fail” (in the Archives for March [2008 on that blog]); I posted some quotes from Dr H Grattan Guinness' 1886 book, Light for the Last Days, in which he was expectant that the year 1917 (AD) would mark the terminus of the 2,520 solar years or “seven times” (i.e. 7 x 360 years) of biblical prophecy concerning the treading down of Jerusalem. In the same post I also quoted the following words of Dr H Aldersmith, MB, FRCS, written during the closing years of the 19th century:

“One day, some slight trouble may light up a great European war, which in the end may see the fall of Turkey . . . and Great Britain in possession of Palestine. . . . If so, as students of the prophetical Word are agreed that, when the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled, and Jerusalem ceases to be trodden down [by the Turks]; we may expect it to [then] pass . . . into . . . [British] hands . . . this period may end about 1917 A.D. Time only will show . . .” (The Fulness of the Gentiles, 2nd edition, 1896).

In Revelation 16:13, following immediately on from the drying up of the Euphrates, three unclean spirits like frogs are mentioned which “go forth unto the kings of the earth and of the whole world, to gather them to the battle of the great day of God Almighty. . . And he gathered them together into a place called . . . Armageddon.” (Revelation 16:14-16).

Each of the judgements in the Revelation are mirror images of those that fell upon the gods of ancient Egypt at the time of the Exodus.

In ancient Egypt the frog-headed goddess Hekt was regarded as a form of the goddess Hathor. Greek writers have preserved significant Egyptian lore regarding the frog. According to Horapollo (I, 25) the frog symbolised an imperfectly formed man. The Greeks accepted the view that the slime-coated frogs were half-formed – part of their bodies being still mud as they crawled about or squatted awkwardly. They believed that if the river dried up, the frog would be incomplete – half mud, half frog. Ælian (II, 56) mentions a shower of incomplete frogs.

“One day, some slight trouble may light up a great European war . . .”, so wrote Dr H Aldersmith, in 1896.

In “The War of the World” television series (Channel 4, 19th June, 2006; based on his book of the same name), the British historian, Professor Niall Ferguson remarked:

“The difficult thing to work out, is how an act of terrorism [the assassination of the Archduke Franz Ferdinand] in an obscure corner of 'Ruratania', could have such massive consequences? How exactly could the gunshots . . . have sparked-off the first of the century's two world wars? A conflict that all over the globe raged and claimed nearly 10 million lives. After all, assassinations were ten-a-penny in the early nineteen-hundreds. Terrorism was all the rage amongst extreme nationalists. Why did this one criminal act have such vast world shaking consequences?”

(“There was a great earthquake, such as was not since men were upon the earth, so mighty an earthquake, and so great.” Revelation 16:18).

Professor Ferguson continued: “The answer is that when the Archduke was shot, he was driving over one of the world's great fault lines; the fateful historic border between the west and the east – the Occident and the Orient. The trouble with geological fault lines is as the earth's tectonic plates grind uneasily against one another, they're where earthquakes happen. There in Sarajevo it was the geo-political tectonic plates – known as empires, that were shifting. Turkey's was giving way [drying up!]; Austria's was pushing forward; and so too was Russia's . . .”

“Once, Bosnia had been a part of the Ottoman empire . . . but in 1908 Austria had annexed Bosnia. When a Serb murdered their Archduke, the Austrians . . . demanded redress from Serbia and the Russians felt they could not afford to see Serbia humiliated. All the ingredients were thus in place for an imperial war between Austria and Russia over the balance of power in the Balkans.”

It was in the dried up left-overs of the Turkish empire, with its ethnic mix and its imperfectly formed borders – in which many Serbs dwelt across the border in Austria-Hungarian annexed Bosnia-Herzegovina, (remember, according to the lore preserved by Horapollo, the frog symbolised an imperfectly [or half] formed man [or nation]) – it was here, in this “cock-pit” of Europe, that tensions were running high; Borijove Jevtic, a Black Hand member, even went as far as stating that the very date of Franz Ferdinand's visit incensed him:

“How dared Franz Ferdinand, not only the representative of the oppressor but in his own person an arrogant tyrant, enter Sarajevo on that day? Such an entry was a studied insult. 28 June is the day on which the old Serbian kingdom was conquered by the Turks at the battle of Amselfelde in 1389. That was no day for Franz Ferdinand, the new oppressor, to venture to the very doors of Serbia for a display of the force of arms which kept us beneath his heel. Our decision was taken almost immediately. Death to the tyrant!”

It was in the Balkans – in the “dried up” left-overs of the Ottoman empire – that this volatile political and nationalist mix was ignited.

Writing after the fall of Jerusalem to British and Empire forces under the command of General Allenby, in December 1917 – but before the final close of the “Great War” of 1914-18 – M M'Intyre contemplated thus:

“Since the present world-war broke out, the question is sometimes asked, Are we in Armageddon now? It is possible that we are, but one cannot speak with decision on the point. Certainly, this war is like Armageddon in its extent . . . Russia has [now] abandoned us; and no one can foretell the future course of policy in that unhappy country. So far as we can see, there is nothing to hinder the war from undergoing fresh modifications, until it has assumed all the features of that dark struggle foretold in Scripture in such ominous terms. On the other hand, this [war] may be only the devastating prelude to still deadlier conflicts which will break out in the near future.” (The Starting Place of Glory, circa 1918).

And in Vol. VI of her “The Divine Calendar” series, Augusta Cook wrote the following prophetic words – a mere six years after the signing of the Armistice:

“The fifth volume of 'The Divine Calendar,' . . . was largely written while the Great War of 1914-18 was in progress. With that war, we entered the Era of Armageddon. We are still in that Era. To-day, we are not passing through a long period of peace: we are only in an Armistice – a lull before the greater storm.” (The Divine Calendar, Vol. VI: The Seven Golden Candlesticks, The Marshall Press, Ltd., 1924).

(“Star of India” flag image by Clay Moss from: “FOTW Flags Of The World Website” at http://flagspot.net/flags)