PREFACE TO THE FIRST IMPRESSION
The purpose of this volume is to elucidate an aspect of the war which although it is overshadowed at present by the paramount issue—the menace of a militarism in league with autocracy—was the most significant single factor contributing to the outbreak of the long-foreseen war in 1914, and will form one of the most momentous problems when the time for the peace negotiations arrives. Ever since the announcement was made towards the close of the year 1899 that the Turkish government had conceded to a German syndicate the privilege of building a railway to connect Constantinople with Bagdad through a transverse route across Asia Minor, the Bagdad Railway has been the core of the Eastern Question. There were to be sure other aspects of that question, which led to the two Balkan wars of 1912 and 1913, but the addition of the Bagdad Railway was an aggravating factor to an already sufficiently complicated situation that involved the great European powers—England, France, Germany and Russia—in a network of diplomatic negotiations, the meshes of which became closer as the years rolled on. The railway became the spectre of the twentieth century. It was a spectre that always appeared armed "from top to toe" and when occasionally he "wore his beaver up," the face was that of a grim, determined warrior.
As an industrial enterprise, the project of a railway through a most notable historic region, and passing along a route which had resounded to the tread of armies thousands of years ago, was fraught with great possibilities of usefulness in opening up the nearer East to brisk trade with Europe that would follow in the wake of the locomotive, and in infusing the young Western spirit into the old East, carrying western ideas, western modes of education, and western science to the mother-lands of civilization. The railway would also prove to be a short cut to India and the farther East, and as such the undertaking was on a plane of importance with the cutting of the Suez Canal. Connecting through junctions and branches with the other railway systems of Asia Minor, Syria and Palestine, the Bagdad Railway would result in covering the entire region with a perfect network of modern methods of transportation that would embrace eventually also the projected railways of Persia. Full credit should be given to the German brains in which this project was hatched, and there is no reason to suspect that at the outset, the German capitalists who fathered the enterprise were actuated by any other motive than the perfectly legitimate one to create a great avenue of commerce. When, however, the German government entered the field as the backer and promoter of the scheme, the political aspect of the railway was moved into the foreground, and that aspect has since overshadowed the commercial one. The full political import of the Bagdad Railway becomes apparent in the light of the eventful history of Asia Minor which can now be followed, at least in general outlines, from a period as early as 2000 B.C. To illustrate the main thesis suggested by the route of the railway that the control of the historic highway stretching from Constantinople to Bagdad has at all times involved the domination of the Near East, it has been necessary to sketch the history of Asia Minor in its relation to the great civilizations of antiquity and to follow that history through the period of Greek, Roman, Parthian and Arabic control, past the efforts of the Crusaders to save the route for Christian Europe, to the final conquest of it by the Ottoman Turks. That event, marked by the capture of Constantinople in 1453, directly led to the discovery of America in 1492.
I feel that no apology is needed for thus devoting a large chapter of the volume to this history, for apart from its intrinsic interest, our understanding of the present situation in the Near East is dependent upon an appreciation of the position that Asia Minor, as the bridge leading to the East, has always held.
The war has resulted in bringing many countries closer to our horizon, but no lands more so than those to which Asia Minor, as I shall attempt to show, is the Hinterland—Mesopotamia, Syria, Arabia and Egypt. Until recently, the history of these lands has been looked upon by the general public as the domain of the specializing historian, philologist and archaeologist. With the extension of the European war into these eastern lands, they become a part—and an essential part—of the general political situation. Their history needs to be known, if the problems arising from the relation of Asia Minor to the issues of the war are to be dealt with at the peace conference in an intelligent manner. I cherish the hope which, I trust, is not a delusion, that my sketch of the history of Asia Minor will help to illuminate the factors underlying "the trend towards the East" which began with Alexander the Great, which led modern nations to take possession of eastern lands, and of which the Bagdad Railway is the latest manifestation.
I have thought it proper to give the story of the Bagdad Railway in some detail, because through this we can best follow the growth of the spirit of hostile rivalry among European nations which culminated in the outbreak three years ago. A war like the present one cannot, to be sure, be carried back to any one issue, isolated from all others, but although many issues are behind the war, it is the Bagdad Railway that created the frame of mind among the European powers which made the war—one is inclined to put it—inevitable. A war breaks out when nations are ready for it—ready, I mean, in their disposition. The Bagdad Railway made them ready in this sense. The story of the Bagdad Railway tells us how this frame of mind was produced—and yet back of it all, we must bear in mind the deeper currents of history that produce the agitation on the surface.
The study of the relation of Asia Minor to the present conflict—on the basis of its history—would be incomplete without at least an attempt to peer into the future, a hazardous undertaking but which nevertheless has its value in at least suggesting the line along which the solution of the problem of the Bagdad Railway, and with it the Eastern Question of which it is the core is to be sought. As a preliminary to this outlook, I have tried to set forth the sharp distinction between what I would call the two wars—the war of 1914 and the war of 1917. The recognition of this distinction appears to me to be essential for an understanding of the situation that will arise at the time of the peace conference.
The former war is in the main the European struggle for supremacy, the latter is the great world war for the preservation and spread of the spirit and the institutions of democracy. I am writing as a student of history and not as a partisan, except in so far as my position is, as I believe it to be, in accord with the American point of view as voiced by its most thoughtful and most sober representatives. I have no sympathy even in war time with that blatant form of patriotism which warps one's judgment and prevents a penetration into the deeper meaning of this war. It is the existence of that kind of patriotism in Germany which has produced the Pan-Germanic spirit, and the strength of which (though waning) prevents the German people from even now recognizing the reason for the hostility that they have aroused throughout the world. My indictment, therefore, of Germany's conduct of the war which has been the main factor, as I see it, leading from the war of 1914 to that of 1917, is set forth "more in sorrow than in anger"—a sorrow that must, I think, be shared by all who admired the Germany before the war for her remarkable achievements in all fields, and that bears heaviest on the thousands of Americans who, like myself, received the training for their careers at German universities and who feel keenly the intellectual ties that bind them to that country. But Germany has none but herself to blame for having thus transformed her friends into her opponents. She first handicapped those who were disposed at the outbreak of the war to see and present her side sympathetically by the violation of Belgian neutrality, she then condemned them to silence by the atrocious treatment of the Belgians and by the sinking of the Lusitania, and she finally converted them into enemies in arms by her ruthless submarine warfare that has done far more harm to the German name than any injury that the sink-at-sight procedure can inflict on the world's shipping. As I write these lines I have before me a monograph by a German scholar on Germany's position in the East after the two Balkan wars in 1912 and 1913. Incidental to the discussion the author gives some shocking details, vouched for by reliable witnesses, of the atrocities committed in the first of these wars by the Bulgarians and Serbians. He speaks of the systematic attempt to wipe out the Turks by wholesale massacres on a huge scale, and the author asks, in a tone of righteous indignation, whether the voice of humanitarianism and civilization can remain silent with such deeds going on? The Bulgarians are now the allies of the Germans, and in the present war the Turks seem to be following exactly the same policy towards the Armenians that the Bulgarians adopted to annihilate an entire people. Did the German government respond to the desperate cry of humanity to stop officially ordered massacres in Armenia? And yet the Turk is neither cruel nor—unless stirred up—fanatical. Those who have lived longest in Turkish countries and who know the Turk best bear evidence to the fine traits of his character and that under normal conditions, Turkish Moslems and Christian Armenians live quite amicably side by side. The Armenian massacres represent a part of the policy of the Turkish government, as the Russian pogroms under the old régime were always organized by the Russian government. The population is stirred up by spreading false reports of a proposed revolt on the part of the Armenians—and the rest follows. The war of 1914 as conducted by Germany forms a close parallel. The cruelties practised and the inhuman methods of warfare resorted to are part of the military policy, and for which the German government, following a deliberate plan of spreading terrorism and enforcing subordination, must bear the responsibility. The author whom I have quoted, assuming (as I do) that he is sincere in his denunciation of cruelties officially carried out by the Bulgarian government, ought certainly to be able to answer the question why the whole civilized world has changed its former admiration for Germany into a realization that through her military policy, dictated by an autocratic group that cannot be called to account by the people, Germany has become a menace to the safety of the world. The German army—in its origin the creation of the German people organized to fight for its liberty as a nation—has become a mighty weapon in the hands of the rulers of Germany to hold the people at their mercy and to use the splendid patriotism of the people (that brought 1,800,000 volunteers to the front within one week after the declaration war), for the furtherance of plans that endanger the happiness of other nations and that are to serve towards strengthening the power of autocracy. This "new" Germany, revealed by the conduct of the war, must be overcome in order to bring back the Germany of ante-bellum days. The "old" Germany, we now sadly recognize, died in 1914—possibly earlier, on June 15, 1888, when Frederick III, summed the "Noble," passed away after a reign of one hundred days.1 1George Brandes, a friend and lover of Germany if ever there was one, calls these one hundred days the "short gleam of a dear human spirit breaking in on our war-mad empire." The World at War, p. 6. The old Germany, as Brandes well says, gave us "everything German that is loved or appreciated." It can be recreated only through the democratization of Germany's form of government. This advance will assuredly come about either during the war, or as a direct result of the war, when the ghastly crisis through which the world is passing shall happily be a thing of the past, to become, after the lapse of some years, a memory that will continue to haunt the world for generations to come.
Unless, however, at the end of the war, the great nations of the world give the proper cue for the work of reconstruction by advocating a policy of co-operation with the East, instead of open or disguised exploitation, we will continue to have an Eastern Question that may again pass through the same process (with perhaps different contestants) to culminate in open hostility. "Internationalization" of all schemes for opening up the East to the West is the solution of the Eastern Question for which I have ventured to enter a plea at the close of this book.
It remains for me to make acknowledgment, as in the case of all my publications, to the invaluable assistance given to me by my dear wife in reading both the manuscript and the proof, and helping in various other ways, including the encouragement to trespass upon fields adjacent to my own and to which the study of the war in the East led me. I also wish to make grateful acknowledgment to my friend, Mrs. Gardiner Gayley, for many suggestions made in discussing with her the plan and the thesis of this study. To my former student, Hon. Edward I. Nathan, American Consul at Mersina from 1910 to the breaking of our diplomatic relations with Turkey, and who has rendered distinguished services at his responsible post, I am under obligations for criticisms and for valuable information regarding the industries of Turkey, particularly at Mersina, which I have embodied in one of the notes attached to the volume. I should like to call particular attention to these notes in which I have given bibliographical and explanatory details for those who wish to pursue the subject further. The map, prepared by Mr. Earl Thatcher with great care, will, I trust, prove useful. I am indebted to Mr. Leon Dominian, of the American Geographical Society, for permission to make use of his map of railroads in Turkey published by him in "Frontiers of Language and Nationality in Europe" (Henry Holt & Co., N. Y., 1917). A special feature of my map is the inclusion of all railroads, both those constructed and those projected in Asia Minor, Syria, Palestine and Mesopotamia. The map will enable the reader to follow the further course of development of the war in the various sections of the Near East. For countries, lying outside of the special topic of this volume, I have contented myself with indicating merely a few places as an orientation; and in order not to confuse the reader by making the map too crowded, I have selected for Asia Minor only the important places and more particularly those that are connected with events in the history of the region. My thanks are due to Dr. Edward Robinson, Director of the Metropolitan Museum of New York, who kindly placed at my disposal a photograph of the fine Hittite monument of the Museum—the only one of the kind (so far as I am aware) in this country. To my friend and colleague, Professor J. H. Breasted, of the University of Chicago, and to the publishers, Ginn & Co. and the University of Chicago, I am indebted for permission to use two illustrations, one in his excellent manual on Ancient History (Boston, 1916) and the other from his monograph, The Battle of Kadesh (Chicago, 1901); to Professor John Garstang for permission to use some of the illustrations in his Land of the Hittites (Button & Co., New York); to Mr. Ernest Leroux for the similar courtesy to use some illustrations from Nettancourt-Vaubecourt Sur Les Grandes Routes de l'Asie Mineure (Paris, 1908) published by him; and to Mr. C. E. Lydecker, the Counsellor of the American Chamber of Commerce of Constantinople, for his approval in using several illustrations from The Levant Trade Review—a most important source of information for the commerce and industries of the Near East, and to which I am particularly glad to call the attention of all interested in Eastern matters.
To the Hon. Otis A. Glazebrook, who has made such a notable record as United States Consul at Jerusalem till the diplomatic break with Turkey, I beg to make acknowledgment for authentic information in regard to present conditions of railways in Palestine.
Mr. H. De Wolf Fuller, the editor of The Nation (New York) has kindly permitted me to embody in this book, in an enlarged and revised form, some views set forth by me in an article written for The Nation and published in the issue of August 30, 1916, under the title of "The World's Highway." Lastly, it is a genuine pleasure to dedicate the little volume to the members of the Wednesday Morning Club, of Pittsfield (Mass.), in recollection of many visits to the charming "heart of the Berkshires" as their guest. To speak before the delightful and sympathetic audience that gathers at the weekly reunions of this Club during the summer months is a privilege which I am sure all who are invited to do so value as highly as I do.
Morris Jastrow, Jr.
November, 1917