THE BERLIN-BAGDAD RAILWAYTHE BERLIN-BAGDAD RAILWAY
Germany Wanted "a Place in the Sun."—Germany was acknowledged to be the strongest nation in continental Europe. Her position as a world power, however, was disputed by Great Britain, both by reason of the latter's control of the sea through her enormous fleet, and by reason of Great Britain's numerous colonies all over the world. It was galling to German pride to have to coal her ships at English coaling stations. She wanted stations of her own. By bringing on a war that would humble France to the dust and make Belgium a part of Germany, thus giving her a chance to seize the colonies of France and Belgium, Germany would at once attain a position inthe world's affairs which would enable her to challenge the power of any nation on earth.
The Survival of the Fittest.—German thinkers carried to an extreme the theory of the survival of the fittest. This doctrine teaches that all living things have reached their present forms through a gradual development of those qualities which best fit them to live in their present surroundings. Those that are best adapted live on, and produce a new generation that are also well fitted to survive. Those that are not fitted to their surroundings soon give up the struggle and die. The Germans applied this same belief to nations, and claimed that only those nations survived that could successfully meet world conditions. They believed that war was an inevitable world condition, and that that nation would survive that was best able to fight. They believed in war, because they believed that just as nature removes the weak animal or plant by an early death, so the weak nation should pay the penalty of its weakness by being defeated in war and absorbed by the stronger one. War would prove which nation was the most nearly perfect. The Germans had no doubt that this nation was Germany. Acceptance of this belief by the German people had much to do with bringing on the present war.
Germany Wanted to Germanize the World.—As a result of the reasoning outlined in the last paragraph, German writers taught that those things which were German—their speech, their literature, their religion,their armies, in short the manners, customs, and thoughts of the Germans—were the best possible manners, and customs, and thoughts. These things all taken together are what is meant byKultur(kool-toor´),—not merely "culture" as the latter word is generally used.
Since the Germans believed that theirKulturwas the highest stage of human progress, the next step, according to the view of their leaders, would be to Germanize all the rest of the nations of the earth by imposing GermanKulturupon them. If possible, this was to be brought about with the consent of the other nations; if not, then it was to be imposed by force.
Suggestions for Study.—1. Locate Antwerp, Rotterdam, Hamburg, Bremen, East Prussia, Alsace-Lorraine. 2. Show on an outline map the regions which Germany desired to control. Who would have suffered? 3. If all countries adopted the German idea of war what would be the condition of the world? 4. Has any nation the right to impose its rule upon another people because it believes its own ideals are the only true ones?References.—See page26; alsoConquest and Kultur(C.P.I.);War Cyclopedia(C.P.I.), under the headings "German Military Autocracy" and "Pan-Germanism."
Suggestions for Study.—1. Locate Antwerp, Rotterdam, Hamburg, Bremen, East Prussia, Alsace-Lorraine. 2. Show on an outline map the regions which Germany desired to control. Who would have suffered? 3. If all countries adopted the German idea of war what would be the condition of the world? 4. Has any nation the right to impose its rule upon another people because it believes its own ideals are the only true ones?
References.—See page26; alsoConquest and Kultur(C.P.I.);War Cyclopedia(C.P.I.), under the headings "German Military Autocracy" and "Pan-Germanism."
What is Militarism?—Militarism has been defined as "a policy which maintains huge standing armies for purposes of aggression." It should be noticed that themere fact that a nation, through universal conscription, maintains a large standing army in times of peace does not convict it of militarism. Every one of the great European powers except England maintained such an army, and yet Germany was the only one that we can say had a militaristic government.
A more narrow definition of militarism is that form of government in which the military power is in control, and with the slightest excuse can and does override the civil authority. This had been the situation in Germany for many years before the outbreak of the Great War.
Let us take a glance at the development of this sort of government. After Napoleon conquered Prussia, early in the nineteenth century, one of the conditions of peace was that Prussia should reduce her army to not more than forty-two thousand men. In order that the country should not again be so easily conquered, the king of Prussia enrolled the permitted number of men for one year, then dismissed that group, and enrolled another of the same size, and so on. Thus, in the course of ten years, it would be possible for him to gather an army of four hundred thousand men who had had at least one year of military training.
The officers of the army were drawn almost entirely from among the land-owning nobility. The result was that there was gradually built up a large class of military officers on the one hand, and, on the other, a much larger class, the rank and file of the army. These menhad become used, in the army, to obeying implicitly all the commands of the officers.
This led to several results. Since the officer class furnished also most of the officials for the civil administration of the country, the interests of the army came to be considered the same as the interests of the country as a whole. A second result was that the governing class desired to continue a system which gave them so much power over the common people. We should perhaps consider as a third result the fact that the possession of such a splendid and efficient military machine tended to make its possessors arrogant and unyielding in their intercourse with other nations.
Competition in Armaments.—After 1870 the German emperor was the commander of the whole German army, which was organized and trained on the Prussian model. The fact that Germany had such an efficient army caused other nations to be in constant fear of attack. Therefore her neighbors on the continent of Europe were led to organize similar armies and make other preparations for defense.
Moreover, Germany in recent years formed a number of ambitious projects of expansion and colonization which would probably bring her into conflict with other countries. In order to assure herself of success, Germany proceeded to enlarge and otherwise improve the organization and equipment of her army. This led France and Russia to enlarge their armies. So the competition went on.
Germany's Navy.—For over a century Great Britain's control of the seas had been almost undisputed. In order to carry out her projects of expansion, Germany required a fleet which, while perhaps not so large as that of Great Britain, would be large enough to make the result of a naval battle questionable. Huge money grants were obtained from the German people, and for a time more battleships were built by Germany than by England. England dared not permit the naval superiority to pass into Germany's hands. The result was a competition in dreadnaught building quite as feverish as the competition in armies. The building and maintenance of these great fleets were a heavy burden upon the people of both countries. England made several offers to limit the competition by promising to build no ships in any year in which Germany would build none, but Germany in every case refused to agree to the plan.
Suggestions for Study.—1. Make a chart showing the comparative sizes of European armies in 1914. 2. In the same way compare the European navies in 1914. 3. What effect is produced upon a country by an aristocratic military class? 4. Compare the German military policy with that of the United States. 5. Will disarmament be one of the good results of this war?References.—The World Almanac; War Cyclopedia(C.P.I.), under the names of the several countries, and under "Navy";German Militarism(C.P.I.).
Suggestions for Study.—1. Make a chart showing the comparative sizes of European armies in 1914. 2. In the same way compare the European navies in 1914. 3. What effect is produced upon a country by an aristocratic military class? 4. Compare the German military policy with that of the United States. 5. Will disarmament be one of the good results of this war?
References.—The World Almanac; War Cyclopedia(C.P.I.), under the names of the several countries, and under "Navy";German Militarism(C.P.I.).
International Law.—In the civilized world to-day each community is made up of citizens who have a right to the protection of the laws of their community and who in turn have the duty of obedience to those laws. During recent centuries improved means of communication and transportation have brought all parts of the world closer together, and there has grown up in the minds of many enlightened thinkers the idea that the whole civilized world ought to be regarded as a community of nations. In the past the relations of nations to one another have been very nearly as bad as that of persons in savage communities. Quarrels have usually been settled by contests of strength, called wars. Believers in the idea of the community of nations argue that wars would cease or at least become much less frequent if this idea of a community of nations were generally accepted.
The body of rules which nations recognize in their dealings with each other is usually spoken of asinternational law. As to certain rules of international conduct the civilized nations of the world have been in general agreement for many centuries. Among such rules are those for the carrying out of treaty obligations, thepunishment of piracy, the protection of each other's ambassadors, the rights of citizens of one country to the protection of the laws of the country they are visiting, the protection of women and children in time of war.
As in community law so also in international law rules have frequently grown up as matters of custom. In the second place agreements have sometimes been reached through negotiation and written out in the form of treaties between the two nations concerned. In the latter half of the nineteenth century several attempts were made to strengthen international law by means of general conferences of the nations. One of the most famous of these was the Conference of Geneva in 1864, which reached a number of valuable agreements on the care of wounded soldiers and gave official international recognition to the Red Cross. At the very end of the century occurred the first of the two famous international conferences at The Hague.
Toward this growing movement in the direction of the setting up of a community of nations in which each has equal rights and equally recognizes the force of international law, the German Empire has taken an attitude of opposition. She has steadily refused to accept her place as a member of a family of nations. Her leaders have taken the ground, as explained in Chapter II, that strong nations should control weaker nations whenever it is to their own interest. As a principle this is just as barbarous as if in a community the man with the strongest muscles or the biggest club should be permittedto control the actions of his neighbors who happened to be weaker or less effectively armed. Just as the strong brutal man must be taught that laws apply to him as well as to the weaker members of the community, so must Germany learn to respect the laws of nations and the rights of weaker peoples.
The Call for a World Peace Conference.—In spite of the rapid growth of armaments in Europe after 1870 there was growing up among many of the leading thinkers of the nations a movement looking toward permanent peace in the world. The movement soon gained great strength among all classes. Peace societies were formed, meetings were held, and pamphlets were prepared and distributed. Toward the close of the century public opinion in most countries was leaning more and more toward the idea of universal peace. Governments, however, were slower to take up the problem. Strangely enough the first government to take action in the matter was that of Russia, at the time the most autocratic of all the nations of Europe.
Two years before the close of the century Czar Nicholas II sent out an official invitation calling upon the nations to send representatives to an international conference to discuss the problem of the prevention of wars. The Czar pointed out the dangers which must surely result if the military rivalry of the nations were not checked. He referred to the fact that European militarism was using up the strength and the wealth of the nations and was bringing about a condition of military preparednesswhich must inevitably lead in the end to a war more disastrous and terrible than any war in the history of mankind. The Czar did not go so far as to suggest complete and immediate disarmament. Every one knew that Europe was not ready to consider so violent a change of policy. The Russian invitation merely proposed that the conference should try to agree upon some means for putting a limit upon the increase of armaments. It suggested that the nations should agree not to increase their military or naval forces for a certain limited period, not to add to their annual expenditure of money for military purposes, and to consider means by which later on there might be an actual reduction of armaments. It was necessary to avoid the jealousies which might arise among the great powers if the capital of one of them were selected for the conference, so the Czar suggested that the meeting take place at The Hague, the capital of small, peace-loving Holland.
The First Hague Conference.—The conference called by the Czar met on May 18, 1899. All the great nations of the world sent delegates, as did many of the smaller nations. In all, twenty-six governments were represented, twenty of which were European. The United States and Mexico were the only countries of the New World which sent representatives. The queen of Holland showed her appreciation of the honor conferred upon her country by placing at the disposal of the conference, as its meeting place, the formersummer residence of the royal family, the "House in the Woods," situated about a mile from the city in the midst of a beautiful park.
Disarmament.—Although the menace of the tremendous armaments of Europe had been the chief reason for the conference, absolutely nothing was accomplished toward solving that problem. This failure was largely due to the opposition of Germany, which, as the strongest military power in Europe, would listen to no suggestion looking toward the limitation of military force. At one of the early meetings of the conference a German delegate brought out clearly and unmistakably his government's opposition to any consideration of the subject. In a sarcastic and arrogant speech he defended the German system of compulsory military service and her expenditures for military purposes. While it is extremely doubtful, in view of the difficulties in the way of any general policy of disarmament, that much could have been accomplished by the conference even under the most favorable circumstances, this stand on the part of the German government meant the immediate and absolute defeat of the suggestion. The other nations of Europe had established their large military systems as a measure of defense against Germany, so that in the face of that government's refusal to agree to the policy of limiting armaments, no neighboring country on the European continent could adopt it. In the conference, the matter was dismissed after the adoption of a very general resolutionexpressing the opinion "that the restriction of military charges ... is extremely desirable for the increase of the material and moral welfare of mankind."
Arbitration.—The conference met with a somewhat larger measure of success when it came to discuss the question of the peaceful settlement of international disputes, though here also the attitude of the German government stood in the way of complete success. The United States from the days of John Jay had taken the lead among the nations of the world in the policy of settling international disputes by peaceful means. Quite different has been the traditional policy of Prussia, which throughout its history has relied upon force to accomplish its purposes. All the German wars of the nineteenth century could easily have been averted if the Prussian government had honestly desired to settle its quarrels by peaceful methods. She has taken the ground, however, that arbitration can only work to her injury, since she is better prepared for war than any other nation and can mobilize her army more rapidly than any of her neighbors. "Arbitration," said one of her delegates at The Hague, "would simply give rival powers time to put themselves in readiness, and would therefore be a great disadvantage to Germany." This point of view shows clearly how the German leaders place the growth of German power far above such considerations as right and justice.
The Hague Peace Tribunal.—The struggle in the conference over the question of arbitration centeredabout the establishment of a permanent tribunal or international court of arbitration to which nations might bring their disagreements for settlement. The United States delegation favored making a definite list of the kinds of disputes which nations would be compelled to bring to the tribunal for settlement. On the other hand, the Kaiser himself sent a dispatch from Berlin in which he spoke strongly against anything in the nature of an arbitration tribunal. Largely through the efforts of Mr. Andrew D. White, head of the American delegation, the German government was brought to modify its stand. Germany finally agreed to the creation of the tribunal, but only on condition that in no case should the submission of a dispute to it be compulsory. The tribunal was to be established, but it would have the right to render a decision only in those cases which the disagreeing nations might decide to submit to it.
The Hague Tribunal is not made up of permanent judges like an ordinary court. It consists of persons (not more than four from each country) selected by the various nations from among their citizens of high standing and broad knowledge of international affairs. From this long list any powers between whom there is a disagreement may choose the persons to form a court or tribunal for their special case.
The Second Hague Conference.—The conference of 1899 had proved an absolute failure so far as disarmament and compulsory arbitration were concerned. Infact the years immediately following were marked by two destructive wars: that between Great Britain and the Boers of South Africa, and the war between Russia and Japan. These wars made it clear that with the applications of modern science warfare had become so terrible that, if the nations could not arrange by agreement for its abolition, they should at least take steps to lessen its horrors. This was the chief reason back of the invitation for a second Hague Conference, which was issued by the Czar at the suggestion of President Roosevelt. Forty-seven nations—nearly all the nations of the world—- were represented when the conference assembled on June 15, 1907.
Attempts were made to reopen the questions of disarmament and compulsory arbitration, but without success. Germany again stood firmly against both suggestions. The conference consequently confined its efforts almost entirely to drawing up a code of international laws—especially those regulating the actual conduct of war—known as "the Hague Conventions." They contain rules about the laying of submarine mines, the treatment of prisoners, the bombardment of towns, and the rights of neutrals in time of war; they forbid, for example, the use of poison or of weapons causing unnecessary suffering. Even on these questions Germany stood out against certain changes which would have made war still more humane. But her delegates took part in framing the Hague Conventions; and Germany, like all the other powers later engaged in the GreatWar, accepted those conventions by formal treaty, thus binding herself to observe them.
Results of the Hague Conferences.—Leaders of the movement for universal peace felt that in spite of the small success of the Hague Conferences a definite beginning had been made. Many of them were very hopeful that later conferences would lead to larger results and that even Germany would swing into line. There were plans to hold a third conference in 1914 or 1915. As we look back upon the years between 1907 and 1914, it seems hard to understand the general blindness of the world to the certainty of the coming struggle. Armaments were piled up at a faster rate than ever. Naval armaments also entered into the race. From the point of view of bringing about permanent peace in the world we must view the conferences at The Hague as having hopelessly failed.
They did accomplish something, however. Arbitration was accepted by the nations of the world, in principle at least. Moreover, the conferences helped the cause of international law by showing how easily international agreements could be reached if all the nations were honestly in favor of peaceful decisions. Some day when the present war has taught the world the much needed lessons that the recognition of international law is necessary to civilization, and that the nations must join together in its enforcement, the work begun at The Hague in 1899 and 1907 will be taken up once more with larger hope of success.
Suggestions for Study.—1. How are ordinary laws enforced? How is international law carried out? Why the difference? 2. Enumerate the instances in which questions of international law have been brought up during the present war. 3. Look up the history of the Red Cross movement. 4. Why did the Hague Conferences fail to attain their great objects? 5. Summarize what was actually accomplished by the Conferences. 6. Has the history of the Hague Conferences any lessons which will be of value after this war?References.—War Cyclopedia(C.P.I.), under "Red Cross," "Hague Conferences." See also publications of the World Peace Foundation;International Conciliation(C.P.I.);War, Labor, and Peace(C.P.I.).
Suggestions for Study.—1. How are ordinary laws enforced? How is international law carried out? Why the difference? 2. Enumerate the instances in which questions of international law have been brought up during the present war. 3. Look up the history of the Red Cross movement. 4. Why did the Hague Conferences fail to attain their great objects? 5. Summarize what was actually accomplished by the Conferences. 6. Has the history of the Hague Conferences any lessons which will be of value after this war?
References.—War Cyclopedia(C.P.I.), under "Red Cross," "Hague Conferences." See also publications of the World Peace Foundation;International Conciliation(C.P.I.);War, Labor, and Peace(C.P.I.).
The years between 1870 and 1914 were marked by growing jealousies among the great powers of Europe. All were growing in wealth and commerce, and each looked with envious eyes upon the successes of its neighbors. In this chapter we are going to consider some of the special reasons for the growth of international jealousies during this period, and the grouping of the great nations into alliances.
Alsace-Lorraine.—At the close of the Franco-Prussian War in 1871, France was humiliated by being forced to give up to Germany a large section of her eastern lands—Alsace and northeastern Lorraine. It was true that these provinces had long ago belonged to Germany. All of this territory, however, had been French for generations, and much of it for over two hundred years; and in both provinces the population was loyal to the French government and violently opposed to being transferred to the rule of Germany. But defeated France had no choice in the matter, and the provinces became part of the German Empire. France has never forgotten or forgiven this humiliation. Lloyd George, the British prime minister, in speaking of the Alsace-Lorraine problem (January, 1918) said, "This sore has poisoned the peace of Europe for half a century,and until it is cured healthy conditions cannot be restored."
ALSACE-LORRAINEALSACE-LORRAINE
German rule in Alsace-Lorraine has been unwise as well as severe. The teaching of the French language in the elementary schools of the provinces was forbidden. Military service in the German army was made compulsory despite the protests of the inhabitants, who felt a horror of some day being forced to fight against the French, whom they regarded as brothers. All important offices were filled by Germans from beyond the Rhine. The police constantly interfered with the freedom of the people. French newspapers were suppressed on the slightest excuse. Attempts were made to prevent Frenchmen from visiting Alsace and Alsatians from visiting France. German army officers stationed in the provinces openly ignored the rights of the population and were upheld in their conduct by the German government. As time passed the inhabitants grew more and more dissatisfied with the strict German rule.
In France also hostility to Germany was increased by the conditions in Alsace-Lorraine. Frenchmen could not forget that they had been robbed of these provinces. Hope was kept alive that some day they might be won back. In the city of Paris, in the Place de la Concorde, there are eight large marble statues each representing a great city of France. One of these represents Strassburg, the chief city of Alsace. Every year, on July 14, the national holiday of France, the people of Paris have placed a wreath of mourning on this statue. This custom expresses the sorrow of France for the loss of her eastern provinces, as well as her hope that some day they may be restored.
Italia Irredenta.—Italia Irreden´tain the Italian language means "unredeemed Italy." It refers to the territory adjoining Italy on the north and northeast, occupied by Italians but not yet redeemed from foreign rule.
Map of Italia IrredentaMap of Italia Irredenta
When in 1871 the kingdom of Italy took its present form through the union of former Italian states (Chapter I), Italia Irredenta remained under the rule of Austria.Italians feel, however, that Italian unity is not complete so long as adjoining lands inhabited by Italian-speaking people are ruled by foreign governments. So they regard these lands as "unredeemed."
Italia Irredenta consists chiefly of the Trentino (tren-tee´no), a triangle of territory dipping down into the north of Italy, and some land around the northern end of the Adriatic including the important city of Trieste. Both of these regions are ruled by Austria. For many years this situation has led to ill feeling between the two countries. While it has not had so direct a bearing on the outbreak of the World War as the question of Alsace-Lorraine, it nevertheless largely explains the entrance of Italy into the war on the side of the Allies.
Russia and the Bosporus.—Still another situation which in the years before the war was the cause of international jealousies was Russia's long-standing ambition to control Constantinople on the Bos´porus. As Constantinople is the capital of the Turkish Empire, the continued existence of that state, at least on the continent of Europe, was threatened by Russia's purpose. Russia has long been in need of an ice-free port as an outlet for her commerce. Archangel (ark´Än´jel) in the north is ice-bound most of the year. Vladivostok´, her port on the Pacific, is ice-bound for three months of the year. Russian trade by way of the Baltic must pass through waters controlled by other countries. Naturally she has turned toward the Bosporus and Dardanelles (dar-da-nelz´)—the straits connecting the Black Sea withthe Mediterranean—as the natural outlet for her trade, and this explains her desire to possess Constantinople.
For centuries Russia has been so much more powerful than Turkey that she would surely have taken possession of Constantinople if the other nations of Europe had not interfered. On two different occasions during the nineteenth century England came to the assistance of the Turkish Empire and saved Constantinople from the Czar. Great Britain was led to take this action through fear that Russian control of Constantinople might endanger the safety of her own communications with India. In the years immediately preceding the outbreak of the Great War the danger from Germany made other quarrels of much less importance, and England's disagreement with Russia over her desire for a trade outlet was forgotten.
European Ambitions in the Balkans.—Russia has always felt a strong interest in the small nations of the Balkan peninsula. Their inhabitants are for the most part Slavs, of the same race as the Russians themselves, and they have naturally looked upon the great Slavic empire of the Czars as their protector. There was, moreover, a pan-Slavic party in Russia, i.e. a group who looked forward to a union of all the Slav nations under the leadership of Russia. The pan-Slavic movement had its beginning in the help Russia had given these states in their revolt from Turkey.
Russia's aims and hopes in the Balkans were strongly opposed by Austria-Hungary. That state has longfelt the need of seaports to the southeast and has hoped, with German support, to secure an outlet on the Ægean and to control the whole course of the Danube. This purpose could be accomplished only by annexing a large part of the Balkan peninsula. The Balkan situation, therefore, brought Russia and Austria face to face in opposition to each other. It was one of the most serious instances of international rivalry in the period before the war.
Italy also was interested in the Balkan question. She saw that if the Austrians should annex the Balkan lands lying to the south they would control the whole eastern shore of the Adriatic. Italian interests and ambitions would suffer. This fear, added to the constant bitterness caused by the problem of Italia Irredenta, inflamed the hostility of Italy toward Austria.
Finally, Turkey also had an interest in the Balkan situation. She hoped to benefit by the various jealousies of the great powers. She believed that fear of a general war would keep all of them from making any move in the Balkans and so would prolong her own shaky existence as a European state.
Rival Colonial Empires.—Some time after the establishment of the German Empire, her rapidly growing wealth, population, and trade led her to regret the opportunities for colonial expansion that she had missed. She cast jealous eyes upon the vast colonial possessions of other nations. She also took what was left over,—several large regions of Africa, a port in China, a fewislands in the Pacific,—not nearly enough to satisfy her ambitions. South America was closed to her by the policy of the United States which is expressed in the Monroe Doctrine. In Asia, however, she secured extensive commercial and industrial concessions—the forerunners of political control—in the Turkish Empire. Germany's desire for colonies was natural enough, but her jealousy of her more fortunate European neighbors must be considered as one of the reasons underlying her military and naval preparedness for war.
Germany's covetous attitude toward the colonial possessions of other nations led to several serious international disagreements in the years before the Great War. More than once it almost brought her into conflict with the government of the United States. An agreement had been made for the joint control of the Samoan Islands by Great Britain, Germany, and the United States. Germany's attempt to enlarge her interests in the islands led to a quarrel with American officers. An American flag was seized by armed Germans, war vessels were sent to Samoa, and a naval battle seemed about to take place. A hurricane destroyed the vessels, however, before any fighting had occurred, and the three countries drew up a treaty which settled that particular difficulty (1899).
Germany also resented our acquisition of the Philippines and other Spanish colonies. At the outbreak of our war with Spain in 1898, when Admiral Dewey steamed into Manila Bay, he found there a Germanfleet that was half disposed to interfere with his operations. But when Dewey showed a willingness to fight, the Germans withdrew.
Several years later Germany picked a quarrel with Venezuela and, in defiance of the Monroe Doctrine, bombarded a fort on her coast. Acting in conjunction with England and Italy, German warships blockaded the ports of Venezuela to force the payment of financial claims. President Roosevelt's insistence that Germany drop her further plans of aggression, and his promptness in concentrating the American fleet in the West Indies, resulted in Germany's accepting a peaceful solution of the dispute.
In 1911 Germany tried to force France out of Morocco. Since 1904 France had by common consent taken general charge of affairs in that country. Later Germany made objections to this arrangement. Finally, in 1911, when France was sending troops into the interior to put down disorders among the natives, Germany sent a gunboat to Agadir (ah-gah-deer´), on the west coast of Morocco. It looked as if she intended to take possession of the port there. France protested and the affair began to look very warlike. England came to the support of France, and Germany gave up all claim to Morocco, taking in exchange about 100,000 square miles in equatorial Africa. After this humiliation the German militarists became more determined than ever to force the war which they thought would make Germany supreme over her rivals.
The Triple Alliance.—The various jealousies among the nations of Europe which we have just considered, and particularly the general fear of the growing power of the German Empire, largely explain the strong international alliances which came into existence between 1870 and 1914.
Germany, after 1870, knew that France would for many years be too weak to retake Alsace-Lorraine. All that German leaders had to fear was that France might succeed in securing powerful friends among the other nations and that a strong combination of countries might some day challenge Germany's supremacy on the Continent. To prevent or at any rate to counterbalance any such combination, Germany looked about for allies upon whose help she might rely in case of necessity. At first she planned a general league of friendship with the great countries lying to the east and southeast, Russia and Austria-Hungary. This combination, known as the League of the Three Emperors, was soon broken up by the growing jealousies of Russia and Austria in the Balkans. Germany, having to choose which of these two nations she would support, decided in favor of Austria. There followed a growing coldness in the relations between Germany and Russia.
Germany having allied herself with Austria, looked about for another nation to give greater strength to the combination. Her thoughts turned toward Italy, which, in case of another war against France, could attack the French southeastern border and so prove a valuableally. For a number of years there had been ill feeling between Italy and France, and Germany counted on this feeling to bring Italy under her influence. The chief difficulty in the way of Germany's plan was that Italy would have to abandon her ideas in regard to Italia Irredenta and enter into friendly relations with Austria, her old enemy. Italy was finally driven into this unnatural alliance by the action of France, which in 1881 occupied Tunis, a land which Italy herself had been planning to annex as a colony. Italy, too weak to prevent this action of France, entered the alliance with Germany and Austria into which she had been invited. So it was that the Triple Alliance was established (1882), as a league of defense against any nations which should begin an attack upon any one of the three.
The Triple Entente.—Entente(ahn-tahnt´) is the French word for understanding or agreement. In the recent history of Europe it refers to that friendly grouping of nations which was formed in self-defense against the Triple Alliance. The war of 1870 had left France not only humiliated but weakened and isolated. The formation of the Triple Alliance put out of question the idea of a successful war against Germany to right the wrong which France had suffered. In fact it seemed to make more probable a new attack upon France. Russia also found herself in a position of isolation. Their isolation and consequent danger gradually drew these two nations together, distant as they were from one another and different as they were in government andideas. So there was established a dual alliance between the French Republic and the Russian Empire.
Great Britain had for a long time remained outside the jealousies and combinations of the continental powers. In fact she had frequently found herself at odds with France over the rights of the two nations in Africa, and with Russia over the question of Constantinople and Russian aggression in Asia. When English statesmen discovered, however, that the German Empire was constantly enlarging her navy with a view to challenging English control of the seas, they felt that it would be well for Great Britain to seek friendships on the Continent. Old quarrels with France and Russia were forgotten. Friendly relations were established, and Great Britain, France, and Russia entered into a league of friendship known as the Triple Entente (1907).
Suggestions for Study.—1. Locate the Bosporus, Alsace-Lorraine, Italia Irredenta, Balkan peninsula, Ægean Sea. 2. Explain the geographical importance of Constantinople. How was Russia prevented from taking it in the Crimean War of 1854 and the Russo-Turkish War of 1877? 3. Show on a map of Europe the countries in the Triple Alliance and those in the Triple Entente. Why was each alliance formed?References.—War Cyclopedia(C.P.I.); Harding,New Medieval and Modern History; Hazen,Europe since 1815; and other European histories. For the treaties forming the two alliances, seeA League of Nations, Vol. I, No. 4.
Suggestions for Study.—1. Locate the Bosporus, Alsace-Lorraine, Italia Irredenta, Balkan peninsula, Ægean Sea. 2. Explain the geographical importance of Constantinople. How was Russia prevented from taking it in the Crimean War of 1854 and the Russo-Turkish War of 1877? 3. Show on a map of Europe the countries in the Triple Alliance and those in the Triple Entente. Why was each alliance formed?
References.—War Cyclopedia(C.P.I.); Harding,New Medieval and Modern History; Hazen,Europe since 1815; and other European histories. For the treaties forming the two alliances, seeA League of Nations, Vol. I, No. 4.
The Balkans.—As we have learned in Chapter I, the Balkan states are, with the exception of Montenegro, the result of a series of revolutions which took place during the last hundred years. These revolutions were the result of two causes. First there was a growing restlessness of the different groups of people in the Balkan peninsula. This was due not only to centuries of Turkish misrule, but also to the influence of the republican movement which developed in northern and western Europe as a result of the French Revolution. The second cause of the Balkan revolutions was the gradual growth among the oppressed races of the feeling that they would better their condition by throwing off the despotic Turkish rule and by organizing each separate race into a separate nation. Thus it was that the revolutions brought into existence a group of small states, each populated chiefly by one of the races inhabiting the Balkans.
THE BALKAN STATES 1913THE BALKAN STATES 1913
Races in the Balkans.—There are more races represented in the Balkans than in any similar sized territory in Europe. Most of the Balkan states lie along what was the northeastern fringe of the Roman Empire. So we find inhabiting them not only ancient races like the Greeks and Albanians, but also descendants ofRoman colonists like the Roumanians, and other racial groups like the Serbs and Bulgars, which represent the survivals of the barbarian invasions of the Middle Ages. While the larger groups of invaders passed onto the west, these dropped out and moved southward into the Balkan peninsula, where their descendants still remain. We must not think that these are pure races. There has been much intermixture, and to-day all of the groups contain a strong Slavic element, although some are rather unwilling to admit it. There is besides a Turkish element in the population, as the result of the long period of Turkish rule, especially in those districts where many of the original inhabitants accepted Mohammedanism, as in Albania and Macedonia.
The Slavs.—The Serbs, a Slavic race, form the chief part of the population in Serbia and Montenegro, as well as in Bosnia and other parts of southern Austria-Hungary. Together with the Croats and Slovenes of southern Austria-Hungary, the Serbs are called the Jugo-Slavs (yoo´go-slavz) or South-Slavs (jugomeans "south") to distinguish them from the Czechs, Poles, and Russians of the north. There is, however, a strong feeling of relationship between these two great Slavic groups.
The Bulgars.—The Bulgars are descended from a non-Slavic race allied to the Tatars and Finns. They came into the Balkan region on the heels of some of the early migrations and seized the land now called Bulgaria; there, however, they mingled with the native Slavicpeople whom they conquered, and whose language they adopted. There are, besides, many Bulgarians in the Dobrud´ja—the district lying between the lower Danube and the Black Sea. Likewise in the province of Macedonia, the Bulgarians form the largest element in the population.
The Roumanians.—Roumania is the old Roman province of Dacia, and the Roumanians claim to be descendants of colonists which the Romans sent into that province as an outpost against invasion. It is certain that the language spoken by the Roumanians is much like Latin, but, as a recent writer says, the language is closer to Latin than the Roumanians are to Romans.
The Albanians.—The Albanian people are descended from the most ancient of all the races in the Balkan peninsula; their language is the oldest language spoken in Europe. For centuries they were nominally subject to Turkey; but the Turks never really succeeded in conquering them, though many of the Albanians became Mohammedans.
The Greeks.—Though the Greeks are descended in part from the people who inhabited their country in ancient times, and though they speak a modern form of the old Greek language, it is certain that the present inhabitants are a much mixed race. They are largely Slav, but hold a strong feeling for the great past of their country. This gives them an unusually strong national rallying point. In many ways the Greeks are the most progressive of the Balkan races.
Russia and Austria as Protectors of the Balkan Countries.—The struggle between the great powers as to which of them should become the heirs of "the sick man of Europe," as the Sultan of Turkey was long ago called, dates back about a century. Austria on account of her geographical position and her desire to expand to the southward, and Russia on account of her desire for Constantinople and the racial ties connecting her with the Balkan states, each hoped to be preferred. Both Austria and Russia, then, for more or less selfish reasons, were anxious to bring about the break-up of the Turkish Empire in Europe. Whenever a revolt against Turkish rule would break out, the revolutionists could almost always count on the help of one or the other of these nations.
Since the Slavs and the Greeks hated each other, and both hated the Bulgarians, there was sometimes a tendency for the Bulgarians and the Greeks to look to Austria or Germany for help, as a counterpoise to Russia's influence on behalf of the Slavic states. At one time, however, Russia gave great aid to Bulgaria. In all the twists and turns of Balkan politics we find Russia or Austria posing as protector of the rights of one or another of the Balkan states.
On the other hand, when all the Balkan states bordering Turkey put aside their rivalries and combined for an attack on Turkey in 1912, Germany and Austria gave what moral support they could to Turkey. Austria had no desire to see a strong league of the Balkan statesformed to the south of her, a league which would be largely under the influence of Russia.
German leaders had already formulated their dream ofMittel-Europa(Mid-Europe), a broad band of German-controlled territory extending to Turkey. With Turkey itself Germany made treaties which practically assured her control all the way to Bagdad. Germany had no desire either for a Balkan league, which would block her way, or for the defeat of Turkey, which might interfere with the carrying out of the treaties.
The Balkan War of 1912.—Turkish rule in Macedonia had become increasingly bad. Situated in the midst of three of the larger Balkan countries, it had representatives of each among its population. These countries put aside for the time being their jealousies of each other. In 1912 Bulgaria, Greece, Serbia, and Montenegro formed an alliance and presented a demand to Turkey that Macedonia should be made self-governing. Most of Europe believed that the German-trained army of the Turks would annihilate the armies of the smaller nations. But in a little over a month Turkey was beaten. Even Constantinople might have been taken had Bulgaria pursued the advantage gained by her troops. This time no nation protected Turkey, and the treaty of peace left her with only a tiny bit of European territory and the city of Constantinople. Incidentally, Germany had lost much prestige, for Turkey had fought the war with the help of German officers and with German encouragement, and had lost.
The Second Balkan War.—Unfortunately, the victors soon quarreled over the spoils. Bulgaria had seized Thrace and wanted most of Macedonia, including the city of Saloni´ca, which had been captured by the Greeks. Austria intervened to prevent Serbia from getting any increase in territory on the southwest, toward the Adriatic. Hence Serbia wanted a share of the lands to the south, claimed by Bulgaria. Bulgaria, backed by Austria and Germany, refused to make any concessions, or to leave the dispute to arbitration. She began the second Balkan war with a night attack on the Serbian and Greek armies, but was unable to defeat them. On the contrary Bulgaria was defeated within a month, partly because Roumania and Turkey also entered the struggle against her. Bulgaria had to give up much of her conquests to her former allies. Roumania claimed a slice off her northeastern corner, and a Turkish army recaptured Adrianople and neighboring territory from the hard-pressed Bulgarians.
Loss of Prestige by Germany and Austria.—One of the important results of these two wars was the loss of prestige by Germany and Austria. These "Central Powers," as they were called, had gone out of their way to encourage first Turkey, and then Bulgaria, and both these countries had been badly beaten. In any future diplomacy the opinions and desires of the Central Powers would have less weight and impressiveness than formerly. To regain their lost influence it was practically certain that these nations would, at the earliestopportunity, make an attempt to impose their will upon the victorious Balkan states.