THE EMPIRE OF

 

“The City”

 

(World Superstate)

 

by E. C. Knuth

 

[Part 2]

The Five Ideologies of Space and Power

1. “One World” Ideology

2. “Pan-Slavic” Ideology

3. “Asia for the Asiatics”

4. Pan-Germanism

5. Pan-American Isolationism

The 130 Years of Power Politics of the Modern Era

 

[Page 1]

 

“I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past.”

— Patrick Henry

 

 

 

 

 

Copyright 1946, by E. C. Knuth

Milwaukee, Wis.

Previous Edition, Copyrighted May 22, 1944

Chapter XI, Copyrighted Feb. 22, 1945

Printed in U. S. A.

 

[Page 2]

 

 

 

Table of Contents PAGE

 

Introduction …………………… 5

I. The Fundamental Basis of Internationalism …………………… 7

II. Geopolitics and the Background of Modern Wars …………………… 11

III. The Eastern Question …………………… 17

IV. The Concert of Europe …………………… 23

V. The European Concert Ends in the East …………………… 26

VI. The New Order of Freedom …………………… 34

VII. The New Order Ends in the East …………………… 43

VIII. The Liberals Against the Conservatives and War ………………. 50

IX. The Money Power in Power Politics …………………… 59

X. The Secret Sixth Great Power …………………… 67

XI. A Study in Power …………………… 72

XII. The Problems of The Peace …………………… 79

XIII. The Five Ideologies of Space and Power …………………… 86

XIV. Conclusion …………………… 98

 

Index …………………… 106

 

[Page 6]

 

 

II

GEOPOLITICS ANT THE BACKGROUND OF MODERN WARS

 

 

The events of the past ten years have brought forth a great number of books treating some aspect of Geopolitics, defined by one writer as the struggle for space and power. Among the hundreds of new works on this subject perhaps the most outstanding is “America’s Strategy in World Politics,” by Nicholas J. Spykman, Sterling Professor of International Relations, Yale University, published in 1942, and sponsored by The Yale Institute of International Studies. Like most books on this subject, Prof. Spykman’s excellent work is very profound and comprehensive, and cannot be readily grasped by anybody not already acquainted with the outline of modern history and of modern power politics.

 

The modern era of world history can definitely be assumed to have had its inception with the end of the Napoleonic War because many of the problems now affecting the nations of Europe and the world in general arose out of the reconstruction of the map of the world as a result of that war. The virtual end of the Napoleonic War came with the crushing defeat of Napoleon at Leipsic in the gigantic “Battle of The Nations” in October, 1813, by the allied Russian, Austrian, Swedish and Prussian armies, followed by the abdication of Napoleon and his banishment to Elba in April, 1814.

 

Prof. Spykman describes the British policies in foreign affairs, which he alleges have earned her the designation of “Perfidious Albion,” in his treatment of “Britain and the Balance of Power” (pages 103 to 107). He develops the British policy as a constant succession of cycles of shift partners, isolation, alliance and war; and the defeat of Napoleon marked the end of one of these cycles. A tabulation of the modern wars of the world which follows immediately herein, and which assumes the Napoleonic War as modern cyclical war No. 1, would indicate the present war as cyclical war No. 7, and very possibly as cyclical war No. I of a new grand cycle.

 

In his “Conclusion” (pages 446-472), Prof. Spykman ventures the opinion that Britain cannot permit a complete German defeat as that would leave the European continent in the grip of Russia; and that she cannot permit a full Japanese defeat as that would leave Asia in the grip of an awakened and revitalized China. He is further very doubtful of a complete world hegemony by some type of British-American union, and concludes that only Japan would be able to supply the missing weight.

 

[Page 11]

 

Thus, strangely, Prof. Spykman would restore the overwhelming power of the alliance of the imperialistic expansion of 1897-1920, when Europe was in balance by the British alliance with France, Asia was in balance by the British alliance with Japan, and the world was in balance by the British alliance with the United States under the secret agreement of 1897.

 

One of the most forthright revelations, both of the secret agreement of 1897 and of the malignant disease which underlies modern civilization, and which threatens to tumble the world back into chaos and barbarism, was disclosed in a speech by Chauncey M. Depew, New York Senator and high political and financial power of his day, in seconding the nomination of Theodore Roosevelt for the Vice-Presidency of the United States at the Republican National Convention of 1900, when he stated in part:

 

“What is the tendency of the future? Why this war in South Africa? Why this hammering at the gates of Pekin? Why this marching of troops from Asia to Africa? Why these parades of people from other empires to other lands? It is because the surplus productions of the civilized countries of modern times are greater than civilization can consume. It is because this overproduction goes back to stagnation and poverty. The American people now produce two thousand million dollars’ worth more than we can consume, and we have met the emergency; and by the providence of God, by the statesmanship of William McKinley, and by the valor of Roosevelt and his associates, we have our market in the Philippines, and we stand in the presence of eight hundred millions of people, with the Pacific as an American lake.”

 

In the following tabulation the modern cyclical wars of the British Empire in its unceasing struggle to maintain control of the dynamic and rapidly shifting balance of world power are numbered in order, while the intermediate cyclical or pivotal wars are indicated by the letter 0, and the wars of imperialistic expansion by the letter X:

 

 

Cyclical wars and Imperialistic wars

Major Powers allied with British Empire

Major British opponents

 

 

No. 1 — Napoleonic War 1793-1815

England, Prussia, Sweden, Russia and Austria

France 

 

 

2 — Turkish War 1827-1829

England, France and Russia

Turkey and Egypt.

 

3 — Crimean War 1853-1856

England, France,  Turkey and Sardinia

Russia

 

O — Civil War 1861-1865

England, France,  Spain and Confederate States

Russia, (Prussia) and United States 

 

O — Franco-Prussian 1870-1871

France,  (England and Austro- Hungary)

Germany,  (Russia and Italy)

 

4 — Russian- Turkish 1877-1878

Turkey, England, ( France ) and (Austro-Hungary)

Russia and (Germany)

 

X — Egyptian War 1882-1885

England, France and (Austro-Hungary)

Egypt, (Turkey and Russia)

 

 

[Page 12]

 

 

(Era of imperialistic expansion under the wing of the overwhelming British-French -American-Japanese alliance of 1897-1920.)

 

Cyclical wars and Imperialistic wars

Major Powers allied with British Empire

Major British opponents

 

No. 5 — Spanish -American United States and (England) 1898-1899

United States and (England)

Spain and (Germany)

 

X — Sudan War 1898-1899

England

Sudanese-Egyptian Nationalists 

 

X — Boer War 1899-1902

England

Orange Free State and South African Rep

 

X — Partition of Siam 1899-1909

England and France

Siamese Nationalists

 

O — Russian-Japanese 1904-1905

Japan (and England)

Russia (and Germany)

 

X — Morocco Conflict 1904-1906

“The Allies” (and Italy)

Germany and Austro-Hungary

 

X — Persian Conflict 1907-1912

England (and France )

Russia and (Germany)

 

O — Morocco “Affair” 1911

England and France

Germany 

 

O — Tripoli War 1911-1912

Italian “reward” or “material quid pro quo”

Turkey

 

O — 1st Balkan War 1912-1913

Greece, Serbia, Bulgaria and Montenegro

Turkey

 

O — 2nd Balkan War 1913

Rumania, Greece and Serbia

Bulgaria

 

6 — World War I 1914-1918

“The Allies” and Italy, Rumania, Greece, Serbia, Montenegro, etc. (Pop. 1, 200,000,000)

Germany,  Austro-Hungary, Turkey, and Bulgaria. (Pop. 120,000,000)

 

 

(The era of imperialistic expansion, inaugurated by the internationalistic William McKinley, Chauncey M. Depew and Theodore Roosevelt of the party of “The Full Dinner Pail” of 1896, was ended in 1920 when the people of the United States buried the interventionist candidates on the Democratic ticket of that year, James E. Cox and Franklin Delano Roosevelt, under a gigantic landslide.)

 

(The alliance with the British Empire was resumed with the election of the party of “The More Abundant Life.”)

 

 

No. O — South American Conflict and World-wide boycott 1934-1939

“The Allies”

Germany 

 

7 — World War II 1939-? (World War II appears to be cyclical war No. I of a new Grand Cycle)

“The Allies” (Pop. 1, 100,000,000)

Germany,  Japan, Hungary, Roumania, Bulgaria, Slovakia, Finland, (Italy), ( France ), and (Spain) with subject areas (Pop. 700,000,000)

 

 

New Cycle

 

No. 2 — Russian seizure of Warm Water Ports

“The Allies”, Turkey, etc.

Russia and new Soviet states

 

 

[Page 13]

 

The term “conflict” as here used refers to diplomatic intrigue, incitations to internal disorders, and military and naval demonstrations and clashes short of formal war. Names of countries shown in parenthesis indicate allies that made no formal entry into war, due to limited length of the conflict or due to being opposed by or paired with a major opponent. The same indication has been used to indicate the present doubtful position of Italy and France

 

The predicted clash with Russia, within this decade of the British allies, assisted by Turkey, seems an utterly logical conclusion. Every Russian diplomatic move and every Russian war for one hundred thirty years has been a part of a campaign, which has cost many millions of lives, to reach Constantinople and the Dardanelles. The price exacted by Russia for her entry into World War I was Constantinople, the city of the Tsar, the city of the Caesar, the Tsarigrad. World War II has a very surprising resemblance to almost every aspect of the colossal Napoleonic struggle, and the groundwork is apparently being laid to repeat the bloody 130 year grand cycle here outlined.

 

China, Russia, the United States and Germany are in order the most populous independent nations in the world, and therefore represent the most dynamic and most dangerous competition of the British Empire. All of them have been the victims of recurrent British repression. The Russian and German cycles of repression were listed in the foregoing tabulation. The Chinese cycle follows:

 

 

War and Period     –    British Allies     –    British Opponent

 

Opium War, 1840-1843     –    England and France     –    Chinese Dynasty

Revolution, 1857-1858     –    England and France     –    Chinese Nationalists

Storming of Pekin, 1860     –    England and France     –    Chinese Dynasty

Revolution, 1860-1865     –    England and France     –    Chinese Nationalists

Yellow War, 1894-1895     –    Japan and (England)     –    Chinese Dynasty

Revolution, 1898     –    England-France-Japan     –    Chinese Nationalists

Boxer War, 1900-1901     –    All the Great Powers     –    Chinese Nationalists

Revolution, 1911     –    England-France-Japan     –    Chinese Nationalist

Revolution, 1926-1927     –    England, France, Japan, Portugal, Spain and Holland     –    Gen. Chiang Kai-shek

Manchurian Conquest, 1931     –    Japan     –    Gen. Chiang Kai-shek

 

 

Of the events which led to the British war with the Chinese Nationalists under Chiang Kai-Shek in 1926-1927, T’ang Leang-Li writes in “China in Revolt” published in London in 1927 that the City of Wanhsien of 750,000 population was bombarded on Sunday evening, Sept. 5, 1926, by a British fleet, causing civilian casualties of 2000 and destruction of a great part of the city. This despite the fact that General Yang Sen had merely detained the British steamer Wanliu to investigate a “river outrage” and negotiations had been in progress a day or two, and despite the fact that bombardment of an unfortified town is forbidden by international law. The bombardment was made the subject of a message of congratulation to the naval authority by H. M. Government.

 

[Page 14]

 

T’ang Leang-Li further charges that repeated raids on the Kuo Min Tang headquarters in the British Concession at Tientsin, in November and December of the year before, by the British police, resulting in the handing over of numerous Nationalists, including several girl students, for court martial to their mortal enemies, who are notoriously savage in their dealings with political opponents, cannot but be interpreted as a desire on the part of the British authorities at Tientsin to assist in a plain and deliberate massacre; that British agents in China continue to pursue the traditional policy of blackmail and bully. The British policy of the Iron Hand, far from intimidating the Chinese people, has as its effect the rallying of the Chinese masses to the banner of the anti-Imperialist Chinese National Party. (Page 156.)

 

T’ang Leang-Li describes in some detail the spider-web of exploitation woven about China by International Finance, and the traditional British policy of promptly attacking and eradicating any Chinese government indicating initiative and growing strength.

 

Few Americans realize that as late as 1932, Japan was engaged in subduing Manchuria as a British ally, with British support and protection, against the protests of the League of Nations, the United States and China.

 

Manchuria was awarded to Japan by the British international financial oligarchy for assuming the greater part of the fighting and the expense to overcome the Chinese Nationalist revolution of 1926-1927 under General Chiang Kai-shek against the domination of the British. It is of interest to note that every war listed as a “Revolution,” including the “Boxer” War, was a war against foreign imperialists holding the Chinese Government in bondage, a war against the bankers of the City and against the “foreign devils.”

 

The statesmen of the international financial oligarchy made many deceptive and illusory promises to many peoples and many nations before and during World War I to induce them to fight their aggressors and to defeat them in absolute and total victory, and Mr. Woodrow Wilson promised many more things, and these promises were revoked almost without exception after total victory had been won. Mr. Wilson’s promises of “New Orders” and “New Freedoms” to the subjects of the British Empire were all retracted and resulted in an immense wave of riot and revolution over a period of years following World War I. The following are some of the most outstanding of these instances of bloodshed:

 

[Page 15]

 

 

Egyptian Revolution  1919-1921

Anglo-Irish WarJan.,   1919- May, 1921

Ulster WarJuly,   1920 -June, 1922

Massacre of Amritsar  April 13, 1921

Indian Revolution   1921- 1922

Egyptian Revolution   1924 -1925

 

 

In an editorial “A Dwarf Between Giants” in the Chicago Tribune of Sunday February 6, 1944, appears a statement that the British Foreign office has generally run America’s foreign affairs for fifty years, and that for the past eleven years the British have had no difficulty in guiding our policy.

 

That this is true is apparent from the following chapters herein in which is given a detailed description of the means, the men, and the methods by which this was accomplished.

 

[Page 16]

 

 

 

 

III

 

THE EASTERN QUESTION

 

 

The end of the Napoleonic war left the mighty Turkish Empire forming a great crescent directly across the path to India. At that time Turkey included much of what is now Jugo-Slavia, Greece, Roumania, Bulgaria, and northern Africa up to Tunis and it was a potent threat to further British expansion in the Mohammedan East. An uprising in the Greek provinces of Turkey provided a suitable cause for war. Russia joined the British-French alliance as the protector of her brethren of the Greek Catholic Church and in promotion of her aspiration to gain access to open water through the Porte. A British-French-Russian fleet destroyed an allied Turkish -Egyptian fleet on Oct. 20, 1827. Then the British and French withdrew, leaving Russia to fight Turkey alone. Russia defeated the Turks and the war was ended on Sept. 24, 1829.

 

The British and French would not permit Russia the fruits of victory; she was not permitted to open the Porte or to gain free access to open water, and her efforts for over one hundred years up to this day to gain unrestricted access to a warm water port through the Porte, the Baltic, the Persian Gulf or the Yellow Sea have been frustrated by the “policy of encirclement,” and this subject will come up for troublesome discussion in the near future.

 

After having been reduced to utter bankruptcy, inflation and despair by the frightful bloodletting of the gigantic Napoleonic World War, the new French Government was readily subsidized by the International Bankers in an alliance which made France the perennial junior partner in their world imperialism for over one hundred years until the recent collapse of France. France has been the ideal partner for she has always conceded to the Lion, “the Lion’s share;” a share which has always been about 75% or over, even in the case of World War I.

 

Several million Greek Orthodox Christians still remained under Turkish rule after Russia had achieved the independence of Greece in 1829, and these people were subjected to the most inhuman and monstrous cruelties by Mohammedan persecution; and this condition continued over a long span of years until modern times, despite repeated promises of reform by the Turkish Government.

 

[Page 17]

 

As the Czar considered himself the protector of these Greek Orthodox Christians, this provided a constant cause of friction and grievance, which together with the British and Turkish obstruction to the Russian pressure for free passage through the Porte, was known as “The Eastern Question;” and this situation overshadowed the power politics of Europe for almost three quarters of a century and formed the basis for a succession of bloody conflicts.

 

The Standard History, 1899, quotes:

 

“The ascendancy of Russia was accompanied by the rise of a wholly new policy in Europe with regard to the Eastern Question. The old feeling that the Turk was the common enemy of Christendom, that every victory over the Crescent, no matter by what power it was gained, was a subject for general triumph, completely disappeared. On the contrary, the Turkish power was to be maintained, because Russia was dreaded.”

Britain resurrected the principle laid down by William Pitt who had argued that:

 

“. . . the true principle by which the foreign policy of England should be directed, was the fundamental principle of preserving the balance of power in Europe; and that the true doctrine of the balance of power required that the Russian Empire should not, if possible, be allowed to increase, nor that of Turkey to diminish.”

 

Twenty-four years after Russia had helped Britain overcome the menace of the Mussulman to her eastern possessions, the first war broke in the “Eastern Question;” the great Crimean War, in which Britain, France and Turkey (later joined by Sardinia, predecessor of modern Italy) defeated Russia in 1853-1856 at a cost of one million lives. The House of Savoy, rulers of Sardinia, entered this war in a political deal which placed it on the throne of a newly united Italy in 1861, through British victory.

 

The years of 1869-70 found Britain and its balance of power in an exceedingly precarious position. Its interference in the American Civil War now faced it with an angry and resentful America possessed of the world’s greatest army and a powerful navy of the new and terrible ironclads, demanding redress for heavy damages due to British lend-lease to the Confederacy. Russia had fully signified her intention to fight for revenge of her beating in the war of 1853-1856 by sending two fleets to the United States when war had seemed most imminent between the United States and Britain during the Civil War, and in a further incident of strange significance, the Queen of Spain was dethroned in a revolution.

 

This auspicious moment was seized by Prussia, largest of the many small German speaking states of central Europe, to abandon her role in the local politics of Europe and to enter on the stage of world power politics. Her ambitious prime-minister, Count von Bismarck, had already unified the German states into a loose confederation, and now attempted to place a Prussian princeling on the vacant throne of Spain. This was a step towards a natural alliance, for Spain was and still is the implacable and unforgiving foe of Britain, the nation that seized its colonies and reduced it to a state of poverty and decay.

 

[Page 18]

 

The move of Bismarck to place a German ruler on the throne of Spain was summarily challenged by France and the name of the German candidate, Prince Leopold of Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen, was withdrawn within about ten days by July 12, 1870. In accordance with the established tradition of the British-French financial oligarchy never to accept anything short of unconditional surrender, the French government demanded in addition an abject personal apology from King William I of Prussia on July 14, 1870.

 

When this personal apology was refused France declared war the following day. Britain, as usual, made no immediate move; and six months and twelve days later, on January 27, 1871, the defeat of France was utter and complete. Nearly all the German States promptly joined in the war, and by the end of July, the highly skilled German military chief, General von Moltke, had 700,000 men along the French frontier. Emperor Napoleon III took over the chief command of the French armies. Napoleon III was captured by the Germans together with 120,000 men at the Battle of Sedan, on Sept. 2, 1870. On January 19, 1871, King William I of Prussia, was formally proclaimed Emperor of the new German Empire, a union of four kingdoms and twenty-one other principalities of central Europe. Although the war had been very short, nearly one-half million men perished. (See footnote.)

 

————————–

 

A message was transmitted for the French Emperor on July 5, 1870, by Baron Rothschild of Paris to Baron Lionel Nathan Rothschild of London. The message was deciphered by Nathaniel Maier Rothschild, still head of the House of Rothschild at the beginning of World War I, and by him delivered to Mr. Gladstone early on the morning of July 6th. The message was to inform Mr. G. that the council of ministers at Madrid had decided to propose Prince Leopold of Hohenzollern for the Spanish throne, that his candidature would be intolerable to France,  that the Emperor hoped Mr. Gladstone would endeavor to secure its withdrawal.

 

Mr. Gladstone stated his reluctance to interfere with the liberty of the Spanish people to choose their own sovereign. He was nevertheless later confronted with a dispatch to the King of Prussia drafted by Lord Granville and asked to sign the same. Again Mr. Gladstone was reluctant, but after several days of hesitation, he added to Lord Granville’s draft an appeal to the magnanimity of the King, begged him to consider the danger to the peace of Europe, enjoined him further to say nothing to give ground for the supposition that England had any business to discuss the abstract right of Spain to choose her own sovereign. (Morley’s Life of G., Book VI, Ch. IV.)

 

Gladstone’s appeal was supported by an energetic representation to Berlin by Austria, seat of the third Rothschild dynasty, and the King of Prussia immediately ordered the candidacy of Prince Leopold withdrawn. Having inveigled Mr. Gladstone into a definite position, the tone of France suddenly became harsh and menacing. Evidently mistaking the quick compliance of King William I as a sign of weakness and fear of an apparently united Austrian. British and French coalition, they demanded two days later, on July 14th, that the Prussian King make a personal pledge that he would never again sanction any similar political move. This was an ultimatum of unparalleled effrontery demanding in effect that Prussia in utter humiliation acknowledge herself a vassal of France,  with no further voice in the council of Nations. The King politely declined the French demand and France declared war the next day. Each and every war of modern times has been preceded by an interchange in similar terms of arrogance and contempt by the statesmen allied with International Finance; with a disdainful refusal of any basis of settlement making any reasonable concession.

 

[Page 19]

 

Gladstone was horrified; and this great opponent of Toryism and its wars stated that the diplomacy on the side of the Government of France anterior to the war, made up a chapter which for fault and folly taken altogether is almost without a parallel in the history of nations. With one stroke France united the quarreling and jealous small German kingdoms and principalities of central Europe into a great empire and threw itself under the grinding wheels of Bismarck, to be utterly demolished in six months time. The French calculations proved entirely wrong. The illusion of International Finance that Russia had been immobilized for 100 years by the Crimean War of only 14 years before quickly vanished, with a vindicative Russia holding Austria at bay and repudiating her terms of surrender in that war. The German victory was too sudden to permit the financiers of the City and the Conservatives to unseat the anti-imperialistic Liberal, Gladstone; and to intervene.

 

————————–

 

This war occurred in the adult life of thousands of American citizens of today; and in that same span from 1871 to today perhaps 25,000,000 to 30,000,000 human beings have lost their lives in the struggle of the “Balance of Power.” This is a “Big-League” game, and we are now the principal participant.

 

The crash of the European Balance of Power was promptly exploited to its utmost by the nations of the continent. The head of the House of Savoy revoked the agreement with the British-French oligarchy by which he had been made King of Italy and sent an army to seize the Pontifical States of Italy, which were under the temporal rule of the Pope as their absolute sovereign. The troops of the Pope surrendered on September 20, 1870, and the capital of Italy was moved from Florence to Rome on July 3, 1871.

 

Russia at the outbreak of this war denounced the treaty of 1856 and rebuilt her Black Sea fleet and fortifications, and prepared to resume her offensive in the “Eastern Question,” thus undoing everything for which a million men had died a brief 15 years before. She had openly supported Prussia and any move on the part of England would have promptly brought her into the Franco-Prussian war, and she now was free to act. Her first move was a drive into Turkestan up to the borders of Persia, Afghanistan and India. In this campaign she defeated the Khan of Khiva in the spring of 1873; the Turkomans in the fall of 1873, and the Khan of Khokand in the summer of 1875.

 

In the meantime Russian political penetration roused the peasants of the Turkish provinces of Herzegovina and Bosnia into rebellion in July, 1875, and this was followed by declarations of war by other Turkish political subdivisions; Servia and Montenegro in 1876, and Bulgaria and Roumania in 1877. The stage was then set for Russia’s answer to the Eastern Question and her revenge for the horrors perpetrated on her religious compatriots, and the war that followed was fought with bestial fury, with no quarter given or asked. The Turks fought with frenzied determination and losses were immense on both sides, but the odds were too great and nine months after declaration of war the Russian army was encamped in the suburbs of Constantinople, with the Turkish army totally dispersed. The Russians had been well prepared, for two immense armies totalling 500,000 men had moved over the border into Turkey within a few hours after the declaration of war.

 

[Page 20]

 

The conduct of this war throughout was exceedingly brutal. Turkish prisoners were kept herded out in the open in bitter winter weather without food or shelter for many days, to die by the thousands The American military observer, Lieut. F. V. Greene, relates in “Army Life in Russia,” published in 1881 that in passing one of the burial trenches filled with the bodies of naked Turkish dead, he saw among the corpses a living man; his head and one arm only visible, speechlessly beckoning for aid. He called attention to this man but nothing was done for him. Nevertheless, when the Russians reached the suburbs of Constantinople, they did not enter the city to loot and destroy; on the contrary, the Grand Duke Nikolaus made a formal call on the Sultan to pay his respects, duly returned by the Sultan.

 

A treaty of peace was made at San Stefano, near Constantinople, on March 3, 1878, between Russia and Turkey; which was promptly challenged by Disraeli. Britain had been unable to come to Turkey’s assistance, but had charged Russia with deliberate violation of the Treaty of Paris in attacking the integrity of the Ottoman Empire. To save face, she declared she would remain neutral as long as British interests were not attacked, and these were defined as follows: First, the navigation of the Suez Canal must not be blockaded or interfered with. Second, Egypt must not be attacked or occupied. Third, Constantinople must not pass into any other hands than those of its present possessors. Fourth, the existing arrangements concerning the navigation of the Bosphorus and the Dardanelles must not be changed.

 

Unable to oppose Russia by force, Britain appealed the Treaty of San Stefano to the Concert of Europe, an informal organization of the nations of Europe which had attempted to install a system of law and order into the affairs of the world since the Napoleonic wars. Russia obediently waited on the outskirts of Constantinople for six months after the close of the war; her soldiers eager to go home after their great victory, ill-housed and exposed to the weather and ravaged by disease, until the European Concert had concluded the Treaty of Berlin on July 13, 1878.

 

That part of the Eastern Question pertaining to the Turkish atrocities was now fully settled with general freedom for the Balkan nations, and Russia had demolished the Porte; but, on the other side of the Porte stood the British fleet, and that part of the Eastern Question has never been settled, for the new alignments of the Balance of Power left Russia helpless in Europe thereafter.

 

[Page 21]

 

With their Turkish ally of no further use, the British banking oligarchy subsidized the government of Turkey’s vassal state Egypt the next year with a largely fictitious loan. The Egyptians rose against this seizure under the leadership of their War Minister Arabi Pasha with the battle cry of “Egypt for the Egyptians.” While the French and British fleets demolished the Egyptian fleet in July 1882 and defeated Arabi’s army shortly afterwards, the revolution continued for many years. In 1885, the renowned “trouble shooter” of the British Empire, Gen. Chas. G. Gordon lost his life in the Egyptian war, and final victory was not achieved by the British until 1898, when Lord Kitchener defeated the Mahdi. Gen. Gordon, also known as Gordon Pasha and as Chinese Gordon, played a large role in the British and French subjugation of China.

 

Turkey, once the world’s greatest empire, and still the nominal leader of the vast Mohammedan world, has had a number of years of fair prosperity and modernization and has profited much from the present war. The Mohammedans, largely under British and French rule, have a great store of grievances against this rule, real and fancied; and with the relatively small Christian white population of the world engaged in annihilating themselves in a shambles of intolerance caused by illusion and deceit; a world-wide uprising of the Mussulman is not so far-fetched.

 

[Page 22]