“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).

Unholy Smoke & Fire: Austria v Italy

SMOKE

BEGINNING WITH CARDINAL MANNING'S PRONOUNCEMENT ON THE 'ONE SOLUTION' TO THE 'DIFFICULTY' OF THE POPE'S LOSS OF HIS TEMPORAL POWER:

'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 will have crushed each other with mutual destruction.' (The Tablet, January 24, 1874).

Later the same year of Manning's pronouncement, W. E. Gladstone wrote the following in Appendix C to his Vatican Decrees:

'Compare the recent and ominous forecasting of the future European policy of the British Crown in an Article from a Romish Periodical for the current month, which has direct relation to these matters, and which has every appearance of proceeding from authority.

'“Surely in any European complication, such as may any day arise, nay, such as must ere long arise, from the natural gravitation of the forces, which are for the moment kept in check and truce by the necessity of preparation for their inevitable collision, it may very well be that the future prosperity of England may be staked in the struggle, and that the side which she may take may be determined, not either by justice or interest, but by a passionate resolve to keep up the Italian Kingdom at any hazard.” - The 'Month' for November, 1874: 'Mr. Gladstone's Durham Letter,' p. 265.'

(From: The Vatican Decrees In Their Bearing on Civil Allegiance: A Political Expostulation, by the Right Hon. W. E. Gladstone, M.P.; published London: John Murray, Albemarle Street, 1874; p. 32).

Some years later, reflecting on Cardinal Manning's pronouncement, the Rev. Hugh Price Hughes, Editor of the Methodist Times, gave the following insight into his utterance - in the issue of August 6th, 1896, he wrote:

'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.'

(As cited in the Protestant Truth Society publication: Is Rome behind the War? by J. A. Kensit, 1918; p. 13).

And in his The Papal Conquest (1909) the Rev. Alexander Robertson, D.D., recounted the following:

'Some few years ago, here in Venice, I had much pleasant intercourse with Dr. Andrew D. White of Cornell University, and late Ambassador at Berlin of the United States of America. Speaking together one day of the Hague Conference of 1899, at which he sat as President of the American Delegation, he told me the following incident. The Conference had finished its work, and he was bidding farewell to the “House in the Wood,” when he found at its door, in a towering passion, a leading Roman Catholic diplomat who represented one of the great Catholic Powers. Dr. White said to him : “Step into my carriage, and drive home with me to dinner and unburden your mind.” He did so. The cause of his wrath was as follows :–

'When the Conference was being arranged for, the Pope claimed, as the world knows, to be represented at it, not only as a temporal sovereign, but as the world's great peace-maker, the representative on earth of the Prince of Peace. He moved heaven and earth to enforce his claim; but of course it was rejected without discussion, as the very idea of such a thing was out of the question. Had it been entertained, Italy would have refused to enter the Conference, and England, and probably other powers, would have done the same; hence the Conference would necessarily have been given up. However, at the closing meeting of the Conference, as Dr. White said, “to the amazement of all, and almost to the stupefaction of many,” M. de Staal, the representative of the Netherlands, handed a paper to the Secretary to read. It turned out to be a letter from his Queen to the Pope, in which she indicated that it was not the fault of her Government that he was not represented at the Conference. The paper also contained the Pope's reply, in which he magnified his office as the world's peace-maker, and reiterated his incontestable right as such to be represented. It was the Pope's letter with its mendacious statements and preposterous claims that roused the anger of this Roman Catholic Delegate, who, once seated in the carriage, delivered himself as follows (and now I am quoting, not from memory, but from Dr. White's Autobiography which he has just sent me) :–

'“The Vatican has always been, and is to-day, a storm-centre. The Pope and his advisers have never hesitated to urge on war, no matter how bloody, when the slightest of their ordinary worldly purposes could be served by it. The great religious wars of Europe were entirely stirred up and egged on by them; and, as everybody knows, the Pope did everything to prevent the signing of the treaty of Münster, which put an end to the dreadful Thirty Years' War, even going so far as to declare the oaths taken by the plenipotentiaries at that Congress of no effect. All through the Middle Ages and at the Renaissance period the Popes kept Italy in turmoil and bloodshed for their own family and territorial advantages, and they kept all Europe in turmoil, for two centuries after the Reformation—in fact, just as long as they could—in the wars of religion. They did everything they could to stir up the war between Austria and Prussia in 1866, thinking that Austria, a Catholic power, was sure to win; and then everything possible to stir up the war of France against Prussia in 1870, in order to accomplish the same purpose of checking German Protestantism; and now they are doing all they can to arouse hatred, even to deluge Italy in blood, in the vain attempt to recover the Temporal Power, though they must know that they could not hold it for any length of time even if they should obtain it. . . . Their whole policy is based on stirring up hatred and promoting conflicts from which they hope to draw worldly advantage. In view of all this, one stands amazed at the cool statements of the Vatican letter.”' [Autobiography of Dr. D. White, vol. ii. pp. 349-351 (The Papal Conquest, pp. 313-316).]

FIRE

CONCLUDING WITH COUNT CARLO SFORZA'S TESTIMONY AS TO THE REALITY OF THE INTRIGUE:

'Leo XIII . . . dreamed of the destruction of Italian unity which, he thought, should be dissolved into a federation of little Italian republics under the presidency of the Pope. He dreamed of a departure from Rome [and establishing himself in his “cara Salisburgo” – his dear Salzburg – awaiting the crusade of the Catholic powers] followed by a triumphal return after a victorious war waged by Austria-Hungary against Italy – an idea that Francis Joseph had the good sense to reject. . . .

'Italy and the world remained long in ignorance of these intrigues; in fact, they became known only in 1919 when, through an initiative that I myself undertook [whilst Undersecretary of State for Foreign Affairs], republican Austria consented to open to us the archives of the Empire for all sorts of historical researches.'

(From: Contemporary Italy: Its Intellectual and Moral Origins; Count Carlo Sforza; Frederick Muller Ltd., London, 1946; p. 69).

* * * * * *

The following is from Chapter XV of the same work, where Count Sforza recounts the realities of Italy's 'FOREIGN POLICY':

'Italy being engaged in a war with Turkey in 1911, Conrad, the Austro-Hungarian Chief of Staff, put all his influence in Vienna to work in order to gain the old Emperor's consent for a “preventive war” against Italy. Aerenthal did not hesitate to define Conrad's projects “a policy of brigandage,” and Francis Joseph sided with his Minister of Foreign Affairs. Conrad resigned, but continued to preach his great plan among his close friends.

'In the course of his recriminations, Conrad added that Austria should have seized a former opportunity that chance had offered her against Italy, that is, the tragic days of the Messina earthquake. Conrad's intimates and his protector, Archduke Francis Ferdinand, have on several occasions admitted it.

'Conrad's ideas must have appeared to the initiated not far from realization, since the German Ambassador at Rome at that time dared send the Consulta this communication: that it was well understood that in the event of an Austro-Hungarian war with Italy, Germany would remain neutral, the treaty of the Triple Alliance being mute on that hypothesis!

'Proof of the hardiness of myths agreeable to a nation's vanity, these facts, historically certain, have not prevented and will not prevent sentimental German writers from continuing to cast doubts on Italy's loyalty during the period of the Triple Alliance. The truth is that the meticulous study of the diplomatic documents of the period will only demonstrate that if in that mariage de raison which was the Triple Alliance there were thoughts and acts of dubious fidelity, they were chiefly on the side of Germany and Austria-Hungary. The fact is explicable when one recalls that, as regards Italy, the treaty had no positive aims but was entered into for negative reasons. Italy understood that she could not live under the constant menace of a neighbour who detested her by tradition and necessity. (Did we not represent that principle of nationality so hated in Vienna?) Italy felt in her very flesh the spear point of the Trentino, the menace of that powerful and malevolent neighbour; she knew she could expect no protection of law in the anarchic Europe of the post-1878 period; she could only accept an alliance. At least she gained by it the neutralization of any eventual temporal plot of the Vatican which might become dangerous in case of a return to power of the French Right parties.' (ibid. p. 86).

* * * * * * *

ENVOI:

From The Papal Conquest (1909):

'Austria, like the Roman Catholic Church, is Italy's “Eternal Enemy.” ... Her whole policy, especially during recent years, has been one of provocation, and almost of unconcealed hostility. She has made military roads, built forts, and mined bridges, wherever her frontier is contiguous with that of Italy. When Italy was prostrated by the great earthquake disasters in Sicily and Calabria, and every civilized nation in the world was tendering sympathy and help, the Vienna papers said : “See how generous we are not to profit by this opportunity to make war”; and they boasted that the Emperor was with them in entertaining the idea. I have another cartoon, which represents the Pope and the Emperor Francis Joseph rubbing their hands over the catastrophe, the Pope saying : “Serves Italy right, she took from you Lombardy and Venetia,” and the Emperor replying : “Serves Italy right, she took from you the Temporal Power.” Pasolini never spake truer words than when he said that “Italy will always side with the enemies of Austria,” and that “the alliance of France, England, and Italy is the strongest guarantee for civilization, and the freedom of the world.” [Guiseppe Pasolini Memorie Racolte da suo Figlio, pp. 328, 332.] The Vatican looks to the Government of Austria, its bond-servant, to restore the Temporal Power; but, as we have already said, England blocks the way. Austria cannot move in the matter, either to regain Venetia and Lombardy, or to help the Pope to the Temporal Power, until England is humiliated. The Pope and the Church must first find a power to attempt this, find a power that will dare to make war upon England. And a serious war it will be. The Roman Catholic writer in The Month knew that when he said : “It may very well be that the future prosperity of England may be staked in the struggle.”

'Well the world knows – it has again and again been declared – that the Pope and the Church have found such a power in Germany, and that in the person of the Kaiser they have found the very man to inspire and lead the nation in this enterprise. Amongst his [the Kaiser's] great and varied talents, his boundless ambition and self-confidence which would lead him to undertake almost anything, he possesses, in quite a phenomenal degree, these two qualifications for the task – hatred of England and love of the Pope. I believe he stands unique amongst the rulers of the world in this respect; and it is the more strange it should be so, seeing he [the Kaiser] professes to be a Christian and a Protestant. Yet that he possesses, or rather, is possessed by, these two passions [hatred of England and love of the Pope], there can, I think, be no doubt.

'The Pope, as I have already had occasion to say, feels very much at home in the company of Venetians, and talks freely to them on most subjects. In this way the Kaiser and his strange doings form not infrequently a topic of conversation, or at least a subject of passing remark. Indeed, this can hardly be avoided, for his portrait is a prominent object in the Pope's rooms. Here it is on a table, there it hangs on a wall, yonder it is in an album; whilst on his breast, suspended on a massive gold chain, sparkles a magnificent cross, composed entirely of emeralds, a gift of the Kaiser to Leo XIII. When anyone noticing these things calls the Pope's attention to them, a smile of amusement lights up his face as he comes out with his favourite joke about the Kaiser, “Why, he is my best European friend!” The statement is a joke, and yet it is a literal truth. No Catholic fanatic in the world is more punctilious than he is in sending his homage and congratulations, and flattering speeches and presents to the Pope on his ever-recurring personal festivities, such as the anniversaries, the semi-jubilees and jubilees, actual or prospective, of the day on which he was born, or was christened, or became a priest, or began to climb the ecclesiastical ladder, or reached its summit and vaulted into the chair of St. Peter. . . . (pp. 322-324).

'The result of this unholy alliance, of this union in mutual love of each other and detestation of England, is that the Kaiser has become the willing instrument of the Pope and the Vatican for the humiliation of England, in order to [facilitate] the ultimate restoration of the Temporal Power. What Richard Bagot, the Roman Catholic novelist, wrote during the Boer War, in the number of the National Review for May 1900, holds equally true to-day, that “the whole campaign against England was due to the intrigues of the Vatican, which is working, as it has ever worked and ever will work, to promote and encompass the humiliation of England.” [The National Review, May, 1900.]

'Italy has long known that the Vatican has been egging on the German Emperor to invade England, and has for years warned us of our peril. She has done this with all the greater earnestness and persistency that she knows that her own turn will come next. She has told us that just as the naval and military preparations of Germany, carried on with such mad haste and to such an abnormal extent, are, in her opinion, directed against England : so the similar preparations carried on in the same spirit by Austria, are directed against herself ; and that, in the event of England's humiliation, Austria will at once, backed by Germany, attempt to recover Venetia and Lombardy; and then, as Dr. White's eminent Roman Catholic diplomat at the Hague said, Italy will be deluged in blood, in the attempt to restore the Temporal Power.

'I think that Great Britain is pretty well alive now to this peril against which Italy has warned us; and it would be an easy task for me to marshal facts in its support, to show, indeed, that the peril is very great and very near . . . Indeed, I have already written out these facts, but at the last moment I withhold them from a sense of the grave responsibility of publishing anything that might be construed as inciting to war. At the same time, there is less need that I should recount them, as many of them are now widely known, having been discussed in the British Parliament and in the public Press; and as Italy's interpretation of Germany's objective is very generally accepted by men of political complexions as the correct one.

'It has long been known in Italy, and Italy has warned England of the fact, that the original date fixed upon by the Pope and the Kaiser for the carrying out of their nefarious enterprise was 1911-1912. This date has been mentioned also several times in the British Parliament and in the Press. I am in possession of the reasons that led to the selection of this date. They are many and various, some touching Germany, others England, and Italy, and not a few having reference to the disaffected state of Ireland at our own doors, and of Ireland across the ocean. However, I do not intend here to enter further into them, all the more that the partial awakening of England to the danger of the situation has probably spoilt the project for so early a date as the one indicated.' (pp. 327-329).

* * * * * * *

A larger excerpt from The Papal Conquest can be found in the Archive for January 2010 on the World War Armageddon blog.

War 1914: Punishing the Serbs

Excerpts from official papers : –

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

Belgrade, June 18/July 1, 1914.

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

*******

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

Foreign Office, July 23, 1914.

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

*******

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

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

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

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

*******

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

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

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

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

*******

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

(Telegraphic.) Belgrade, July 24, 1914.

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

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

*******

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

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

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

*******

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

(Telegraphic.) Belgrade, July 25, 1914.

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

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

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

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

*******

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

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

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

*******

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

(Translation.)

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

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

*******

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

(Telegraphic.) Vienna, July 27, 1914.

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

*******

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

Foreign Office, July 29, 1914.

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

*******

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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