Turkey, the Great Powers, and the Bagdad Railway: A study in imperialism — A Closer Reading

wnsend, _Origins of Modern German Colonialism_ (New York, 1921), Chapters V-VII; Prince Bismarck, _Reflections and Reminiscences_ (New York, 1899), Volume II, pp. 233 _et seq._

[21] For this letter, hitherto unpublished, I am indebted to Dr. Karl Helfferich, son-in-law of the late George von Siemens.

[22] The italics are mine.

[23] _Die grosse Politik der europäischen Kabinette, 1871–1914_ (Berlin, 1922 _et seq._), Volume VI, pp. 360–361. (A compilation of documents from the files of the Foreign Office, edited by a non-partisan commission appointed by the Government of the German Republic.) Of Bismarck’s policy in the Near East the Ex-Kaiser writes, “Bismarck spoke quite disdainfully of Turkey, of the men in high position there, and of conditions in that land.– I thought I might inspire him in part with essentially more favorable opinions, but my efforts were of little avail.... Prince Bismarck was never favorably inclined toward Turkey and never agreed with me in my Turkish policy.” W. von Hohenzollern, _My Memoirs, 1878–1918_ (New York, 1922), p. 27.

[24] _Diplomatic and Consular Reports_, No. 2950 (1902), p. 20.

[25] For information regarding the appointment of Baron Marschall to Constantinople the author is indebted to Dr. Arthur von Gwinner, who believes that the Baron was being sentenced to political exile when he was detailed to the Sublime Porte, but that his opponents overlooked the possibilities of the embassy at the Ottoman capital. Wile, _op. cit._, Chapter XVIII, gives a short biographical account of Baron Marschall.

[26] _Cf._ E. Lamy, “La France du Levant: Voyage de l’Empereur Guillaume II,” in _Revue des deux mondes_, Volume 150 (1898), pp. 880–911, Volume 151 (1899), pp. 315–348; E. Lewin, _The German Road to the East_ (New York, 1917), pp. 105 _et seq._; C. S. Hurgronje, _The Holy War, Made in Germany_ (New York, 1915), pp. 70–71; _The All Highest Goes to Jerusalem_, being an English translation of a series of articles published in _Le Rire_ (Paris) during 1898 (New York, 1917). In Germany the royal pilgrimage was intended to be taken seriously. Herr Heine, of the Munich _Simplicissimus_, was convicted of _lèse majesté_ and imprisoned for six months for having published humorous cartoons of the Kaiser and his party on their travels. _The Annual Register_, 1898, pp. 255–258.

[27] The author found some difference of opinion in Germany regarding the connection between the Kaiser’s visit and the pending Anatolian and Bagdad concessions. Dr. von Gwinner denies that there was any such purpose behind the Emperor’s trip to the East—or, at least, if there was, that it was unsolicited by the promoters and not looked upon with favor by them. Dr. Helfferich, on the other hand, is convinced that His Majesty was directly concerned with the desirability of obtaining additional railway concessions for German financiers. The Kaiser himself agrees with Dr. Helfferich. _Cf._, _My Memoirs, 1878–1918_, p. 86.

[28] _Cf._ foreign correspondence in _The Times_ (London), October 25, 1898, and days immediately thereafter.

[29] For an analysis of this situation see _The Manchester Guardian_, July 31, 1899, which took the stand that “for no sort of mercantile gain would a nation be justified in making friendly advances to the blood-stained tyrant of Armenia.”

[30] In this connection see Leonard Woolf, _Economic Imperialism_ (London and New York, 1920), Chapter I; Ramsay Muir, _The Expansion of Europe_ (New York, 1917), Chapter I; J. E. Spurr (editor), _Political and Commercial Geology_ (New York, 1920), Chapter XXXII, entitled “Who Owns the Earth?”; Aspi-Fleurimont, “La Question du coton,” in _Questions diplomatiques et coloniales_, Volume 15 (1903), pp. 429–432; J. A. B. Scherer, _Cotton as a World Power_ (New York, 1922). In addition, for the wider aspects of imperialism, consult H. N. Brailsford, _The War of Steel and Gold_ (New edition, London, 1915), Chapter II; F. C. Howe, _Why War?_ (New York, 1916), _passim_; Walter Lippman, _The Stakes of Diplomacy_ (New York, 1915); J. A. Hobson, _Imperialism: A Study_ (London, 1902).

[31] W. H. Dawson, _The Evolution of Modern Germany_ (New York, 1908), Chapter XII. P. Rohrbach, _Deutschland unter den Weltvölkern_, p. 17.

[32] Riesser, _op. cit._, pp. 110, 121.

[33] It should be remarked here that the author is not unaware of the fallacy of speaking of “German trade” and “German industry.” He is cognizant of the fact that trade takes place not between countries, but between individuals. If he anthropomorphizes the German Empire for the purposes of this description, it is not because of either ignorance or malice, but for convenience.

[34] For further consideration of German economic progress during the late nineteenth century see: Dawson, _op. cit._, Chapters III, IV, XII, XVI; E. D. Howard, _The Cause and Extent of the Recent Industrial Progress of Germany_ (New York, 1907); T. B. Veblen, _Imperial Germany and the Industrial Revolution_ (New York, 1915); W. H. Dawson, _Industrial Germany_ (London, 1913); Karl Helfferich, _Germany’s Economic Progress and National Wealth_ (New York, 1913); G. Blondel, _L’Essor industriel et commercial du peuple allemand_ (Paris, 1900).

[35] Paul Dehn, _Weltwirtschaftliche Neubildungen_ (Berlin, 1904), _passim_.

[36] Bernhard von Bülow, _Imperial Germany_ (English translation, New York, 1914), pp. 17, 18–20.