The problems of the coming peace

Front matter

.cr «

4°+

• *

Contents

Page

I. — Introduction 9

II. — The Turkish Question 19

Chapter I INTRODUCTION Chapter I. — Introduction

There are two examples in history which could be compared with the present European war. They are: the struggle between Rome and Carthago and the war of England against Napoleon. The ancient Carthago is the England of our day; Rome of yore is the present Germany. These were the wars of the greatest power on land with the greatest power on the seas. Only the conflagration of Carthago, when its walls crumbled under the pressure of the Roman legions and centuries later the burning down of Moscow, the smoking ruins of which broke Napoleon's sword, can be compared with the political importance of the present war. This war has deep reasons, employs frightful means, and it is bound to yield most important results.

No comparison in history can be found for the way in which the present war is conducted. No longer armies are facing each other as was the case in former years, but entire nations are lined up against each other in battle array. No longer thousands are fighting, but millions. There is no longer such a thing as a decisive battle in which one attack is able to crush the enemy. The present efforts present something rather superhuman ; the individual becomes drowned in the mass of armies of millions of men, having no possibility of overlooking battles fought over hundreds of miles and lasting for months. The soldier becomes an ant rather than an eagle. His consciousness does not seem to exceed the consciousness of a cell in the midst of an organism. The heroism of the individual decreases while the heroism of a nation grows proportionately; the individual character plays only a secondary part, while the weight of the national character increases in importance. Not armies but entire nations have entrenched for the last year and deluge each other with fire. Above them all the aeroplane has spread its wings and has been pressed into regular army service. On the seas the submarine has come to the front and changed the technique of naval warfare. Thus, the two supreme triumphs of human ingenuity, the conquest of the air and the conquest of the deep seas, were first enlisted as weapons of wholesale murder before they could serve purposes of human happiness.

The sacrifices caused by the present war are enormous. The first nine months have cost the warring nations five millions in killed and wounded, not including those who were taken prisoners.* During the same period the expenditures of the principal warring nations amounted to $12,000,000,- OOO.f Thousands of villages and cities were reduced to ruins; all that were spared by the artillery fire were destroyed by trench digging; these were the traces which the hurricane of war left behind when it swept the countryside. Famine, misery, contagious diseases followed the warring armies as jackals follow a caravan. The prosperity of nations which were leaders in civilizatory work has been ruined ; ruined was also the happiness of millions of families from whom the war tore away father, husband and brother. Who will tell how many tears have been shed? Who will describe the suffering and the agony?

The world is horror stricken.

* According to the estimates of Senator Henri La Fontaine of Brussels, Chairman of the International Peace Union.

t According to the estimates of the British Prime Minister, Asquith.

The consciousness of responsibility for the present war grows every day. Slogans of the liberty of nations and permanent peace appeared on the banners of the warring armies. According to the general opinion, this is perhaps the last act of the human tragedy — to some extent, a "war against war itself."* The idea of peace, but of permanent peace, becomes slowly something positive. It ceases to be an idea and begins to acquire the form of an actual political goal. The world begins to feel the weight of its own guilt; the majesty of humanity requires some kind of satisfaction. Human society begins to look for a guarantee that this frightful orgy of blood shall not again be repeated. Should war always remain the supreme manifestation of the life of nations just as the death of an individual is the supreme manifestation of his life? Is the heroism of labor going to outweigh, on the scale of history, the heroism of war?

The present war is immense, but the coming peace must exceed it in its immensity.

The condition of the coming peace must be the principle of justice. This principle, however, is denied by those, who by their actions prove that according to their opinion the coming peace has to be based on the fact of physical victory. The shadow of every victory is a defeat of the vanquished party, and the resonance of defeat is the thirst for revenge. Justice alone can mitigate this danger and, therefore, the idea of justice can be the only permanent basis for a future peace treaty. The defeat of Austria at Sadowa in 1866 did not sow the seed for a desire for revenge because Bismarck did not take advantage in a brutal way of the physical victory of Prussia, but he limited himself to negotiating a just peace. Austria lost at that time Venice to Italy, and this was

* E. Vanderwelde.

in conformity with the theory of nationality which was the tendency of the history of these days. Austria, however, did not lose an inch of her territory to Prussia. The result of the Franco-Prussian war of 1870-1871 was different. Prince Bismarck basing himself on the fact of physical victory exploited peace to the disadvantage of France. Germany has occupied not only the portion of Lorraine which was nearest Germany in spirit, but has also occupied Alsace, which showed a marked political inclination towards France. A huge contribution of war did not fail to increase the spirit of animosity ; all these elements were the seeds of the coming war of revenge. The entire policy of France and the education of the young generation was conceived and developed from this ultimate point of view of revenge against Germany. The fruits that grew from these seeds are ripening in the present conflagration. This example is frightful enough to prove the correctness of the contention that only just peace can be a permanent peace. No permanent peace can be based on blind hatred, on the brutal fact of physical superiority; and, thus, the saving of humanity from the disaster of war can, just as permanent peace, be brought about only by the principle of justice.

An army can be defeated, but a nation which consciously and bravely goes to war cannot be defeated. A soldier dies on the field of glory, the sword breaks, the rifle in the dying hand does not send out any longer the deadly lead, but the elements of heroism as far as they manifest themselves in heroic acts cannot perish, because they are immortal. They cannot disappear in the conflagration, nor can they be drowned in the deluge of shrapnel. They must outlive the defeat and become the songs of hatred for the future generations, and the flags of future war for revenge. Both parties in the present war are guilty of wholesale murder, but on the other hand, both parties, and not only one of them, have to be credited with boundless heroism ; both sides can claim for themselves a capital of heroism and national enthusiasm. The Germans have astonished the entire world with their smashing march through Belgium and northern France, but France also will have a source of eternal national pride in the battle of the Marne. Amazing are the victories of the allied German and Austro-Hungarian armies over Russia, in the eastern theatre of war, but still Russia too can boast of a series of successes in the beginning of the war. All nations which hitherto led Europe in civilization are ablaze with war-like spirit. The heroism that these nations displayed in a sufficient number of cases insures these nations against eventual downfall and decay ; national honor is safe since it covered itself with new laurel of glory.

No Joffre and no Hindenburg shall ever be able to destroy it ; this national honor is a weapon which shall survive even the ultimate defeat, and it shall continue to be sharpened in the arsenal of national life for the future war of revenge in case one of the warring parties should brutally take advantage of her physical victory and thus create in the other nation the feeling of injury. Let us beware of all illusions. The Germans will never be able to destroy France, the beautiful; nor Britain, the proud; nor Russia, the resourceful. It would be, furthermore, rather naive to think that Germany can be smashed and annihilated as one of the leading powers of the world. Not even Napoleon was able to destroy Germany, and Joffre certainly is not a Napoleon ; in the same way, Hindenburg shall never be able to crush any of the nations which are fighting to-day against Germany. The armies of the one or the other of the warring sides may and undoubtedly will be defeated, but the nations are not going to suffer defeat. The fighting power of the army may burst, but the force of the national consciousness shall never break, particularly after going through the hardening process of this gigantic struggle. The defeated armies will take the honor, the tradition of accomplished feats of heroism home with them, and this will give them the possibility of a speedy regeneration after defeat. This is a fact of most decisive importance, because it determines the ability of preparing for revenge should the future treaty of peace be a treaty of brutality and injury to any of the two sides.

The problem of permanent peace requires that the idea of physical victory should yield before the idea of justice. Therefore, neither the hatred against England nor the hatred against Germany can form the basis for mutual concessions and demands. Hatred is nothing else but a form of moral blindness, and blindness can never lead political wisdom. Blindness bears errors, and an error can never be a substitute for truth. Hatred, moreover, is a powerful breeder of lies, and nothing undermines national health as much as an orgy of lies. This is a weapon which is no less deadly to the interests of civilization than the firearms, and the barbarism of lying is one of the greater, if not the greatest barbarism. The program of future peace must be free from this method of fighting. Truth and actualities must be the slogans of just peace; this is the only way to be taken in order that the interests of humanity could dominate over the selfishness of states and nations.

Over the window in the large meeting room of the Peace Palace at The Hague, the following inscription can be read :

Let us hope that the victory in this frightful war will be the victory of the idea of justice. It is possible that the future peace congress, which will sit as a tribunal over the sufferings of nations and which will construct the foundation for the history of the twentieth century, will meet in this very room of the Peace Palace at The Hague. Let us hope that when the peace congress disbands the world will be able to exclaim:

"Glory be to the humanity and peace to the nations of good will."

Chapter II THE TURKISH QUESTION — 19 — Chapter II. — The Turkish Question

The present European war was started for the sake of the freedom of nations. The permanence of future peace must also be based on the same principle. This, however, is a difficult and tangled question with regard to its just solution.

In the beginning of October of last year, the British Prime Minister Asquith proclaimed the principle that ''the weak have rights and that the strong have duties."* This, however, did not prevent England from joining hands a month later, in November, with France and Russia for the purpose of destroying the independence of Turkey, in spite of the fact that Turkey was and still is "weak." The present European war is conducted in the name of the liberty of nations, nevertheless, the partition of Turkey for the purpose of destroying its liberty has been decided upon. There must be, therefore, some tragic misunderstanding in the entire matter.

As a matter of fact, the world fails to understand Turkey as a nation. Turkey is not a European nation ; different historical elements were active in making up Turkey. Turkey is the last wave which the Islam has thrown on the shore of Europe. Turks were the same element in the Balkans as the Arabs were in Spain ; the Turks have selected the shorter road to Europe which was in vain tried by the Arabs; this road led through Constantinople, which was the capital of the Eastern Roman empire and which survived, while the migration of nations destroyed Rome itself. The idea of the Roman empire, the "Holy Empire," was since so much more identified in the eyes of the Asiatic nations with the throne of the Sultans of Constantinople. The day when Constantinople fell was an epoch in the

* Speech of October 3, 1914.

history of the Islam, which thus conquered the crown of Constantine the Great. The traditions of Rome and those of Mecca became thus united and the conceptions of the Khali f and of Csesar amalgamated themselves in the political consciousness of the Asiatic masses and began to form a close historical relationship. A racial relationship, however, was close enough not to hamper these processes.

The Turks were very well aware of the charm which this imperial crown had for the people of Asia. Soliman the Magnificent assumed the title of Emperor and denied the right of this title to Charles V, although in the latter's domains the sun was never setting. "His successors were once preceded through the streets of Constantinople by twelve officers bearing straws aloft, a faint semblance of the consular fasces that had escorted Quintius or Fabius through the Roman forum."* This was in the middle of the sixteenth century, or, in other words, almost a thousand years after the downfall of Rome in the West, and fifteen hundred years after the victory of Caesar over Pompeius at Pharsalia. Asia has recognized the new condition of things ; in her eyes this incident meant nothing else but a change of the dynasty on the throne of the emperors. There was even triumph and rejoicing over the fact that the Islam, the child of Asia, was able to get a hold of the imperial purple. From then on Constantinople became still more holy, because it became the ''garden of the Khalif." The importance of Turkey as a state grew immensely; the Sultan was, prior to the conquest of Constantinople, only the "shadow of the Prophet." In Constantinople the glory of the imperial crown fell on the Sultan's head and in this new character of its majesty,

* James Bryce : "The Holy Roman Empire," page 421, New York, the Macmillan Company, 191 1.

Turkey, situated on the shore of Europe, survived the entire period of modern history.

Needless to say, this did not fail to have influence and deep effect on the political consciousness of the Asiatic masses. All those who are familiar with the conditions on the Asiatic continent are well aware of the fact that the Sultan even in our day is not only the Khalif, but also the "shadow of Rome" for the people of Western Asia.* When, during the Balkan war, a rumor reached Asia that the Bulgarians had entered Constantinople, it seemed for a while that complete anarchy and ruin would sweep Turkey from the surface of the globe. The victorious battle on the Tjataldja lines which was won by the Turks saved not only Constantinople as a strategical point, but also saved the Turkish state in Asia and insured its. existence as the continuation of the empire of Rome. Soon another triumph came to the Turks, the retaking of Adrianople, which contained the tombstones of the first European Sultans. Thus, the prestige of Turkey was saved from destruction and once more the "shadow of Rome'' was victorious. The peace treaty of Bucharest did not kill Turkey as a state, but healed it, because it solved the problem of nationalities in the Balkans. Since this problem of nationalities in the Balkan peninsula became exclusively a Bulgaro-Serbo-Greek problem, Turkey has to some extent ceased to be a European country notwithstanding the fact that Constantinople still lies on the European side of the Bosporus. Turkey can be wounded mortally only by losing Constantinople, because this would be at the same time a blow to the political consciousness of Asiatic Turkey, and because it would destroy the synthesis of the Khalifat and of the Caesarian purple of the Sultan. The Turkish state was based on this very synthesis and can-

* "Turkey in Europe and Asia," Oxford Pamphlets, 1914, page 11 not do without it; it is, therefore, necessary to kill first the ''shadow of Rome" before killing Turkey.

Previous to the Turks' entering Constantinople, the latter had been the seat of eastern Asiatic — Christian separatism and thus became the seat of the schism, and the forming place of the Oriental Church. At the head of this Church was the patriarch of Constantinople, and just as there were two Roman emperors for a while, there were now two popes ; one of them was the legal successor of St. Peter, while the other one resided closer to Palestine, the cradle of Christianity. One of them prevailed in the West, while the other held sway over the East. It was in itself the same historical process, the combination of the cosmopolitan Christianity, with a universal Roman empire. The idea of the "world-church" and the idea of a "world-state" completed each other, both in the West and in the East. The division which sprang from this was only a division of territory in the conception of the "Holy empire," and not a division of the idea itself. In theory this process was the same, but as far as its results are concerned, the break proved to be a deeper one. The Orient has never questioned the priority of the imperial crown before the mitre of the patriarch. In the West the papal tiara struggled against the imperial crown for priority of the "spiritual sword" before the "lay sword." The eastern patriarch was the shadow of the emperor."* In the West the Roman emperor had to make pilgrimages from time to time to the papal Canossa. When Rome fell, yielding to the flood of the migration of nations, the papacy was able to substitute the glory of the papal tiara for that of the imperial crown; Odoaker succeeded in liquidating the material side of the western Roman empire, but the charm

* James Bryce, 1. c, page 338.

exercised by the idea of this empire was stronger than all the invasions of the barbarian nations. This charm was so strong that even Bonifatious VIII, in 1300, when thousands of pilgrims assembled in Rome for the famous jubilee year, appeared before the people wearing a crown on his head, a sword attached to his side, and a sceptre in hand, and publicly spoke from the height of the papal throne, "I am Caesar — I am Emperor."* Under these conditions a peace between the tiara of the popes and the crown of the reestablished Roman Empire could never be a permanent one, and, therefore, the struggle between the empire and the papacy was the main characteristic feature of the Middle Ages in Europe. On different occasions the pope in the name of obedience to God publicly demanded the people to disobey emperors and kings. The result of this was the defeat of the papacy, and the political expression of it was the creation of a modern state, which gave birth to all the European nations. All these elements, however, which were the source of the emancipation of European states and nations, did not exist in the East and, hence, the European nations are so different from the states and nations of the Orient.

This is to a certain extent a paradox, but it still contains a lot of truth — that the Islam in its political psychology was closer to Constantinople than western or central Europe. The Islam was primarily a religious movement, from which emanated subsequently political configurations such as Arabia, at first, then Turkey, until finally all of them united under the sceptre of the Sultans of Constantinople. The emperor of the Eastern Roman Empire was not only a sovereign of the state, but was at the same time the head of the

* James Bryce, 1. c, page 109.

Orthodox Church. The Sultan, on the other hand, was not only the head of the Moslem Church but also of the Moslem state. In the first case the state was older than the Orthodox Church, in the second case again the militant Moslem Church was older than the Turkish state. This was, however, only a difference of age and not a difference in structure. In both cases the church organization was a component part of the state and remained so. The Church was the state, or the state was the Church. The Orient did not go through the experience of the struggle between the Church and the state, and this fact is the basic feature of the political history of the Orient.

The traditions of Constantinople were preserved until our day by Turkey in Asia and by Russia in Eastern Europe. Russia has taken from Constantinople its religion and the form of state organization. Until our day, the Czar appoints the Oberprokurator of the Holy Synod, who is the chief of the religious life of Russia ; the Sultan appoints the Sheik-Ul-Islam, who is the chief of the religious life of Turkey. The Turkish Church and the Orthodox Church have essentially the same political character, because they both were influenced by Constantinople. The lay power regulates from the height of the throne the religious life of the country, and the Church is the spine of the state. "The Russians who are as much a religious as a political community, carry with them over the vast space of Northern and Central Asia the traditions of an Empire conterminous with the Church, an Empire which is at once the offspring and the guardian of the Orthodox faith."* This is the characteristic feature which differentiates Russia from Europe and brings the former closer to Asia.f Europe was

* James Bryce, 1. c, page 351.

f "The Eastern Question," page 4, Oxford Pamphlets, 1914.

brought up in the traditions of Rome, while Russia, the Balkan Peninsula and Asia were brought up in the traditions of Constantinople. If the Russian nation already is so much different from the rest of Europe, there is hardly any reason why one should wonder that the Turks are so much more different. No one can say that Russia is not a nation, although her civilization is so much different from the civilization of Europe, its origin being exclusively Constantinople and not Rome. In the same way nobody can say that Turkey is not a nation, although Turkey was the result of historical conditions entirely different from ours. Another fact is to be credited to Turkey, and this is that the Islam has brought a portion of the creative elements into the civilization of the world in spite of the fact that the activity of the Islam traveled over the deserts of Asia and Africa, and not over the fertile grounds of Europe. The Arabian schools in Spain have enabled Europe to absorb the teaching of Aristotle. The Islam has not only burned down the library of Alexandria, but it also made public the philosophy of Averroes. St. Thomas of Aquinas based his philosophy on the system of Aristotle, and he is the one who represents the acme of the scholastical philosophy. Turkey absorbed and digested the entire spiritual products of the Islam. It is erroneous to judge Turkey by our standards. It cannot be concealed that Turkey never learned how to do civilizatory work on a larger, world-embracing scale, but this does not mean that Turkey has ceased to develop as a nation. Nowadays the Turkish nation stands armed to the teeth and fights for the maintenance oi its independence. Under the walls of Constantinople the Turks fight better to-day than at Kumanovo, or Lule Burgas in the last Balkan war. The soldiers of France, of England and of Russia are certainly not inferior to the Serbian, Bulgarian and

Greek soldiers, but the Turks nowadays fight for the defence of the principle of nationality and not against it, as they did in the Balkan war, because they fight for their own independence. This is the reason why Turkey proved to be so weak from the point of view of imperialistic policy, and still shows to-day enough strength, health, enthusiasm, sacrifice, and heroism from the point of view of nationality. The Turkey of to-day is young, progressive, constitutional, eager to be regenerated, and triumphant over the internal despotism. During the short breathing spells in this frightful war, when the roar of guns subsides for a while, the conscience of the world must be confronted by the question whether the present European war is in fact a war for freedom and equal rights for all nations ?

The main adversary of Turkish independence is Russia. It has been an old dream of Peter the Great to gain for Russia an estuary on the Mediterranean. Catherine the Second strained all the resources of her country in order to bring Russia closer to the realization of this dream. This was the so-called "Greek Project," Russia being the incarnation of the "Greek Church," and as such considering herself a lawful heir to the inheritance that could be left by the Turks at Constantinople. "Professing the creed of Constantinople, Russia claims the crown of the Eastern Caesars."* This is a statement of a historian and politician of the importance of James Bryce, the former Ambassador of Great Britain to the United States. The Orthodox faith has anteceded the Turks in Constantinople, and Russia is bent at present dn wresting the sceptre of the Caesars out of the hands of the Islam. This is the struggle between the Islam and the Orthodox faith for the inheritance of Rome

James Bryce, 1. c., page 421.

in Asia. Islam is in the defensive, the Orthodox faith is the attacking party. As a program, this is only a variation of imperialism and not of nationality. The idea of religion is the determining factor of Russian ambition. Russia does not have any other points of attack, neither from the historical nor the legal point of view. Constantinople was never a part of Russia and the Turk ruled on the Bosporus for nearly five hundred years. The conquest of Constantinople was once upon a time the triumph of Turkish imperialism ; the conquest of Constantinople by Russia would mean the triumph of Russian imperialism. No illusion of any kind should be entertained as to the terms of permanent peace when considering conscientiously, justly and with a spirit of responsibility.

The general belief of the world is that Russia is prompted mainly by economical reasons. In case of war Russian commerce suffers undoubtedly through the closing of the Straits of Constantinople. The Dardanelles is the only route of export from the Black Sea and the south of Russia, where the latter country's agricultural life is concentrated, and where she keeps her huge stores of corn grown in Podolia and Ukraina. The exportation of oil mined in the enormous wells of Caucasus, particularly the exportation from Batum and Noworossiysk, is made over the same route through the Bosporus and the Dardanelles. Four and a half thousand ships of a combined tonnage of 7,000,000 tons carry the merchandise over the Black Sea within one year. Owing to this fact the harbor of Constantinople is one of the largest ports of the globe, and can be compared with London, Antwerp and Hamburg. It is sufficient to state that the tonnage of ships which, during 1913, entered and cleared at Constantinople exceeded the gross tonnage of 17,000,000 tons.*

* "The Statesman's Year-book," Macmillan & Co., London, 191 5.

This, however, does not alter the facts. In times of peace the Straits are open to Russian merchant ships ; the question of passage in times of war, to which Russia is not a party, is a question of the freedom of the seas and Straits for neutral vessels, and is by no means the question of tearing away by force a right, resting with somebody else. The closing of the Straits not only harms Russian commerce, but it also harms American commerce. But does this constitute a title for the United States to take Constantinople away from the Turks ? This would be a reductio ad absardiim. The damages suffered by the Russian commerce are by far greater and by far more harmful, but this only gives more right to Russia to try to obtain regulation by treaty of the question of the freedom of the seas and Straits for neutral vessels in times of war. The program that Russia chose was a different one; it was the program of imperialism. Russia does not care about safeguarding by treaties the principle of freedom of the seas and of the Straits to neutral vessels, but it tries to occupy Constantinople in order to close it up still more tightly and fortify it for her own benefit and to the detriment of other countries. This endeavor Russia calls her "historical mission" — the religious mission of the tsarate. This, however, cannot conceal the fact that this is a program of conquest and expansion, a program of imperialism, and it is, therefore, in contradiction with the program of the present war.