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