Title: A History of the Nations and Empires Involved and a Study of the Events Culminating in the Great Conflict
Author: Marshall, Logan
Language: English
As this book started as an ASCII text book there are no pictures available.


*** Start of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "A History of the Nations and Empires Involved and a Study of the Events Culminating in the Great Conflict" ***


[Illustration]

The World War

A History of
The Nations and Empires Involved and
a Study of the Events Culminating in
The Great Conflict

by Logan Marshall



PREFACE


When the people of the United States heard the news of the
assassination of Archduke Francis Ferdinand, heir to the throne of
Austria-Hungary, and his wife in Sarajevo, Bosnia, on June 28, 1914, it
was with a feeling of great regret that another sorrow had been added
to the many already borne by the aged Emperor Francis Joseph. That
those fatal shots would echo around the world and, flashing out
suddenly like a bolt from the blue, hurl nearly the whole of Europe
within a week’s time from a state of profound peace into one of
continental war, unannounced, unexpected, unexplained, unprecedented in
suddenness and enormity, was an unimaginable possibility. And yet the
ringing of the church bells was suddenly drowned by the roar of cannon,
the voice of the dove of peace by the blare of the trump of war, and
throughout the world ran a shudder of terror at these unwonted and
ominous sounds.

But in looking back through history, tracing the course of events
during the past century, following the footsteps of men in war and
peace from that day of upheaval when medieval feudalism went down in
disarray before the arms of the people in the French Revolution, some
explanation of the Great European war of 1914 may be reached. Every
event in history has its roots somewhere in earlier history, and we
need but dig deep enough to find them.

Such is the purpose of the present work. It proposes to lay down in a
series of apposite chapters the story of the past century, beginning,
in fact, rather more than a century ago with the meteoric career of
Napoleon and seeking to show to what it led, and what effects it had
upon the political evolution of mankind. The French Revolution stood
midway between two spheres of history, the sphere of medieval barbarism
and that of modern enlightenment. It exploded like a bomb in the midst
of the self-satisfied aristocracy of the earlier social system and rent
it into the fragments which no hand could put together again. In this
sense the career of Napoleon seems providential. The era of popular
government had replaced that of autocratic and aristocratic government
in France, and the armies of Napoleon spread these radical ideas
throughout Europe until the oppressed people of every nation began to
look upward with hope and see in the distance before them a haven of
justice in the coming realm of human rights.

It required considerable time for these new conceptions to become
thoroughly disseminated. A down-trodden people enchained by the theory
of the “divine right of kings” to autocratic rule, had to break the
fetters one by one and gradually emerge from a state of practical
serfdom to one of enlightened emancipation. There were many setbacks,
and progress was distressingly slow but nevertheless sure.

The story of this upward progress is the history of the nineteenth
century, regarded from the special point of view of political progress
and the development of human rights. This is definitely shown in the
present work, which is a history of the past century and of the
twentieth century so far as it has gone. Gradually the autocrat has
declined in power and authority, and the principle of popular rights
has risen into view. This war will not have been fought in vain if, as
predicted, it will result in the complete downfall of autocracy as a
political principle, and the rise of the rule of the people, so that
the civilized nations of the earth may never again be driven into a
frightful war of extermination against peaceful neighbors at the nod of
a hereditary sovereign. Logan Marshall



CONTENTS

Chapter I. All Europe Plunged into War
Dramatic Suddenness of the Outbreak—Trade and Commerce
Paralyzed—Widespread Influences—Terrible Effects of War—The Tide of
Destruction—Half Century to Pay Debts

Chapter II. Underlying Causes of the Great European War
Assassination of the Austrian Crown Prince—Austria’s Motive in Making
War—Servia Accepts Austria’s Demand—The Ironies of History—What Austria
Has to Gain—How the War Became Continental—An Editorial Opinion—Is the
Kaiser Responsible?—Germany’s Stake in the War—Why Russia Entered the
Field—France’s Hatred of Germany—Great Britain and Italy—The Triple
Alliance and Triple Entente

Chapter III. Strength and Resources of the Warring Powers
Old and New Methods in War—Costs of Modern Warfare—Nature of National
Resources—British and American Military Systems—Naval
Strength—Resources of Austria-Hungary—Resources of Germany—Resources of
Russia—Resources of France—Resources of Great Britain—Servia and
Belgium

Chapter IV. Great Britain and the War
The Growth of German Importance—German Militarism—Great Britain’s Peace
Efforts—Germany’s Naval Program—German Ambitions—Preparation for
War—Effect on the Empire

Chapter V. The World’s Greatest War
Wars as Mileposts—A Continent in Arms—How Canada Prepared for War—the
British Sentiment—Lord Kitchener’s Career—A Forceful Character

Chapter VI. The Earthquake of Napoleonism
Its Effect on National Conditions Finally Led to the War of 1914
Conditions in France and Germany—The Campaign in Italy—The Victory at
Marengo—Moreau at Hohenlinden—The Consul Made Emperor—The Code
Napoleon—Campaign of 1805—Battle of Austerlitz—The Conquest of
Prussia—The Invasion of Poland—Eylau and Friedland—Campaign of
1809—Victory at Wagram—The Campaign in Spain—The Invasion of Russia—A
Fatal Retreat—Dresden and Leipzig—The Hundred Days—The Congress of
Vienna—The Holy Alliance

Chapter VII. Pan-Slavism Versus Pan-Germanism
Russia’s Part in the Servian Issue—Strength of the Russian Army—The
Distribution of the Slavs—Origin of Pan-Slavism—The Czar’s
Proclamation—The Teutons of Europe—Intermingling of Races—The Nations
at War

Chapter VIII. The Ambition of Louis Napoleon
The Coup-d’état of 1851—From President to Emperor—The Empire is
Peace—War With Austria—The Austrians Advance—The Battle of
Magenta—Possession of Lombardy—French Victory at Solferino—Treaty of
Peace—Invasion of Mexico—End of Napoleon’s Career

Chapter IX. Garibaldi and Italian Unity
Power of Austria Broken
The Carbonari—Mazzini and Garibaldi—Cavour, the Statesman—The Invasion
of Sicily—Occupation of Naples—Victor Emmanuel Takes Command—Watchword
of the Patriots—Garibaldi Marches Against Rome—Battle of
Ironclads—Final Act of Italian Unity

Chapter X. The Expansion of Germany
Beginnings of Modern World Power
William I of Prussia—Bismarck’s Early Career—The Schleswig-Holstein
Question—Conquest of the Duchies—Bismarck’s Wider Views—War Forced on
Austria—The War in Italy—Austria’s Signal Defeat at Sadowa—The Treaty
of Prague—Germany after 1866

Chapter XI. The Franco-Prussian War
Birth of the German Empire and the French Republic
Causes of Hostile Relations—Discontent in France—War with Prussia
Declared—Self deception of the French—First Meeting of the Armies—The
Stronghold of Metz—Mars-la-Tour and Gravelotte—Napoleon III at
Sedan—The Emperor a Captive; France a Republic—Bismarck Refuses
Intervention—Fall of the Fortresses—Paris is Besieged—Defiant Spirit of
the French—The Struggle Continued—Operations Before Paris—Fighting in
the South—The War at an End

Chapter XII. Bismarck and the German Empire
Building the Bulwarks of the Twentieth Century Nation
Bismarck as a Statesman—Uniting the German States—William I Crowned at
Versailles—A Significant Decade—The Problem of Church Power—Progress of
Socialism—William II and the Resignation of Bismarck—Old Age
Insurance—Political and Industrial Conditions in Germany

Chapter XIII. Gladstone as an Apostle of Reform
Great Britain Becomes a World Power
Gladstone and Disraeli—Gladstone’s Famous Budget—A Suffrage Reform
Bill—Disraeli’s Reform Measure—Irish Church Disestablishment—An Irish
Land Bill—Desperate State of Ireland—The Coercion Bill—War in
Africa—Home Rule for Ireland

Chapter XIV. The French Republic
Struggles of a New Nation
The Republic Organized—The Commune of Paris—Instability of the
Government—Thiers Proclaimed President—Punishment of the Unsuccessful
Generals—MacMahon a Royalist President—Bazaine’s Sentence and
Escape—Grevy, Gambetta and Boulanger—The Panama Canal Scandal—Despotism
of the Army Leaders—The Dreyfus Case—Church and State—The Moroccan
Controversy

Chapter XV. Russia in the Field of War
The Outcome of Slavic Ambition
Siege of Sebastopol—Russia in Asia—The Russo-Japanese War—Port Arthur
Taken—The Russian Fleet Defeated

Chapter XVI. Great Britain and Her Colonies
How England Became Mistress of the Seas
Great Britain as a Colonizing Power—Colonies in the Pacific
Region—Colonization in Africa—British Colonies in Africa—The Mahdi
Rebellion in Egypt—Gordon at Khartoum—Suppression of the Mahdi
Revolt—Colonization in Asia—The British in India—Colonies in
America—Development of Canada—Progress in Canada

Chapter XVII. The Open Door in China and Japan
Development of World Power in the East
Warlike Invasions of China—Commodore Perry and His Treaty—Japan’s Rapid
Progress—Origin of the China-Japan War—The Position of Korea—Li Hung
Chang and the Empress—How Japan Began War—The Chinese and Japanese
Fleets—The Battle of the Yalu—Capture of Wei Hai Wei—Europe Invades
China—The Boxer Outbreak—Russian Designs on Manchuria—Japan Begins War
on Russia—The Armies Meet—China Becomes a Republic

Chapter XVIII. Turkey and the Balkan States
Checking the Dominion of the Turk in Europe
The Story of Servia—Turkey in Europe—The Bulgarian Horrors—The Defense
of Plevna—The Congress of Berlin—Hostile Sentiments in the
Balkans—Incitement to War—Fighting Begins—The Advance on
Adrianople—Servian and Greek victories—The Bulgarian Successes—Steps
toward Peace—The War Resumed—Siege of Scutari—Treaty of Peace—War
Between the Allies—The Final Settlement

Chapter XIX. Methods in Modern Warfare
Ancient and Modern Weapons—New Types of Weapons—The Iron-clad
Warship—The Balloon in War—Tennyson’s Foresight—Gunning for
Airships—The Submarine—Under-water Warfare—The New Type of
Battleship—Mobilization—The Waste of War

Chapter XX. Canada’s Part in the World War
New Relations Toward the Empire—Military Preparations—The Great Camp at
Valcartier—The Canadian Expeditionary Force—Political Effect of
Canada’s Action on Future of the Dominion



Chapter I.
ALL EUROPE PLUNGED INTO WAR


Dramatic Suddenness of the Outbreak—Trade and Commerce
Paralyzed—Widespread Influences—Terrible Effects of War—The Tide of
Destruction—Half Century to Pay Debts

At the opening of the final week of July, 1914, the whole world—with
the exception of Mexico, in which the smouldering embers of the
revolution still burned—was in a state of profound peace. The
clattering hammers and whirling wheels of industry were everywhere to
be heard; great ships furrowed the ocean waves, deep-laden with the
world’s products and carrying thousands of travelers bent on business
or enjoyment. Countless trains of cars, drawn by smoke-belching
locomotives, traversed the long leagues of iron rails, similarly laden
with passengers engaged in peaceful errands and freight intended for
peaceful purposes. All seemed at rest so far as national hostile
sentiments were concerned. All was in motion so far as useful
industries demanded service. Europe, America, Asia, and Africa alike
had settled down as if to a long holiday from war, and the advocates of
universal peace were jubilant over the progress of their cause, holding
peace congresses and conferences at The Hague and elsewhere, fully
satisfied that the last war had been fought and that arbitration boards
would settle all future disputes among nations, however serious.

Such occasions occur at frequent intervals in nature, in which a deep
calm, a profound peace, rests over land and sea. The winds are hushed,
the waves at rest; only the needful processes of the universe are in
action, while for the time the world forgets the chained demons of
unrest and destruction. But too quickly the chains are loosened, the
winds and waves set free; and the hostile forces of nature rush over
earth and sea, spreading terror and devastation in their path. Such
energies of hostility are not confined to the elements. They exist in
human communities. They underlie the political conditions of the
nations, and their outbreak is at times as sudden and unlooked-for as
that of the winds and waves. Such was the state of political affairs in
Europe at the date mentioned, apparently calm and restful, while below
the surface hostile forces which had long been fomenting unseen were
ready to burst forth and whelm the world.

DRAMATIC SUDDENNESS OF THE OUTBREAK

On the night of July 25th the people of the civilized world settled
down to restful slumbers, with no dreams of the turmoil that was ready
to burst forth. On the morning of the 26th they rose to learn that a
great war had begun, a conflict the possible width and depth of which
no man was yet able to foresee; and as day after day passed on, each
day some new nation springing into the terrible arena until practically
the whole of Europe was in arms and the Armageddon seemed at hand, the
world stood amazed and astounded, wondering what hand had loosed so
vast a catastrophe, what deep and secret causes lay below the
ostensible causes of the war. The causes of this were largely unknown.
As a panic at times affects a vast assemblage, with no one aware of its
origin, so a wave of hostile sentiment may sweep over vast communities
until the air is full of urgent demands for war with scarce a man
knowing why.

What is already said only feebly outlines the state of consternation
into which the world was cast in that fateful week in which the doors
of the Temple of Janus, long closed, were suddenly thrown wide open and
the terrible God of War marched forth, the whole earth trembling
beneath his feet. It was the breaking of a mighty storm in a placid
sky, the fall of a meteor which spreads terror and destruction on all
sides, the explosion of a vast bomb in a great assemblage; it was
everything that can be imagined of the sudden and overwhelming, of the
amazing and incredible.

TRADE AND COMMERCE PARALYZED

For the moment the world stood still, plunged into a panic that stopped
all its activities. The stock exchanges throughout the nations were
closed, to prevent that wild and hasty action which precipitates
disaster. Throughout Europe trade, industry, commerce all ceased,
paralyzed at their sources. No ship of any of the nations concerned
except Britain dared venture from port, lest it should fall a prey to
the prowling sea dogs of war which made all the oceans unsafe. The
hosts of American tourists who had gone abroad under the sunny skies of
peace suddenly beheld the dark clouds of war rolling overhead, blotting
out the sun, and casting their black shadows over all things fair.

What does this state of affairs, this sudden stoppage of the wheels of
industry, this unforeseen and wide spread of the conditions of war
portend? Emerson has said: “When a great thinker comes into the world
all things are at risk.” There is potency in this, and also in a
variation of Emerson’s text which we shall venture to make: “When a
great war comes upon the world all things are at risk.” Everything
which we have looked upon as fixed and stable quakes as if from mighty
hidden forces. The whole world stands irresolute and amazed. The
steady-going habits and occupations of peace cease or are perilously
threatened, and no one can be sure of escaping from some of the dire
effects of the catastrophe.

WIDESPREAD INFLUENCES

The conditions of production vanish, to be replaced by conditions of
destruction. That which had been growing in grace and beauty for years
is overturned and destroyed in a moment of ravage. Changes of this kind
are not confined to the countries in which the war rages or the cities
which conquering column of troops occupy. They go beyond the borders of
military activity; they extend to far-off quarters of the earth. We
quote from the New York WORLD a vivid picture drawn at the opening of
the great European war. Its motto is “all the world is paying the cost
of the folly of Europe.”

Never before was war made so swiftly wide. News of it comes from Japan,
from Porto Rico, from Africa, from places where in old days news of
hostilities might not travel for months.

“Non-combatants are in the vast majority, even in the countries at war,
but they are not immune to its blight. Austria is isolated from the
world because her ally, Germany, will take no chances of spilling
military information and will not forward mails. If, telephoning in
France, you use a single foreign word, even an English one, your wire
is cut. Hans the German waiter, Franz the clarinettist in the little
street band, is locked up as a possible spy. There are great German
business houses in London and Paris; their condition is that of English
and French business houses in Berlin, and that is not pleasant. Great
Britain contemplates, as an act of war, the voiding of patents held by
Germans in the United Kingdom.

“Nothing is too petty, nothing too great, nothing too distant in kind
or miles from the field of war to feel its influence. The whole world
is the loser by it, whoever at the end of all the battles may say that
he has won.

DILEMMA OF THE TOURISTS

Let us consider one of the early results of the war. It vitally
affected great numbers of Americans, the army of tourists who had made
their way abroad for rest, study and recreation and whose numbers,
while unknown, were great, some estimating them at the high total of
100,000 or more. These, scattered over all sections of Europe, some
with money in abundance, some with just enough for a brief journey,
capitalists, teachers, students, all were caught in the sudden flurry
of the war, their letters of credit useless, transportation difficult
or impossible to obtain, all exposed to inconveniences, some to
indignities, some of them on the flimsiest pretence seized and searched
as spies, the great mass of them thrown into a state of panic that
added greatly to the unpleasantness of the situation in which they
found themselves.

While these conditions of panic gradually adjusted themselves, the
status of the tourists continued difficult and annoying. The railroads
were seized for the transportation of troops, leaving many Americans
helplessly held in far interior parts, frequently without money or
credit. One example of the difficulties encountered will serve as an
instance which might be repeated a hundred fold.

Seven hundred Americans from Geneva were made by Swiss troops to leave
a train. Many who refused were forced off at the point or guns. This
compulsory removal took place at some distance from a station near the
border, according to Mrs. Edward Collins, of New York, who with her
three daughters was on the train. With 200 others they reached Paris
and were taken aboard a French troop train. Most of the arrivals were
women; the men were left behind because of lack of space. One hundred
women refused to take the train without their husbands; scores struck
back for Geneva; others on foot, carrying articles of baggage, started
in the direction of Paris, hoping to get trains somewhere. Just why
Swiss troops thus occupied themselves is not explained; but in times of
warlike turmoil many unexplainable things occur. Here is an incident of
a different kind, told by one of the escaping host: “I went into the
restaurant car for lunch,” he said. “When I tried to return to the car
where I’d left my suitcase, hat, cane and overcoat, I couldn’t find it.
Finally the conductor said blithely, ‘Oh, that car was taken off for
the use of the army.’

“I was forced to continue traveling coatless, hatless and minus my
baggage until I boarded the steamer FLUSHING, when I managed to swipe a
straw hat during the course of the Channel passage while the people
were down eating in the saloon. I grabbed the first one on the hatrack.
Talk about a romantic age. Why, I wouldn’t live in any other time than
now. We will be boring our grandchildren talking about this war.”

The scarcity of provisions in many localities and the withholding of
money by the banks made the situation, as regarded Americans,
especially serious. Those fortunate enough to reach port without
encountering these difficulties found the situation there equally
embarrassing. The great German and English liners, for instance, were
held up by order of the government, or feared to sail lest they should
be taken captive by hostile cruisers. Many of these lay in port in New
York, forbidden to sail for fear of capture. These included ships of
the Cunard and International Marine lines, the north German Lloyd, the
Hamburg-American, the Russian-American, and the French lines, until
this port led the world in the congestion of great liners rendered
inactive by the war situation abroad. The few that put to sea were
utterly incapable of accommodating a tithe of the anxious and appealing
applicants. It had ceased, in the state of panic that prevailed, to be
a mere question of money. Frightened millionaires were credited with
begging for steerage berths. Everywhere was dread and confusion, men
and women being in a state of mind past the limits of calm reasoning.
Impulse is the sole ruling force where reason has ceased to act.

Slowly the skies cleared; calmer conditions began to prevail. The
United States government sent the battleship TENNESSEE abroad with
several millions of dollars for the aid of destitute travelers and the
relief of those who could not get their letters or credit and
travelers’ checks cashed. Such a measure of relief was necessary, there
being people abroad with letters of credit for as much as $5,000
without money enough to buy a meal. One tourist said: “I had to give a
Milwaukee doctor, who had a letter of credit for $2,500 money to get
shaved.” London hotels showed much consideration for the needs of
travelers without ready cash, but on the continent there were many such
who were refused hotel accommodation.

As for those who reached New York or other American ports, many had
fled in such haste as to leave their baggage behind. Numbers of the
poorer travelers had exhausted their scanty stores of cash in the
effort to escape from Europe and reached port utterly penniless. The
case was one that called for immediate and adequate solution and the
governmental and moneyed interests on this side did their utmost to
cope with the situation. Vessels of American register were too few to
carry the host applying for transportation, and it was finally decided
to charter foreign vessels for this purpose and thus hasten the work of
moving the multitude of appealing tourists. From 15,000 to 20,000 of
these needed immediate attention, a majority of them being destitute.

AN OCEAN INCIDENT

Men and women needed not only transportation, but money also, and in
this particular there is an interesting story to tell. The German
steamer KRONPRINZESSIN CECILIE, bound for Bremen, had sailed from New
York before the outbreak of the war, carrying about 1,200 passengers
and a precious freight of gold, valued at $10,700,000. The value of the
vessel herself added $5,000,000 to this sum. What had become of her and
her tempting cargo was for a time unknown. There were rumors that she
had been captured by a British cruiser, but this had no better
foundation than such rumors usually have. Her captain was alert to the
situation, being informed by wireless of the sudden change from peace
to war. One such message, received from an Irish wireless station,
conveyed an order from the Bremen company for him to return with all
haste to an American port.

It was on the evening of Friday, July 31st, that this order came. At
once the vessel changed its course. One by one the ship’s lights were
put out. The decks which could not be made absolutely dark were
enclosed with canvas. By midnight the ship was as dark as the sea
surrounding. On she went through Saturday and on Sunday ran into a
dense fog. Through this she rushed with unchecked speed and in utter
silence, not a toot coming from her fog-horn. This was all very well as
a measure of secrecy, but it opened the way to serious danger through a
possible collision, and a committee of passengers was formed to request
the captain to reconsider his action. Just as the committee reached his
room the first blast of the fog-horn was heard, its welcome tone
bringing a sense of security where grave apprehension had prevailed.

A group of financiers were on board who offered to buy the ship and
sail her under American colors. But to all such proposals Captain
Polack turned a deaf ear. He said that his duty was spelled by his
orders from Bremen to turn back and save his ship, and these he
proposed to obey. A passenger stated:

“There were seven of the crew on watch all the time, two aloft. This
enabled the captain to know of passing vessels before they came above
the horizon. We were undoubtedly in danger on Sunday afternoon. We
intercepted a wireless message in French in which two French cruisers
were exchanging data in regard to their positions.

“The captain told me that he imagined those to be two vessels who
regularly patroled the fishing grounds in the interest of French
fisheries. If the captain of either of those vessels should have come
out of the fog and found us, his share of the prize in money might have
amounted to $4,000,000. Did privateer ever dream of such booty!

“Early on Saturday our four great funnels were given broad black bands
in order to make us look like the Olympic, which was supposed to be
twenty-four hours ahead of us. There was a certain grim humor in the
fact that the wireless operator on the Olympic kept calling us all
Friday night. Of course we did not answer.”

On Tuesday, August 4th, the great ship came within sight of land at the
little village of Bar Harbor, Mount Desert Island, off the coast of
Maine; a port scarce large enough to hold the giant liner that had
sought safety in its waters. Wireless messages were at once flashed to
all parts of the country and the news that the endangered vessel, with
its precious cargo, was safe, was received with general relief. As
regards the future movements of the ship Captain Polack said:

“I can see no possibility of taking this ship to New York from here
with safety. To avoid foreign vessels we should have to keep within the
three-mile limit, and to accomplish this the ship would have to be
built like a canoe. We have reached an American port in safety and that
was more than I dared to hope. We have been in almost constant danger
of capture, and we can consider ourselves extremely lucky to have come
out so well.

“I know I have been criticized for making too great speed under bad
weather conditions, but I have not wilfully endangered the lives of the
passengers. I would rather have lost the whole whip and cargo than have
assumed any such risk. Of course, aside from this consideration, my one
aim has been to save my ship and my cargo from capture.

“I have not been acting on my own initiative, but under orders from the
North German Lloyd in Bremen, and although I am an officer in the
German navy my duty has been to the steamship line.”

CLOSING THE STOCK MARKETS

We have so far dealt with only a few of the results of the war. There
were various others of great moment, to some of which a passing
allusion has been made.

On July 30th, for the first time in history, the stock markets of the
world were all closed at the same time. Heretofore when the European
markets have been closed those on this side of the ocean remained open.
The New York Exchange was the last big stock market to announce
temporary suspension of business. The New York Cotton Exchange closed,
following the announcement of the failure of several brokerage firms.
Stock Exchanges throughout the United States followed the example set
by New York. The Stock Exchanges in London and the big provincial
cities, as well as those on the Continent, ceased business, owing to
the breakdown of the credit system, which was made complete by the
postponement of the Paris settlement.

Depositors stormed every bank in London for gold, and the runs
continued for a couple of days. In order to protect its dwindling gold
supply the Bank of England raised its discount rate to 8 per cent.
Leading bankers of London requested Premier Asquith to suspend the bank
act, and he promised to lay the matter before the Chancellor of the
Exchequer. In all the capitals of Europe financial transactions
virtually came to a standstill. The slump in the market value of
securities within the first week of the war flurry was estimated at
$2,000,000,000, and radical measures were necessary to prevent hasty
action while the condition of panic prevailed.

This sudden stoppage of ordinary financial operations was accompanied
by a similar cessation of the industries of peace over a wide range of
territory. The artisan was forced to let fall the tools of his trade
and take up those of war. The railroads were similarly denuded of their
employees except in so far as they were needed to convey soldiers and
military supplies. The customary uses of the railroad were largely
suspended and travel went on under great difficulties. In a measure it
had returned to the conditions existing before the invention of the
locomotive. Even horse traffic was limited by the demands of the army
for these animals, and foot travel regained some of its old ascendency.

War makes business active in one direction and in one only, that of
army and navy supply, of the manufacture of the implements of
destruction, of vast quantities of explosives, of multitudes of
death-dealing weapons. Food supplies need to be diverted in the same
direction, the demands of the soldier being considered first, those of
the home people last, the latter being often supplied at starvation
prices. There is plenty of work to do—of its kind. But it is of a kind
that injures instead of aiding the people of the nations.

TERRIBLE EFFECTS OF WAR

This individual source of misery and suffering in war times is
accompanied by a more direct one, that of the main purpose of
war—destruction of human life and of property that might be utilized by
an enemy, frequently of merciless brigandage and devastation. It is
horrible to think of the frightful suffering caused by every great
battle. Immediate death on the field might reasonably be welcomed as an
escape from the suffering arising from wounds, the terrible
mutilations, the injuries that rankle throughout life, the conversion
of hosts of able-bodied men into feeble invalids, to be kept by the
direct aid of their fellows or the indirect aid of the people at large
through a system of pensions.

The physical sufferings of the soldiers from wounds and privations are
perhaps not the greatest. Side by side with them are the mental
anxieties of their families at home, their terrible suspense, the
effect upon them of tidings of the maiming or death of those dear to
them or on whose labor they immediately depend. The harvest of misery
arising from this cause it is impossible to estimate. It is not to be
seen in the open. It dwells unseen in humble homes, in city, village,
or field, borne often uncomplainingly, but not less poignant from this
cause. The tears and terrors thus produced are beyond calculation. But
while the glories of war are celebrated with blast of trumpet and roll
of drum, the terrible accompaniment of groans of misery is too apt to
pass unheard and die away forgotten.

To turn from this roll of horrors, there are costs of war in other
directions to be considered. Those include the ravage of cities by
flame or pillage, the loss of splendid works of architecture, the
irretrievable destruction of great productions of art, the vanishing of
much on which the world had long set store.

THE TIDE OF DESTRUCTION

Not only on land, but at sea as well, the tide of destruction rises and
swells. Huge warships, built at a cost of millions of dollars and
tenanted by hundreds of hardy sailors, are torn and rent by shot and
shell and at times sent to the bottom with all on board by the
explosion of torpedoes beneath their unprotected lower hulls. The
torpedo boat, the submarine, with other agencies of unseen destruction,
have come into play to add enormously to the horrors of naval warfare,
while the bomb-dropping airships, letting fall its dire missiles from
the sky, has come to add to the dread terror and torment of the
battle-field.

We began this chapter with a statement of the startling suddenness of
this great war, and the widespread consequences which immediately
followed. We have been led into a discussion of its issues, of the
disturbing and distracting consequences which cannot fail to follow any
great modern war between civilized nations. We had some examples of
this on a small scale in the recent Balkan-Turkish war. But that was of
minor importance and its effects, many of them sanguinary and horrible,
were mainly confined to the region in which it occurred. But a war
covering nearly a whole continent cannot be confined and circumscribed
in its consequences. All the world must feel them in a measure—though
diminishing with distance. The vast expanse of water which separates
the United States from the European continent could not save its
citizens from feeling certain ill effects from the struggle of war
lords. America and Europe are tied together with many cords of business
and interest, and the severing or weakening of these cannot fail to be
seriously felt. Canada, at a similar width of removal from Europe, had
reason to feel it still more seriously, from its close political
relations with Great Britain.

In these days in which we live the cost of war is a giant to be
reckoned with. With every increase in the size of cannon, the tonnage
of warships, the destructiveness of weapons and ammunition, this
element of cost grows proportionately greater and has in our day become
stupendous. Nations may spend in our era more cold cash in a day of war
than would have served for a year in the famous days of chivalry. A
study of this question was made by army and navy experts in 1914, and
they decided that the expense to the five nations concerned in the
European war would be not less than $50,000,000 a day.

If we add to this the loss of untold numbers of young men in the prime
of life, whose labor is needed in the fields and workshops of the
nations involved, other billions of dollars must be added to the
estimate, due to the crippling of industries. There is also the
destruction of property to be considered, including the very costly
modern battleships, this also footing up into the billions.

When it is considered that in thirteen years the cost of maintenance of
the armies and navies of the warring countries, as well as the cost of
naval construction, exceeded $20,000,000,000 some idea may be had of
the expense attached to war and the preparations of European countries
for just such contingencies as those that arose in Europe in 1914. The
cost of the Panama Canal, one of the most useful aids to the commerce
of the world, was approximately $375,000,000, but the expense of the
preparations for war in Europe during the time it took to build the
canal exceeded the cost of this gigantic undertaking nearly sixty to
one.

The money thus expended on preparation for war during the thirteen
years named would, if spent in railroad and marine construction, have
given vast commercial power to these nations. To what extent have they
been benefited by the rivalry to gain precedence in military power?
They stand on practically the same basis now that it is all at an end.
Would they not be on the same basis if it had never begun? Aside from
this is the incentive to employ these vast armaments in the purpose for
which they were designed, the effect of creating a military spirit and
developing a military caste in each by the nations, a result very
likely to be productive of ill effects.

The total expense of maintenance of armies and navies, together with
the cost of construction in thirteen years, in Germany, Austria,
Russia, France and Great Britain, was as follows:

Naval expenditures $5,648,525,000
Construction 2,146,765,000
Cost of armies 13,138,403,000
Total $20,933,693,000


The wealth of the same nations in round figures is:

Great Britain $80,000,000,000
Germany 60,500,000,000
Austria 25,000,000,000
France 65,000,000,000
Russia 40,000,000,000
Total 270,500,000,000


This enormous expense which was incurred in preparation for war needed
to be rapidly increased to meet the expenses of actual warfare. The
British House of Commons authorized war credits amounting to
$1,025,000,000, while the German Reichstag voted $1,250,000,000.
Austria and France had to set aside vast sums for their respective war
chests.

HALF CENTURY TO PAY DEBTS

In anticipation of trouble Germany in 1913 voted $250,000,000 for
extraordinary war expenses and about $100,000,000 was spent on an
aerial fleet. France spent $60,000,000 for the same purpose.

The annual cost of maintaining the great armies and navies of Europe
even on a peace basis is enormous, and it must be vastly increased
during war. The official figures for 1913–14 are:

British army $224,300,000
British navy 224,140,000
German army 183,090,00
German navy 111,300,000
French army 191,431,580
French navy 119,571,400
Russian army 317,800,000
Russian navy 122,500,000
Austrian army 82,300,000
Austrian navy 42,000,000
Total $1,618,432,980


It was evident that taxes to meet the extraordinary expenses of war
would have to be greatly increased in Germany and France. As business
became at a standstill throughout Europe and every port of entry
blocked, experts wondered where the money was to come from. All agreed
that, when peace should be declared and the figures were all in, the
result financially would be staggering and that the heaviest burden it
had ever borne would rest upon Europe for fifty years to come. For when
the roar of the cannon ceases and the nations are at rest, then dawns
the era of payment, inevitable, unescapable, one in which for
generations every man and woman must share.



Chapter II.
UNDERLYING CAUSES OF THE GREAT EUROPEAN WAR


Assassination of the Austrian Crown Prince—Austria’s Motive in Making
War—Servia Accepts Austria’s Demand—The Ironies of History—What Austria
Has to Gain—How the War Became Continental—An Editorial Opinion—Is the
Kaiser Responsible?—Germany’s Stake in the War—Why Russia Entered the
Field—France’s Hatred of Germany—Great Britain and Italy—The Triple
Alliance and Triple Entente

What brought on the mighty war which so suddenly sprang forth? What
evident, what subtle, what deep-hidden causes led to this sudden
demolition of the temple of peace? What pride of power, what lust of
ambition, what desire of imperial dominion cast the armed hosts of the
nations into the field of conflict, on which multitudes of innocent
victims were to be sacrificed to the insatiate hunger for blood of the
modern Moloch?

Here are questions which few are capable of answering. Ostensible
answers may be given, surface causes, reasons of immediate potency. But
no one will be willing to accept these as the true moving causes. For a
continent to spring in a week’s time from complete peace into almost
universal war, with all the great and several of the small Powers
involved, is not to be explained by an apothegm or embraced within the
limits of a paragraph. If not all, certainly several of these nations
had enmities to be unchained, ambitions to be gratified, long-hidden
purposes to be put in action. They seemed to have been awaiting an
opportunity, and it came when the anger of the Servians at the seizure
of Bosnia by Austria culminated in a mad act of assassination

ASSASSINATION OF THE AUSTRIAN CROWN PRINCE

The immediate cause, so far as apparent to us, of the war in question
was the murder, on June 29, 1914, of the Austrian Crown Prince Francis
Ferdinand and his wife, while on a visit to Sarajevo, the capital of
Bosnia, the assassin being a Servian student, supposed to have come for
that purpose from Belgrade, the Servian capital. The inspiring cause of
this dastardly act was the feeling of hostility towards Austria which
was widely entertained in Servia. Bosnia was a part of the ancient
kingdom of Servia. The bulk of its people are of Slavic origin and
speak the Servian language. Servia was eager to regain it, as a
possible outlet for a border on the Mediterranean Sea. When, therefore,
in 1908, Austria annexed Bosnia and Herzegovina, which had been under
her military control since 1878, the indignation in Servia was great.
While it had died down in a measure in the subsequent years, the
feeling of injury survived in many hearts, and there is little reason
to doubt that the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand was a result of
this pervading sentiment.

In fact, the Austrian government was satisfied that the murder plot was
hatched in Belgrade and held that Servian officials were in some way
concerned in it. The Servian press gave some warrant for this, being
openly boastful and defiant in its comments. When the Austrian
consul-general at Belgrade dropped dead in the consulate the papers
showed their satisfaction and hinted that he had been poisoned. This
attitude of the press evidently was one of the reasons for the
stringent demand made by Austria on July 23d, requiring apology and
change of attitude from Servia and asking for a reply by the hour of 6
P.M. on the 25th. The demands were in part as follows:

1. An apology by the Servian government in its official journal for all
Pan-Servian propaganda and for the participation of Servian army
officers in it, and warning all Servians in the future to desist from
anti-Austrian demonstrations.

2. That orders to this effect should be issued to the Servian army.

3. That Servia should dissolve all societies capable of conducting
intrigues against Austria.

4. That Servia should curb the activities of the Servian press in
regard to Austria.

5. That Austrian officials should be permitted to conduct an inquiry in
Servia independent of the Servian government into the Sarajevo plot.

An answer to these demands was sent out at ten minutes before 6 o’clock
on the 25th, in which Servia accepted all demands except the last,
which it did not deem “in accordance with international law and good
neighborly relations.” It asked that this demand should be submitted to
The Hague Tribunal. The Austrian Minister at Belgrade, Baron Giesl von
Gieslingen, refused to accept this reply and at once left the capital
with the entire staff of the legation. The die was cast, as Austria
probably intended that it should be.

AUSTRIA’S MOTIVE IN MAKING WAR

It had, in fact, become evident early in July that the military party
in Austria was seeking to manufacture a popular demand for war, based
on the assassination of the Archduke Ferdinand and his wife. Such was
the indication of the tone of the Vienna newspapers, which appeared
desirous of working up a sentiment hostile to Servia. It may be doubted
if the aged emperor was a party to this. Probably his assent was a
forced one, due to the insistence of the war party and the public
sentiment developed by it. That the murder of the Archduke was the real
cause of the action of Austria can scarcely be accepted in view of
Servia’s acceptance of Austria’s rigid demands. The actual cause was
undoubtedly a deeper one, that of Austria’s long-cherished purpose of
gaining a foothold on the Aegean Sea, for which the possession of
Servia was necessary as a preliminary step. A plausible motive was
needed, any pretext that would serve as a satisfactory excuse to Europe
for hostile action and that could at the same time be utilized in
developing Austrian indignation against the Servians. Such a motive
came in the act of assassination and immediate use was made of it. The
Austrian war party contended that the deed was planned at Belgrade,
that it had been fomented by Servian officials, and that these had
supplied the murderer with explosives and aided in their transfer into
Bosnia.

What evidence Austria possessed leading to this opinion we do not know.
While it is not likely that there was any actual evidence, the case was
one that called for investigation, and Austria was plainly within its
rights in demanding such an inquiry and due punishment of every one
found to be connected with the tragic deed. But Austria went farther
than this. It was willing to accept nothing less than a complete and
humiliating submission on the part of Servia. And the impression was
widely entertained, whether with or without cause, that in this Austria
was not acting alone but that it had the full support of Germany. That
country also may be supposed to have had its ends to gain. What these
were we shall consider later.

SERVIA ACCEPTS AUSTRIA’S DEMANDS

Imperious as had been the demand of Austria, one which would never have
been submitted to a Power of equal strength, Servia accepted it,
expressing itself as willing to comply with all the conditions imposed
except that relating to the participation of Austrian officials in the
inquiry, an explanation being asked on this point. If this reply should
be deemed inadequate, Servia stood ready to submit the question at
issue to The Hague Peace Tribunal and to the Powers which had signed
the declaration of 1909 relating to Bosnia and Herzegovina.

The subsequent action of Austria was significant. The Austrian Minister
at Belgrade, as before stated, rejected it as unsatisfactory and
immediately left the Servian capital. He acted, in short, with a
precipitancy that indicated that he was acting under instructions. This
was made very evident by what immediately followed. When news came on
July 28th that war had been declared and active hostilities commenced,
it was accompanied by the statement that Austria would not now be
satisfied even with a full acceptance of her demands.

That the intention of this imperious demand and what quickly followed
was to force a war, no one can doubt. Servia’s nearly complete assent
to the conditions imposed was declared to be not only unsatisfactory,
but also “dishonorable,” a word doubtless deliberately used. Evidently
no door was to be left open for retrogressive consideration.

THE IRONIES OF HISTORY

It is one of the ironies of history that a people who once played a
leading part in saving the Austrian capital from capture should come to
be threatened by the armies of that capital. This takes us back to the
era when Servia, a powerful empire of those days, fell under the
dominion of the conquering Turks, whose armies further overran Hungary
and besieged Vienna. Had this city been captured, all central Europe
would have lain open to the barbarities of the Turks. In its defense
the Servians played a leading part, so great a one that we are told by
a Hungarian historian, “It was the Serb Bacich who saved Vienna.” But
in 1914 Servia was brought to the need of saving itself from Vienna.

WHAT AUSTRIA HAD TO GAIN

If it be asked what Austria had to gain by this act; what was her aim
in forcing war upon a far weaker state; the answer is at hand. The
Balkan States, of which Servia is a prominent member, lie in a direct
line between Europe and the Orient. A great power occupying the whole
of the Balkan peninsula would possess political advantages far beyond
those enjoyed by Austria-Hungary. It would be in a position giving it
great influence over, if not strategic control of, the Suez Canal, the
commerce of the Mediterranean, and a considerable all-rail route
between Central Europe and the far East. Salonika, on the AEgean Sea,
now in Greek territory, is one of the finest harbors on the
Mediterranean Sea. A railway through Servia now connects this port with
Austria and Germany. In addition to this railway it is not unlikely
that a canal may in the near future connect the Danube with the harbor
of Salonika. If this project should be carried out, the commerce of the
Danube and its tributary streams and canals, even that of central and
western Germany, would be able to reach the Mediterranean without
passing through the perilous Iron Gates of the Danube or being
subjected to the delays and dangers incident to the long passage
through the Black Sea and the Grecian Archipelago.

We can see in all this a powerful motive for Austria to seek to gain
possession of Servia, as a step towards possible future control of the
whole Balkan peninsula. The commercial and manufacturing interests of
Austria-Hungary were growing, and mastership of such a route to the
Mediterranean would mean immense advantage to this ambitious empire.
Possession of northern Italy once gave her the advantage of an
important outlet to the Mediterranean. This, through events that will
be spoken of in later chapters, was lost to her. She apparently then
sought to reach it by a more direct and open road, that leading through
Salonika.

Such seem the reasons most likely to have been active in the Austrian
assault upon Servia. The murder of an Austrian archduke by an
insignificant assassin gave no sufficient warrant for the act. The
whole movement of events indicates that Austria was not seeking
retribution for a crime but seizing upon a pretext for a predetermined
purpose and couching her demands upon Servia in terms which no
self-respecting nation could accept without protest. Servia was to be
put in a position from which she could not escape and every door of
retreat against the arbitrament of war was closed against her.

But in this retrospect we are dealing with Austria and Servia alone.
What brought Germany, what brought France, what brought practically the
whole of Europe into the struggle? What caused it to grow with
startling suddenness from a minor into a major conflict, from a contest
between a bulldog and a terrier into a battle between lions? What were
the unseen and unnoted conditions that, within little more than a
week’s time, induced all the leading nations of Europe to cast down the
gage of battle and spring full-armed into the arena, bent upon a
struggle which threatened to surpass any that the world had ever seen?
Certainly no trifling causes were here involved. Only great and
far-reaching causes could have brought about such a catastrophe. All
Europe appeared to be sitting, unknowingly or knowingly, upon a powder
barrel which only needed some inconsequent hand to apply the match. It
seems incredible that the mere pulling of a trigger by a Servian
student and the slaughter of an archduke in the Bosnian capital could
in a month’s time have plunged all Europe into war. From small causes
great events may rise. Certainly that with which we are here dealing
strikingly illustrates this homely apothegm.

HOW THE WAR BECAME CONTINENTAL

We cannot hope to point out the varied causes which were at work in
this vast event. Very possibly the leading ones are unknown to us. Yet
some of the important ones are evident and may be made evident, and to
these we must restrict ourselves.

Allusion has already been made to the general belief that the Emperor
of Germany was deeply concerned in it, and that Austria would not have
acted as it did without assurance of support, in fact without direct
instigation, from some strong allied Power, and this Power is adjudged
alike by public and private opinion to have been Germany, acting in the
person of its ambitious war lord, the dominating Kaiser.

It may be stated that all the Powers concerned have sought to disclaim
responsibility. Thus Servia called the world to witness that her answer
to Austria was the limit of submission and conciliation. Austria,
through her ambassador to the United States, solemnly declared that her
assault upon Servia was a measure of “self-defense.” Russia explained
her action as “benevolent intervention,” and expressed “a humble hope
in omnipotent providence” that her hosts would be triumphant. Germany
charged France with perfidious attack upon the unarmed border of the
fatherland, and proclaimed a holy war for “the security of her
territory.” France and England, Belgium and Italy deplored the conflict
and protested that they were innocent of offense. So far as all this is
concerned the facts are generally held to point to Germany as the chief
instigator of the war.

Russia, indeed, had made threatening movements toward Austria as a
warning to her to desist from her threatened invasion of Servia. Great
Britain proposed mediation. Germany made no movement in the direction
of preventing the war, but directed its attention to Russia, warning it
to stop mobilization within twenty-four hours, and immediately
afterward beginning a similar movement of mobilization in its own
territory. On August 1st Germany declared war against Russia, the first
step towards making the contest a continental one. On the 2d, when
France began mobilization, German forces moved against Russia and
France simultaneously and invaded the neutral states of Luxembourg and
Belgium. It was her persistence in the latter movement that brought
Great Britain into the contest, as this country was pledged to support
Belgian neutrality. On August 4th, Great Britain sent an ultimatum to
Germany to withdraw from the neutral territory which her troops had
entered and demanded an answer by midnight. Germany declined to answer
satisfactorily and at 11 o’clock war was declared by Great Britain.

AN EDITORIAL OPINION

As regards the significance of these movements, in which Germany hurled
declarations of war in rapid succession to east and west, and forced
the issue of a continental war upon nations which had taken no decisive
step, it may suffice to quote an editorial summing up of the situation
as regards Germany, from the Philadelphia North American of August 7th:

“From these facts there is no escape. Leaving aside all questions of
justice or political expediency, the aggressor throughout has been
Germany. Austria’s fury over the assassination of the heir to the
throne was natural. But Servia tendered full reparation.

So keen and conservative an authority as Rear Admiral Mahan declares
that ‘the aggressive insolence’ of Austria’s ultimatum ‘and Sevia’s
concession of all demands except those too humiliating for national
self-respect’ show that behind Austria’s assault was the instigation of
Berlin. He adds:

“Knowing how the matter would be viewed in Russia, it is incredible
that Austria would have ventured on the ultimatum unless assured
beforehand of the consent of Germany. The inference is irresistible
that it was the pretext for a war already determined upon as soon as
plausible occasion offered.’

“Circumstantial evidence, at least, places responsibility for the
flinging of the first firebrand upon the government of the Kaiser. Now,
who added fuel to the flames, until the great conflagration was under
way?

“The next move was the Czar’s. ‘Fraternal sentiments of the Russian
people for the Slavs in Servia,’ he says, led him to order partial
mobilization, following Austria’s invasion of Servia. Instantly Germany
protested, and within forty-eight hours sent an ultimatum demanding
that Russia cease her preparations. On the following day Germany began
mobilizing, and twenty-four hours later declared war on Russia.
Mobilization in France, necessitated by these events, was anticipated
by Germany, which simultaneously flung forces into Russia, France,
Luxembourg and Belgium.

“It was Germany’s historic policy of “blood and iron” that fired
Austria to attempt the crushing of Servia. It was Germany that hurled
an ultimatum, swiftly followed by an army, at Russia. It was Germany
that struck first at the French frontier. It was Germany that trampled
upon solemn treaty engagements by invading the neutral states of
Luxembourg and Belgium. And it was Germany that, in answer to England’s
demand that the neutrality of Belgium be protected, declared war
against Great Britain.

“Regardless, therefore, of questions of right and wrong, it is
undeniable that in each succeeding crisis Germany has taken the
aggressive. In so doing she has been inspired by a supreme confidence
in her military might. But she has less reason to be proud of her
diplomacy. The splendid audacity of her moves cannot obscure the fact
that in making the case upon which she will be judged she has been
outmaneuvered by the deliberation of Russia, the forbearance of France
and the patience of Great Britain. She has assumed the role of
international autocrat, while giving her foes the advantage of
prosecuting a patriotic war of defense.

“Particularly is this true touching the violation of neutral territory.
For nearly half a century the duchy of Luxembourg has been considered a
‘perpetually neutral state,’ under solemn guarantee of Austria, Great
Britain, Germany and Russia. Since 1830, when Belgium seceded from the
Netherlands, it, too, has been held ‘an independent and perpetually
neutral state,’ that status being solemnly declared in a convention
signed hy Great Britain, France, Russia, Austria and Prussia. Yet the
first war move of Germany was to overrun these countries, seize their
railroads, bombard their cities and lay waste their territories.

“For forty years Germany has been the exemplar of a progressive
civilization. In spite of her adherence to inflated militarism, she has
put the whole world in her debt by her inspiring industrial and
scientific achievements. Her people have taught mankind lessons of
incalculable value, and her sons have enriched far distant lands with
their genius. Not the least of the catastrophes inflicted by this
inhuman war is that an unbridled autocracy has brought against the
great German empire an indictment for arrogant assault upon the peace
of nations and the security of human institutions.”

IS THE KAISER RESPONSIBLE?

How much reliance is to be placed on the foregoing newspaper opinion,
and on the prevailing sentiment holding Kaiser Wilhelm responsible for
flinging the war bomb that disrupted the ranks of peace, no one can
say. Every one naturally looked for the fomenter of this frightful
international conflict and was disposed to place the blame on the basis
of rumor and personal feeling. On the other hand each nation concerned
has vigorously disclaimed responsibility for the cataclysm.
Austria—very meekly—claimed that Servia precipitated the conflict.
Germany blamed it upon Russia and France, the former from Slavic race
sentiment, the latter from enmity that had existed since the loss of
Alsace and Lorraine in 1870. They, on the contrary, laid all the blame
upon Germany. In the case of England alone we have a clear vista. The
obligation of the island kingdom to maintain the neutral position of
Belgium and the utter disregard of this neutrality by Germany forced
her to take part and throw her armies into the field for the
preservation of her international obligations.

Many opinions were extant, many views advanced. One of these, from
Robert C. Long, a war correspondent of note, laid the total
responsibility upon Austria, which, he said, plunged Europe into war in
disregard of the Kaiser, who vigorously sought to prevent the outbreak,
even threatening his ally in his efforts to preserve peace. In his
view, “All the blood-guiltiness in this war will rest upon two Powers,
Austria and Russia. It rests on Austria for her undue harshness to
Servia and on Russia for its dishonesty in secretly mobilizing its
entire army at a time when it was imploring the Kaiser to intervene for
peace, and when the Kaiser was working for peace with every prospect of
success.”

We have quoted one editorial opinion holding Germany wholly
responsible. Here is another, from the New York TIMES, which, with a
fair degree of justice, distributes the responsibility among all the
warring nations of Europe:

“Germany is not responsible; Russia is not responsible, or Austria, or
France, or England. The pillars of civilization are undermined and
human aspirations bludgeoned down by no Power, but by all Powers; by no
autocrats, but by all autocrats; not because this one or that has erred
or dared or dreamed or swaggered, but because all, in a mad stampede
for armament, trade and territory, have sowed swords and guns,
nourished harvests of death-dealing crops, made ready the way.

“For what reason other than war have billions in bonds and taxes been
clamped on the backs of all Europe? None sought to evade war; each
sought to be prepared to triumph when it came. At most some
chancelleries whispered for delay, postponement; they knew the clash to
be inevitable; if not today, tomorrow. Avoid war! What else have they
lived for, what else prepared for, what else have they inculcated in
the mind of youth than the sureness of the conflict and the great glory
of offering themselves to this Moloch in sacrifice?

“No Power involved can cover up the stain. It is indelible, the sin of
all Europe. It could have been prevented by common agreement. There was
no wish to prevent it. Munition manufacturers were not alone in urging
the race to destruction, physical and financial. The leaders were for
it. It was policy. A boiling pot will boil, a nurtured seed will grow.
There was no escape from the avowed goal. A slow drift to the
inevitable, a thunderbolt forged, the awful push toward the vortex!
What men and nations want they get.”

GERMANY’S STAKE IN THE WAR

What had Germany to gain in the war in the instigation of which she is
charged with being so deeply involved? Territorial aggrandizement may
have been one of her purposes. Belgium and Holland lay between her and
the open Atlantic, and the possession of these countries, with their
splendid ports, would pay her well for a reasonable degree of risk and
cost. The invasion of Belgium as her first move in the war game may
have had an ulterior purpose in the acquisition of that country, one
likely to be as distasteful to France as the taking over of
Alsace-Lorraine. Perhaps the neutral position taken by Holland, with
her seeming inclination in favor of Germany, may have had more than
racial relations behind it. Considerations of ultimate safety from
annexation may have had its share in this attitude of neutrality.

The general impression has been that Germany went to war with the
purpose of establishing beyond question her political and military
supremacy on the European continent. Military despotism in Germany was
the decisive factor in making inevitable the general war. The Emperor
of Germany stood as the incarnation and exponent of the Prussian policy
of military autocracy. He had ruled all German States in unwavering
obedience to the militarist maxim: “In times of peace prepare for war.”
He had used to the full his autocratic power in building up the German
Empire and in making it not only a marvel of industrial efficiency, but
also a stupendous military machine. In this effort he had burdened the
people of Germany with an ever-increasing war budget. The limit in this
direction was reached with the war budget of the year 1912 when the
revenues of the princes and of all citizens of wealth were specially
taxed. No new sources of revenue remained. A crisis had come.

That crisis, as sometimes claimed, was not any menace from Britain or
any fear of the British power. It was rather the very real and very
rapidly rising menace of the new great Slav power on Germany’s border,
including, as it did, the Russian Empire and the entire line of Slav
countries that encircled Germanic Austria from the Adriatic to Bohemia.
These Slav peoples are separated from the governing Teutonic race in
the Austrian Empire by the gulfs of blood, language, and religion. And
in Europe the Slav population very largely outnumbers the Teuton
population and is growing much more rapidly.

Recent events, especially in the Balkan wars, had made it plain, not to
the German Emperor alone, but to all the world, that the growth into an
organized power of more than two hundred millions of Slav peoples along
nearly three thousand miles of international frontier was a menace to
the preservation of Teuton supremacy in Europe. That Teuton supremacy
was based on the sword. The German Emperor’s appeal was to “My sword.”
But when the new sword of the united Slav power was allowed to be
unsheathed, German supremacy was threatened on its own ground and by
the weapon of its own choosing.

However all this be, and it must be admitted that it is to a degree
speculative, there were in 1914 conditions existing that appeared to
render the time a suitable one for the seemingly inevitable continental
war. Revelations pointing to defects in the French army, deficiencies
of equipment and weaknesses in artillery, had been made in the French
Parliament. The debate that occurred was fully dwelt upon in the German
papers. And on July 16th the organ of Berlin radicalism, the VOSSICHE
ZEITUNG, published a leading article to show that Russia was not
prepared for war, and never had been. As for France, it said: “A Gallic
cock with a lame wing is not the ideal set up by the Russians. And when
the Russian eagle boasts of being in the best of health who is to
believe him? Why should the French place greater confidence in the
inveterate Russian disorganization than in their own defective
organization?”

As regards the Kaiser’s own estimate of his preparedness for war, and
the views of national polity he entertained, we shall let him speak for
himself in the following extracts from former utterances:

“We will be everywhere victorious even if we are surrounded by enemies
on all sides and even if we have to fight superior numbers, for our
most powerful ally is God above, who, since the time of the Great
Elector and Great King, has always been on our side.”—At Berlin, March
29, 1901.

“I vowed never to strike for world mastery. The world empire that I
then dreamed of was to create for the German empire on all sides the
most absolute confidence as a quiet, honest and peaceable neighbor. I
have vowed that if ever the time came when history should speak of a
German world power or a Hohenzollern world power this should not be
based on conquest, but come through a mutual striving of nations after
a common purpose.

“After much has been done internally in a military way, the next thing
must be the arming ourselves at sea. Every German battleship is a new
guarantee for the peace of the world. We are the salt of the earth, but
must prove worthy of being so. Therefore, our youth must learn to deny
what is not good for them.

“With all my heart I hope that golden peace will continue to be present
with us.”—At Bremen, March 22, 1905.

“My final and last care is for my fighting forces on land and sea. May
God grant that war may not come, but should the cloud descend, I am
firmly convinced that the army will acquit itself as it did so nobly
thirty-five years ago.”—At Berlin, February 25, 1906.

In the early days of the reign of William II war was prominent in his
utterances. He was the War Lord in full feather, and the world at that
time looked with dread upon this new and somewhat blatant apostle of
militarism. Yet year after year passed until the toll of almost three
decades was achieved, without his drawing the sword, and the world
began to regard him as an apostle of peace, a wise and capable ruler
who could gain his ends without the shedding of blood. What are we to
believe now? Had he been wearing a mask for all these years, biding his
time, hiding from view a deeply cherished purpose? Or did he really
believe that a mission awaited him, that regeneration of the world
through the sanguinary path of the battle-field was his duty, and that
by the aid of a successful war he could inaugurate a safer and sounder
era of peace?

We throw out these ideas as suggestions only. What the Kaiser purposed,
what deep-laid schemes of international policy he entertained, will,
perhaps, never be known. But if he was really responsible for the great
war, as he was so widely accused of being, the responsibility he
assumed was an awful one. If he was not responsible, as he declared and
as some who claim to have been behind the scenes maintain, the world
will be ready to absolve him when his innocence has been made evident.

WHY RUSSIA ENTERED THE FIELD

In this survey of the causes of the great war under consideration the
position of Russia comes next. That country was the first to follow
Austria and begin the threatening work of mobilization. Germany’s first
open participation consisted in a warming to Russia that this work must
cease. Only when her warning was disregarded did Germany begin
mobilization and declare war. All this was the work of a very few days,
but in this era of active military preparedness it needs only days,
only hours in some instances, to change from a state of peace into a
state of war and hurl great armed hosts against the borders of hostile
nations.

The general impression was that it was the Slavic race sentiment that
inspired Russia’s quick action. Servia, a country of Slavs, brothers in
race to a large section of the people of Russia, was threatened with
national annihilation and her great kinsman sprang to her rescue,
determined that she should not be absorbed by her land-hungry neighbor.
This seemed to many a sufficient cause for Russia’s action. Not many
years before, when Austria annexed her wards, Bosnia and Herzegovina,
both Slavic countries, Russia protested against the act. She would
doubtless have done more than protest but for her financial and
military weakness arising from the then recent Russo-Japanese War. In
1914 she was much stronger in both these elements of national power and
lost not a day in preparing to march to Servia’s aid.

But was this the whole, or indeed the chief, moving impulse in Russia’s
action? Was she so eager an advocate of Pan-Slavism as such a fact
would indicate? Had she not some other purpose in view, some fish of
her own to fry, some object of moment to obtain? Many thought so. They
were not willing to credit the Russian bear with an act of pure
international benevolence. Wars of pure charity are rarely among the
virtuous acts of nations. As it had been suggested that Germany saw in
the war a possible opportunity to gain a frontier on the Atlantic, so
it was hinted that Russia had in mind a similar frontier on the
Mediterranean. Time and again she had sought to wring Constantinople
from the hands of the Turks. In 1877 she was on the point of achieving
this purpose when she was halted and turned back by the Congress of
Berlin and the bellicose attitude of the nations that stood behind it.

Here was another and seemingly a much better opportunity. The Balkan
War had almost accomplished the conquest of the great Turkish capital
and left Turkey in a state of serious weakness. If Europe should be
thrown into the throes of a general war, in which every nation would
have its own interests to care for, Russia’s opportunity to seize upon
the prize for which she had so long sought was an excellent one, there
being no one in a position to say her nay. To Russia the possession of
Constantinople was like the possession of a new world, and this may
well have been her secret motive in springing without hesitation into
the war. Her long-sought prize hung temptingly within reach of her
hand, the European counterpart of the “Monroe Doctrine” could not now
be evoked to stay her grasp, and it seems highly probable that in this
may have lain the chief cause of Russia’s participation in the war.

FRANCE’S HATRED OF GERMANY

The Republic of France was less hasty than Russia and Germany in
issuing a declaration of war. Yet there, too, the order of mobilization
was quickly issued and French troops were on the march toward the
German border before Germany had taken a similar step. France had not
forgotten her humiliation in 1870. So far was she from forgetting it
that she cherished a vivid recollection of what she had lost and an
equally vivid enmity towards Germany in consequence. Enmity is hardly
the word. Hatred better fits the feeling entertained. And this was kept
vitally alive by the fact that Alsace and Lorraine, two of her former
provinces, still possessing a considerable French population, were now
held as part of the dominions of her enemy. The sore rankled and hope
of retribution lay deep in the heart of the French. Here seemed an
opportunity to achieve this long-cherished purpose, and we may
reasonably believe that the possibility of regaining this lost
territory made France eager to take part in the coming war. She had
been despoiled by Germany, a valued portion of her territory had been
wrested from her grasp, a promising chance of regaining it lay before
her. She had the men; she had the arms; she had a military organization
vastly superior to that of 1870; she had the memory of her former
triumphs over the now allied nations of Austria and Germany; she had
her obligations to aid Russia as a further inducement. The causes of
her taking part in the war are patent, especially in view of the fact
that in a very brief interval after her declaration her troops had
crossed the border and were marching gaily into Alsace, winning battles
and occupying towns as they advanced.

GREAT BRITAIN AND ITALY

We have suggested that in the case alike of Austria, Russia, Germany
and France the hope of gaining valuable acquisitions of territory was
entertained. In the case of France, enmity to Germany was an added
motive, the territory she sought being land of which she had been
formerly despoiled. These purposes of changing the map of Europe did
not apply to or influence Great Britain. That country had no territory
to gain and no great military organization to exercise. She possessed
the most powerful navy of any country in the world, but she was moved
by no desire of showing her strength upon the sea. There was no reason,
so far as any special advantage to herself was concerned, for her
taking part in the war, and her first step was a generous effort to
mediate between the Powers in arms.

Only when Belgium—a small nation that was in a sense under the
guardianship of Great Britain, so far as its nationality and neutrality
were concerned—was invaded by Germany without warning, did Britain feel
it incumbent upon her to come to its aid. This may not have been
entirely an act of benevolence. There was a probability that Germany,
once in control of Belgium, could not readily let go. She might add it
to her empire, a fact likely to seriously affect British sea-power.
However this be, Great Britain lost no time after the invasion in
becoming a party to the continental war, sending her fleet abroad and
enlisting troops for service in the aid of her allies, France and
Belgium.

Italy, a member of the Triple Alliance, the other members of which were
Germany and Austria, was the only one of the great Powers that held
aloof. She had absolutely nothing to gain by taking part in the war,
while her late large expenses in the conquest of Tripoli had seriously
depleted her war chest. As regards her alliance with Germany and
Austria, it put her under no obligation to come to their aid in an
offensive war. Her obligation was restricted to aid in case they were
attacked, and she justly held that no such condition existed. As a
result, Germany and Austria found themselves at war with the three
powerful members of the Triple Entente, while Italy, the third member
of the Triple Alliance, declined to draw the sword.

The defection of Italy was a serious loss to the power of the allies,
so much so that Emperor William threatened her with war if she failed
to fulfil her assumed obligations. This threat Italy quietly ignored.
She gave indications, in fact, that her sympathies were with the
opposite party. Thus Germany and Austria found themselves pitted
against three great Powers and a possible fourth, with the addition of
the two small nations of Servia and Belgium. And the latter were not to
be despised as of negligible importance. Servia quickly showed an
ability to check the forward movements of Austria, while Belgium,
without aid, long held a powerful German army at bay, defending the
city and fortresses of Liege with a boldness and success that called
forth the admiring acclamations of the world.

THE TRIPLE ALLIANCE AND TRIPLE ENTENTE

This review of causes and motives may be supplemented by a brief
statement of what is meant by the Triple Alliance and Triple Entente,
terms which come into common prominence in discussing European
politics. They indicate the division of Europe, so far as its greater
Powers are concerned, into two fully or partially allied bodies, the
former consisting of Germany, Austria and Italy, the latter of Great
Britain, France and Russia. These organizations are of comparatively
recent date. The Alliance began in 1879 in a compact between Germany
and Austria, a Dual Alliance, which was converted into a Triple one in
1883, Italy then, through the influence of Bismarck, joining the
alliance. In this compact Austria and Germany pledged themselves to
mutual assistance if attacked by Russia; Italy and Germany to the same
if attacked by France.

The Triple Entente—or Understanding—arose from a Dual Alliance between
France and Russia, formed in 1887, an informal understanding between
Britain and France in 1904 and a similar understanding between Britain
and Russia in 1907. Its purpose, as formed by Edward VII, was to
balance the Triple Alliance and thus convert Europe into two great
military camps. When organized there seemed little probability of its
being called into activity for many years.



Chapter III.
STRENGTH AND RESOURCES OF THE WARRING POWERS


Old and New Methods in War—Costs of Modern Warfare—Nature of National
Resources—British and American Military Systems—Naval
Strength—Resources of Austria-Hungary—Resources of Germany—Resources of
Russia—Resources of France—Resources of Great Britain—Servia and
Belgium

Within the whole history of mankind the nations of the earth had never
been so thoroughly equipped for the art of warfare as they were in
1914. While the arts of construction have enormously developed, those
of destruction have fully kept pace with them; and the horrors of war
have enormously increased side by side with the benignities of peace.
It is interesting to trace the history of warfare from this point of
view. Beginning with the club and hammer of the stone age, advancing
through the bow and arrow and the sling-shot of later times, this art,
even in the great days of ancient civilization, the eras of Greece and
Rome, had advanced little beyond the sword and spear, crude weapons of
destruction as regarded in our times. They have in great part been set
aside as symbols of military dignity, emblems of the “pomp and
circumstance of glorious war.”

Descending through the Middle Ages we find the sword and spear still
holding sway, with the bow as an important accessory for the use of the
common soldier. As for the knight, he became an iron-clad champion, so
incased in steel that he could fight effectively only on horseback,
becoming largely helpless on foot. At length, the greatest stage in the
history of war, the notable invention of gunpowder was achieved, and an
enormous transformation took place in the whole terrible art. The
musket, the rifle, the pistol, the cannon were one by one evolved, to
develop in the nineteenth century into the breech-loader, the machine
gun, the bomb, and the multitude of devices fitted to bring about death
and destruction by wholesale, instead of by the retail methods of older
days.

At sea, the sailing vessel, with her far-flung white wings and rows of
puny guns, has given way to the steel-clad battleship with her fewer
but enormously larger cannons, capable of flinging huge masses of iron
many miles through the air and with a precision of aim that seems
incredible for such great distances.

We must add to this the torpedo boat, a tiny craft with a weapon
capable of sinking the most costly and stupendous of battleships, and
the submarine, fitted to creep unseen under blockading fleets, and deal
destruction with nothing to show the hand that dealt the deadly blow.
Even the broad expanse of the air has been made a field of warlike
activity, with scouting airships flying above contending armies and
signaling their most secret movements to the forces below.

OLD AND NEW METHODS IN WAR

In regard to loss of life on the battle-field, it may be said that many
of the wars of ancient times surpassed the bloodiest of those of modern
days, despite the enormously more destructive weapons and implements
now employed. When men fought hand to hand, and no idea of quarter for
the defeated existed, entire armies were at times slaughtered on the
field. In our days, when the idea of mercy for the vanquished prevails,
this wholesale slaughter of beaten hosts has ceased, and the death list
of the battle-field has been largely reduced by caution on the part of
the fighters. With the feeling that a dead soldier is utterly useless,
and a wounded one often worse than useless, as constituting an
impediment, every means of saving life is utilized. Soldiers now fight
miles apart. Prostrate, hidden, taking advantage of every opportunity
of protection, every natural advantage or artificial device, vast
quantities of ammunition are wasted on the empty air, every ball that
finds its quarry in human flesh being mayhap but one in hundreds that
go astray. In the old-time wars actual hand-to-hand fighting took
place. Almost every stroke told, every thrusting blade was directly
parried or came back stained with blood. In modern wars fighting of
this kind has ceased. A battle has become a matter of machinery. The
strong arm and stalwart heart are replaced by the bullet-flinging
machine, and it is a rare event for a man to know to whose hand he owes
wound or death. Such, at least, was largely the case in the war between
Russia and Japan in 1905. But in recent battles we read of hordes of
soldiers charging up to the muzzles of machine guns, and being mowed
down like ripened wheat.

COSTS OF MODERN WARFARE

But while loss of human life in war has not greatly increased, in other
directions the cost of warfare has enormously grown. In the past,
little special preparation was needed by the fighter. Armies could be
recruited off-hand from city or farm and do valiant duty in the field,
with simple and cheap weapons. In our days years of preliminary
preparation are deemed necessary and the costs of war go on during
times of profound peace, millions of men who could be used effectively
in the peaceful industries spending the best years of their lives in
learning the most effective methods of destroying their fellow men.

This is only one phase of the element of cost. Great workshops are
devoted to the preparation of military material, of absolutely no use
to mankind except as instruments of destruction. The costs of war, even
in times of peace, are thus very large. But they increase in an
enormous proportion after war has actually begun, millions of dollars
being needed where tens formerly sufficed, and national bankruptcy
threatening the nation that keeps its armies long in the field. The
American Civil War, fought half a century ago, was a costly procedure
for the American people. If it had been fought five or ten years ago
its cost would have been increased five-fold, so great has been the
progress in this terrible art in the interval.

NATURE OF NATIONAL RESOURCES

It is our purpose in the present chapter to take up the subject of this
cost and review the condition and resources of the several nations
which were involved in the dread internecine struggle of 1914, the
frightful conflict of nations that moved like a great panorama before
our eyes. These resources are of two kinds. One of them consists in the
material wealth of the nations concerned, the product of the fields and
factories, the mineral treasures beneath the soil, the results of trade
and commercial activity and the conditions of national finance,
including the extent of available revenue and the indebtedness which
hangs over each nation, much of it a heritage from former wars which
have left little beyond this aggravating record of their existence. It
is one which adds something to the cost of every particle of food
consumed by the people, every shred of clothing worn by them. Additions
to this incubus of debt little disturb the rules when blithely or
bitterly engaging in new wars, but every such addition adds to the
burdens of taxation laid on the shoulders of the groaning citizens, and
is sure to deepen the harvest of retribution when the time for it
arrives.

A second of these resources is that of preparation for war in time of
peace, the training of the able-bodied citizens in the military art,
until practically the entire nation becomes converted into a vast army,
its members, after their term of compulsory service, engaging in
ordinary labors in times of peace, yet liable to be called into the
field whenever the war lords desire, to face the death-belching field
piece and machine gun in a sanguinary service in which they have little
or no personal concern. This preparedness, with the knowledge of the
duties of a soldier which it involves, is a valuable war resource to
any nation that is saddled with such a system of universal military
training. And few nations of Europe and the East are now without it.
Great Britain is the chief one in Europe, while in America the United
States is a notable example of a nation that has adopted the opposite
policy, that of keeping its population at peaceful labor, steadily
adding to its resources, during the whole time in which peace prevails,
and trusting to the courage and mental resources of its citizens to
teach them quickly the art of fighting when, if ever, the occasion
shall arrive.

It must be admitted that the European system of militarism is likely to
be of great advantage in the early days of a war, in which large bodies
of trained soldiers can be hurled with destructive force against
hastily gathered militia. The distinction between trained and untrained
soldiers, however, rapidly disappears in a war of long continuance.
Experience in the field is a lesson far superior to any gained in mock
warfare, and the taking part in a few battles will teach the art of
warfare to an extent surpassing that of years of marching and
counter-marching upon the training field.

BRITISH AND AMERICAN MILITARY SYSTEMS

Britain and the United States, the only two of the greater nations that
have adopted the policy here considered, are not trusting completely to
chance. Each of them has a body of regular troops, fitted for police
duty in time of peace and for field duty in time of war, and serving as
a nucleus fitted to give a degree of coherence to raw militia when the
sword is drawn. Subsidiary to these are bodies of volunteer troops,
training as a recreation rather than as an occupation, yet constituting
a valuable auxiliary to the regular forces. This system possesses the
advantage of maintaining no soldiers except those kept in constant and
needful duty, all the remaining population staying at their regular
labors and adding very materially every year to the resources of the
nation, while saving the great sums expended without adequate return in
the process of keeping up the system of militarism.

What is above said refers only to the human element in the system. In
addition is the necessity of preparing and keeping in store large
quantities or war material—cannons, rifles, ammunition, etc.—the
building of inland forts and coast and harbor fortifications, for ready
and immediate use in time of war. In this all the nations are alike
actively engaged, the United States and Britain as well as those of the
European continent, and none of them are likely to be caught amiss in
this particular. Cannon and gunpowder eat no food and call for no pay
or pension, and once got ready can wait with little loss of efficiency.
They may, indeed, become antiquated through new invention and
development, and need to be kept up to date in this particular. But
otherwise they can be readily kept in store and each nation may with
comparative ease maintain itself on a level with others as regards its
supply of material of war.

NAVAL STRENGTH

In one field of war-preparation little of the distinction indicated
exists. This is that of ocean warfare, in which rivalry between the
great Powers goes on without restriction—at least between the
distinctively maritime nations. In this field of effort, the building
of gigantic battleships and minor war vessels, Britain has kept itself
in advance of all others, as a nation in which the sea is likely to be
the chief field of warlike activity. Beginning with a predominance in
war ships, it has steadily retained it, adding new and constantly
greater war ships to its fleet with a feverish activity, under the idea
that here is its true field of defense. It has sought vigorously to
keep itself on a level in this particular with any two of its rivals in
sea power. While it has not quite succeeded in this, the United States
and Germany pushing it closely, it is well in the lead as compared with
any single Power, and to keep this lead it is straining every nerve and
fiber of its national capacity.

RESOURCES OF AUSTRIA-HUNGARY

Coming now to a statement of the strength and resources of the chief
Powers concerned in the present war, Austria-Hungary, as the originator
of the outbreak, stands first. It is scarcely necessary to repeat that
its severe demands upon Servia, arising from the murder of the Archduke
Ferdinand and its refusal to accept Servia’s almost complete acceptance
of its terms, led to an immediate declaration of war upon the small
offending state, the war fever thus started quickly extending from side
to side of the continent. Therefore in considering the existing
conditions of the various countries involved, those of Austria-Hungary
properly come first, the others following in due succession.

Austria-Hungary is a dual kingdom, each partner to the union having its
separate national organization and legislative body. While both are
under the rule of one monarch, Francis Joseph being at once the Emperor
of Austria and the King of Hungary, their union is not a very intimate
one. There is large racial distinction between the two countries, and
Hungary cherishes a strong feeling of animosity to Austria, the outcome
of acts of tyranny and barbarity not far in the past.

The two countries closely approach each other in area, Austria having
115,903 and Hungary 125,039 square miles; making a total of 240,942.
The populations also do not vary largely, the total being estimated at
about 50,000,000. Of these the Slavs number more than 24,000,000,
approaching one half the total , while of Germans there are but
11,500,000, little more than half of the Slavic population. The
Magyars, or Hungarians, a people of eastern origin, and the main
element of Hungarian population, number about 8,750,000. In addition
there are several millions of Roumanian and Italic stock, and a
considerable number of Jews and Gypsies. The inclusion of this
heterogeneous population into one kingdom dates far back in medieval
history, and it was not until 1867, as a consequence of a vigorous
Hungarian demand, that Austria and Hungary became divided into separate
nations, the remnant of their former close union remaining in their
being ruled by one monarch, the venerable Francis Joseph, who is still
upon the throne. This division quickly followed the war between Prussia
and Austria in 1866, and was one of the results of the defeat of
Austria in that war.

Austria is a hilly or mountainous country, its plains occupying only
about one fifth of the total territory. The most extensive tracts of
low or flat land occur in Hungary, Galicia and Slavonia, the great
Hungarian plain having an area of 36,000 square miles. Much of this is
highly fertile, and Hungary is the great granary of the country.
Austria-Hungary is well watered by the Danube and its tributaries and
has a small extent of sea-coast on the Adriatic, its principal ports
being Trieste, Pola and Fiume. Its railways are about 30,000 miles in
length. In consequence of its interior position its largest trade is
with Germany, through which empire there is also an extensive transit
commerce. Its mountainous character makes it rich in minerals, the
chief of these being coal, iron, and salt.

Bosnia and Herzegovina, formerly part of Turkey in Europe, were put
under the military occupation and administrative rule of Austria after
the Russo-Turkish war of 1877–8, and in 1908 were fully annexed by
Austria, an act of spoliation which had its ultimate result in the
assassination of Archduke Ferdinand in 1914, and may thus be considered
the instigating agency in the 1914 war.

The finances of Austria-Hungary may be briefly given. Austria has an
annual revenue of $636,909,000; Hungary of $410,068,000; their
expenditure equaling these sums. The debt of Austria is stated at
$1,433,511,000; of Hungary, $1,257,810,000; and of the joint states at
$1,050,000,000. Military service is obligatory on all over twenty years
of age who are capable of bearing arms, the total terms of service
being twelve years, of which three are passed in the line, seven in the
reserve, and two in the Landwehr. The army is estimated to number
390,000 on the peace footing and over 2,000,000 on the war footing. Its
navy numbers four modern and nine older battleships, with twelve
cruisers and a number of smaller craft.

RESOURCES OF GERMANY

Germany, in the census of 1910, was credited with a population of
64,925,993. This is in great part composed of Teutons, or men of German
race, its people being far less heterogeneous than those of Austria,
though it includes several millions of Slavs, Lithuanians, Poles and
others. It has an area of 208,738 square miles. It is mountainous in
the south and center, but in the north there is a wide plain extending
to the German Ocean and the Baltic Sea, and forming part of the great
watershed which stretches across Europe. Its soil, except in the more
rugged and mountainous districts, is prolific, being well watered and
bearing abundant crops of the ordinary cereals. Potatoes, hemp, and
flax are very abundant crops and the sugar beet is extensively
cultivated. The forests are of great extent and value, and are
carefully conserved to yield a large production without over cutting.
Among domestic animals, the cattle, sheep and swine of certain
districts have long been famous.

The minerals are numerous and some of them of much value, those of
chief importance being coal, iron, zinc, lead and salt. While much
attention is given to mining and agriculture, the manufacturing
industries are especially important. Linens and other textiles are
widely produced and iron manufacture is largely carried on. The Krupp
iron works at Essen are of world-wide fame, and the cannon made there
are used in the forts of many distant nations.

These are a few only of the large variety of manufactures, a market for
which is found in all parts of the world, the commerce of Germany being
widely extended. In short, the empire has come into very active rivalry
with Great Britain in the development of commerce, and to its progress
in this direction it owes much of its flourishing condition. Hamburg is
by far the most important seaport, Bremen, Stettin, Danzig and others
also being thriving ports. The total length of railway is over 40,000
miles.

The annual revenue of the German Empire is nearly $900,000,000; that of
its component states, $1,500,000,000; that of the states at
$3,735,000,000. The revenue is derived chiefly from customs duties,
excise duties on beet-root sugar, salt, tobacco and malt and
contributions from the several states.

Germany is the foster home of modern militarism and is held to have the
most complete army system in the world. Every man capable of bearing
arms must begin his military training on the 1st of January of the year
in which he reaches the age of twenty, and continue it to the end of
his forty-second year, unless released from this duty by the competent
authorities, either altogether or for times of peace.

Seven years of this time must be spent in the army or fleet; three of
them in active service, four in the reserve. Seven more years are
passed in the Landwehr, the members of which may be called out only
twice for training. The remaining time is passed in the Landsturm,
which is called out only in case of invasion of the empire. The total
peace strength of the army is given at 870,000; of the reserves at
4,430,000; the total being 5,300,000.

The navel force of Germany is very powerful, though considerably less
than that of Great Britain. It comprises 19 of the enormous modern
battleships, 7 cruiser battleships, and 20 of older type; 9 first-class
and 45 second and third-class cruisers, and numerous smaller warships,
including 47 torpedo boats, 141 destroyers and 60 submarines.

RESOURCES OF RUSSIA

Russia, the third of the three nations to which the war was most
immediately due, is the most extensive consolidated empire in the
world, its total area being estimated at 8,647,657 square miles, of
which 1,852,524 are in Europe, the remainder in Asia. The population is
given at about 160,000,000, of which 130,000,000 are in Europe.

Agriculture is the chief pursuit of this great population, though
manufactures are largely developing. The forests, immense in extent,
cover forty-two per cent of the area and contain timber in enormous
quantities. While a large part of the area is level ground, there is
much elevated territory, and the mineral wealth is very important. It
includes gold, silver, platinum, iron, copper, coal and salt, all of
large occurrence. Of the people, over 1,800,000 are employed in
manufacture, and the annual value of the commerce amounts to
$1,300,000,000. The length of railway is about 50,000 miles.

Russia is heavily in debt, Germany being its largest creditor. The
total debt is stated at $4,553,000,000, its revenue $1,674,000,000. The
liability to military service covers all able-bodied men between the
ages of twenty and forty-two years. Five years must be passed in active
service, the remainder in the various reserves. On a peace footing the
army is 1,290,000 strong; its war strength is 5,500,000. The
territorial service is capable of supplying about 3,000,000 more,
making a possible total of 7,500,000. As regards the navy, it was
greatly reduced in strength in the war with Japan and has not yet fully
recovered. The empire now possesses nine modern battleships, four
cruiser battleships, and eight of old type. There are also cruisers and
other vessels, including 23 torpedo boats, 105 destroyers, and 48
submarines.

RESOURCES OF FRANCE

France, the one large Power in Europe in which the people have created
a republic and have got rid of the FACT of a king, as illustrated in
the other continental Powers,—and in addition to the mountain realm of
Switzerland, in which the people govern themselves through their
representatives,—has taken up the dogma of militarism in common with
its neighbors and constitutes the fourth of the Powers in which this
system has been carried to its ultimate conclusion of a world-wide war.

France had a startling object lesson in 1870. It had, under Napoleon
III, been imitating Prussia in its military establishment, and its
government officials coincided with the emperor in the theory that its
army was in a splendid state of preparation. Marshal Leboeuf lightly
declared that “everything was ready, more than ready, and not a gaiter
button missing,” and it was with a light-hearted confidence that the
Emperor Napoleon declared war against Prussia, the insensate multitude
filling Paris with their futile war cry of “On to Berlin.”

This is not the place to deal with this subject, but it may be said
that France quickly learned that nothing was ready and the nation went
down in the most sudden and awful disaster of modern times. A lesson
had been taught, one not easy to forget. The Republic succeeded the
Empire, and has since been working on the theory that war with its old
enemy might at any time become imminent and no negligence in the matter
of preparation could be permitted. As a consequence, France went into
the war of 1914 in a state of fitness greatly superior to that of 1870,
and Germany found France waiting on its border line, alert and able,
ready alike for offense or defense.

What are the natural conditions, the strength and resources, of this
great republic? France has an area of 207,054 square miles, almost the
same as that of the German Empire. If its numerous colonies be added,
its total area is over 4,000,000 square miles. But this vast colonial
expanse is of no special advantage to it in a European war. Its
population is 39,601,509; if Algeria, its most available colony, be
added, it is about 45,000,000, a total 20,000,000 less than the
population of Germany.

Its soil is highly fitted for agricultural use, about nine tenths of it
being productive and more than half of it under the plow, the cereals
forming the bulk of its products. Its wheat crop is large and oats, rye
and barley are also of value, though the raising of the domestic
animals is of less importance than in the surrounding countries. The
growth of the vine is one of its most important branches of
agriculture, and in good years France produces about half of the total
wine yield of the world. In mineral wealth it stands at a somewhat low
level, its yield of coal, iron, etc. being of minor importance.

France enjoys a large and valuable commerce and active manufacturing
industries, products of a more or less artistic character being
especially attended to. Of the textile fabrics, those of silk goods are
much the most important, this industry employing about 2,000,000
persons and yielding more than a fourth in value of the whole
manufactured products of France. Other products are carpets, tapestry,
fine muslins, lace and cotton goods. Products of different character
are numerous and their value large. The fisheries of France are also of
much importance. Its commerce, while large, is very considerably less
than that of Great Britain and Germany, France being especially a
self-centered country, largely using what it makes.

There is abundant provision for internal trade and travel, there being
30,000 miles of railway, 3,000 miles or canal, and 5,500 miles of
navigable rivers. The annual revenue approaches $1,000,000,000, and the
public debt in 1914 was at the large total of over $6,200,000,000. This
is much the largest debt of any nation in the world, the debt of
Russia, which comes next in amount, being about $1,700,000,000 less. It
is largely due to the cost of the war of 1870 and the subsequent large
payment to Germany. Yet the French people carry it without feeling
seriously overburdened.

Coming now to the French military system, it rivals that of Germany in
efficiency. The law requires the compulsory military service of every
French citizen who is not unfit for such service. They have to serve in
the regular army for three years, in the regular reserves for six
years, in the territorial army for six years, and finally in the
reserves of this army for ten years. This gives France a peace strength
of 720,000 and a total war strength of 4,000,000. The navy is manned
partly by conscription, partly by voluntary enlistment, the naval
forces comprising about 60,000 officers and men.

The naval strength of the republic embraces 17 modern battleships, 25
of older type, 18 first-class, 13 second and third-class cruisers, 173
torpedo boats, 87 destroyers, and 90 submarines. There is another
element of modern military strength of growing importance and sure to
be of large use in the war under review. This is that of the airship.
In 1914 France stood at the head in this particular, its aeroplanes,
built or under construction, numbering 550. Germany had 375, Russia
315, Italy 270, Austria 220, Britain 180 and Belgium 150. In dirigible
balloons Germany stood first, with 50. France had 30, Russia 15,
Austria 10 and Britain 7. These air-soaring implements of war came into
play early in the conflict and Tennyson’s vision of “battles in the
blue” was realized in attacks of aeroplanes upon dirigibles, with death
to the crews of each.

RESOURCES OF GREAT BRITAIN.

Great Britain, the remaining party to the five-fold war of great
European Powers, is an island country of considerably smaller area than
those so far named. Including Ireland it has an area of 121,391 square
miles, about equal to that of the American State of New Mexico and not
half the size of the Canadian province of Saskatchewan. Its population,
however, surpasses that of France, amounting to 45,221,615. If the
outlying dominions of Great Britain be added it becomes the greatest
empire in the world’s history, its colonial dominions being estimated
at over 13,000,000 square miles, and the total population of kingdom
and colonies at 435,000,000, the greatest population of any country in
the world. And Britain differs from France in the fact that much of
this outlying population is available for war purposes in case of peril
to the liberties of the mother country. At the outbreak of the war of
1914 the loyal Dominion of Canada sprang at once into the field,
mobilized its forces, and offered the mother land material aid in men
and gifts of varied nature.

The same sense of loyalty was shown in Australia and South Africa and
in others of the British oversea dominions, while India added an
important contingent to the army and much other aid.

As for the immediate kingdom, it is not of high value in agricultural
wealth, being at present divided up to a considerable extent into large
unproductive estates, and it is quite unable to feed its teeming
population, depending for this on its large commerce in food products.
Its annual imports amount to about $3,000,000,000, its exports to
$2,250,000,000.

Commercially and industrially alike Great Britain stands at the head of
all European nations. Its abundant mineral wealth, especially in coal
and iron, has stimulated manufactures to the highest degree, while its
insular character and numerous seaports have had a similar stimulating
effect upon commerce. Its revenue, aside from that of the colonies,
amounts to about $920,000,000 annually, and its public debt reaches a
total of $3,485,000,000.

The British government depends largely for safety from invasion upon
its insular position and its enormously developed navy, and has not
felt it necessary to enter upon the frenzy of military preparation
which pervades the continental nations. No British citizen is obliged
to bear arms except for the defense of his country, but all able-bodied
men are liable to militia service, the militia being raised, when
required, by ballot. Enlistment among the regulars is either for twelve
years’ army service, or for seven years’ army service and five years’
reserve service. The peace strength of the army is estimated at about
255,000 men, the reserves at 475,000; making a total of 730,000.

It is in its navy that Great Britain’s chief warlike strength exists,
the naval force being much greater than that of any other nation. It
possesses in all 29 modern battleships, many of them of the great
dreadnaught and super-dreadnaught type. In addition it has 10 cruiser
battleships, and 38 older battleships, most of the latter likely to be
of little service for warlike duty. There are also 45 first-class, and
70 second and third-class cruisers, 58 torpedo boats, 212 destroyers
and 85 submarines, the whole forming a total navel strength approaching
that of any two of the other Powers.

SERVIA AND BELGIUM

As regards the remaining nations engaged in the war, Servia, in which
the contest began, has an area of 18,782 square miles, a population of
4,000,000, and a standing army of 240,000, a number seemingly very
inadequate to face the enormously greater power of Austria-Hungary. But
the men had become practically all soldiers, very many of them tried
veterans of the recent Balkan War; their country is mountainous and
admirably fitted for defensive warfare, and their power of resistance
to invasion was quickly shown to be great.

Belgium, the other early seat of the war, is still smaller in area,
having but 11,366 square miles. But it is very densely populated,
possessing 7,432,784 inhabitants. Its army proved brave and capable,
its fortifications modern and well adapted to defense, and small as was
its field force it held back the far more numerous German invaders
until France and Great Britain had their troops in position for
available defense. This small intermediate kingdom therefore played a
very important part in the outset of the war.

If one judges by the figures given of the available military strength
of the nations involved, the huge host said to have followed Xerxes to
the invasion of Greece could easily be far surpassed in modern warfare.
The fact is, however, that these huge figures greatly exceed the
numbers that could, except in the most extreme exigency, be available
for use in the field, and for real active service we should be obliged
to greatly reduce these paper estimates. It must be taken into account
that the fields and factories of the nations cannot be too greatly
denuded of their trained workers. It was a shrewd saying of Napoleon
Bonaparte that “An army marches on its stomach,” and the important duty
of keeping the stomach adequately filled can not be overlooked.

In actual war also there is an enormous exhaustion of military
material, which must be constantly replaced, and this in turn demands
the services of great numbers of trained artisans. The question of
finance also cannot be overlooked. It needs vast sums of money to keep
a modern army in the field, this increasing rapidly as the forces grow
in numbers, and no national treasure chest is inexhaustible. Tax as
they may, the war lords cannot squeeze out of their people more blood
than flows in their veins, and exhaustion of the war-chest may prove
even more disastrous than exhaustion of the regiments. For these
reasons a limit to the size of armies is inevitable and in any great
war this limitation must quickly make itself apparent.



Chapter IV.
GREAT BRITAIN AND THE WAR


The Growth of German Importance—German Militarism—Great Britain’s Peace
Efforts—Germany’s Naval Program—German Ambitions—Preparation for
War—Effect on the Empire

The influence of the European War permeated everything from and through
the nation to the individual, from trade and commerce and world-finance
to the cost of food and the price of labor. The whole world, civilized
and uncivilized, was drawn into this whirlpool of disaster—the majority
of the population of the earth was actually at war. Was it possible
that such a vast conflict—so far reaching in its racial and national
elements, so bitter in its old and new animosities, so great in its
territorial area, so tremendous in the numbers of men in arms—could
come, as some commentators say, like a thief in the night or have
fallen upon the world like a bolt from the blue! All available
information of an exact character, all the preparation of the preceding
few years, all the inner statecraft of the world as revealed in policy
and action, prove the fallacy of this supposition.

THE GROWTH OF GERMAN IMPORTANCE

As a matter of fact one nation had been for nearly half a century the
pivot upon which European hopes and fears have turned in the matter of
peace and war, of military and naval preparation, of diplomatic
interchange. During this period Germany rose to a foremost place
amongst the nations of Europe, to the first place in strength of
military power and organized fighting force, to the second place in
naval strength and commercial progress. The growth itself was a
legitimate one in the main; and, given the character of its people and
their cultivated convictions as to inherent greatness, was inevitable.
For other nations the vital question asked in diplomacy and answered in
their military or naval preparations was equally inevitable: How would
Germany use this power, against whom was it aimed, for what specific
purpose was it being organized with such capable precision, such
splendid skill?

GERMAN MILITARISM

Great Britain, meanwhile, had devoted her main attention to the trade
and diplomacy and little wars associated with the maintenance of a
world-empire and, in self-defense, had cultivated friendships with
Russia and France and the United States and Japan as this German power
began to come closer and touch the most vital British interests. France
naturally strengthened itself as its historic enemy grew in power;
Russia improved her military position after the Japanese was as she was
bound to do; Germany appeared to set the pace upon sea and land with an
aggressive diplomacy in Morocco and in China, at Paris and at St.
Petersburg, which was bound to cause trouble and to promote what is
commonly called militarism. The vast ambitions and persistent policy of
the German ruler and his people, the unsatisfied characteristics of
German diplomacy, the militant ideals and military preparations and
naval expansion of Germany between 1900 and 1914 became the dominant
consideration in the chancelleries of Europe. Armies and navies, wars
in the Balkans or struggles for colonial spheres of influence,
financial reserves and naval construction and volunteer forces—all came
to be measured against current developments in this center of European
gravity.

GREAT BRITAIN’S PEACE EFFORTS

Great Britain tried to hold aloof from this international rivalry, this
preparation for a war which her people and leaders hoped against hope
would be averted. Royal visits of a pacific character were exchanged,
parties of Great Britain’s business men visited Berlin, while leaders
such as King Edward and Lord Haldane exercised all their ability in
striving for some mutual ground of friendly action. Lovers of peace
wrote many volumes and filled many newspapers with articles on the
beneficence of that policy and the terrors of militarism—books and
articles which were never seen in Germany except by those who regarded
them as so many confessions of national weakness. Between 1904 and 1908
Great Britain actually reduced her naval expenditures and limited her
construction of battleships in the hope that Germany would follow the
lead, pleaded at two Hague Conferences for international reduction of
armaments, kept away from all increase in her own almost ridiculous
military establishment, urged upon two occasions (in 1912–1913) a naval
holiday in construction. The following figures from Brassey’s
authoritative NAVAL ANNUAL shows that her naval expenditure upon new
ships in 1913 was actually less than in 1904, that Germany’s was nearly
three times greater, that France and Russia and Italy had doubled
theirs:

      Great Britain   Germany      France       Russia       Italy        Austro-Hungary
1904  £13,508,176     £4,275,489   £4,370,102   £4,480,188   £1,121,753   £1,329,590
1908    8,660,202      7,795,499    4,193,544   2,703,721     1,866,158    716,662
1911   17,566,877     11,710,859    5,876,659   3,240,394     2,677,302    3,125,000
1912   17,271,527     11,491,157    6,997,552   7,904,094     2,500,000    3,620,881
1913   13,276,400     11,176,407    7,595,010  10,953,616     2,800,000    3,280,473

GERMANY’S NAVAL PROBLEM

Between 1909 and 1914 British leaders became convinced, as France and
Russia and other countries had long been certain, that Germany meant
war as soon as she was ready; that her policy was to take the two
border enemies, or rivals, first with a great war-machine which would
give them no chance for preparation or success, to dictate a peace
which would give her control of the sea-coasts and channel touching
Britain, to make that country the seat of war preparations, naval
uncertainty, perhaps financial difficulty and commercial injury, to
prepare at leisure for the war which would conquer England and acquire
her colonies. In the first-named year British statesmen of both parties
told an amazed Parliament and country that German naval construction of
big ships was approaching the British standard, that the cherished
policy of a British navy equal to those of any two other nations was
absolutely gone, that England would be lucky if, in a few years, she
held a 60 per cent superiority over that of Germany alone, that the
latter country’s naval construction was clearly aimed at Britain and
could be for no other than a hostile purpose. British ships had already
been recalled from the Seven Seas to hold the North Sea against the
growing naval power of a nation which had 5,000,000 soldiers behind its
ships as compared with England’s 250,000 men scattered over the world.
From that date in 1909 all who shared in the statecraft of the British
Empire understood the issue to be a real one—with France and Russia as
allies or without them.

What was back of this situation? Germany was already dominant in
Continental Europe. It had compelled Russia to submit when Austria in
1908 annexed the Slav states of Bosnia and Herzegovina and defied
Servia to interfere or its proud patron at St. Petersburg to prevent
the humiliation; it had brought France to her knees over the Morocco
incident and the Delcasse resignation, and would have done so again in
1911 if Great Britain had not ranged herself behind the French
republic; it held the issues of peace and war between the great Powers
during the Balkan struggles of 1912 and 1913 and prevented Servia from
winning its legitimate fruits of victory or Montenegro from holding
what it had won; it had watched with delight the defeat of unorganized
Russia at the hands of Japan and saw what its writers described as a
decadent British Empire holding in feeble hands a quarter of the earth
in fee, with revolt coming in Ireland, rebellion seething in India,
dissatisfaction in South Africa, separation upon the horizon in Canada
and Australia. Here lay the secret of German naval policy, of German
hopes that Britain would remain out of the inevitable struggle with
France and Russia, of German ambitions for a world-empire.

GERMAN AMBITIONS

The German nation had not up to the passing of Bismarck been the enemy
of the British people and until its belated entrance upon the field of
world politics and expansion the people had not even been rivals. In
the long series of European wars between 1688 and 1815, the German
states were allies and friends of England. After that, Prussia, and
then the German Empire, became gradually a great national force in the
world and its spirit of unity, pride of power, energy in trade, skill
and success in industry, vigor of development in tariffs, progress in
military power and naval construction were, from the standpoint of its
own people, altogether admirable. Following the Franco-Prussian War it
had steadily attained a position of European supremacy. Then came the
increase of population and trade, the desire for colonies, the
restriction of emigration to foreign countries.

It was a natural though difficult ambition. The marriage of Queen
Wilhelmina, and later the birth of a heir, averted any immediate
probability of acquiring Holland and, with it, the Dutch colonial
possessions, except by means of force. The assertion of the United
States’ Monroe Doctrine checked German efforts which had been directed
to South America and concentrated in Brazil, where 100,000 Germans had
settled and where trade relations had become very close. British
diplomacy of a trade, as well as political character, in Persia,
prevented certain railway schemes from being carried out, which would
have given Germany a dominating influence in Asia Minor and on the
Persian Gulf. Although the partition of Africa gave the German Empire
nearly one million square miles and an obvious opening for colonization
and power, the inexperience and ineptitude of German officials in
Colonial government, the dislike, also, of Germans for emigration and
the fact that the movement of settlers abroad steadily decreased in
late years, tended to prevent, on the Continent, an expansion which
would have been assured under British colonization and business effort.

At the same time the acquisition of these and other regions such as
Samoa was significant. Prior to 1870 Germany was a geographical
expression which meant a loose combination of States with sometimes
clashing interests, and incoherent expression, and varied patriotism.
German trade was then small, the industries too poor to compete with
those of Britain, while its people possessed not an acre of soil beyond
their European boundaries. Since then it had become a closely-united
people with an army of over five million men—admittedly the
best-trained troops in the world; with a trade totalling $4,400,000,000
and competing in Britain’s home market, taking away her contracts in
India and some of the colonies, beating her in many foreign fields;
with an industrial production which included great steel works such as
Krupps, ship-building yards said to be of greater productive power than
those of Britain, factories of well-kept character operating at high
pressure with workmen trained in the best technical system of the world
today; with other productive conditions aided by high protective duties
and with exports totalling (1910) $2,020,000,000 and imports of
$2,380,000,000; with Savings Bank deposits in 1911 totalling
$4,500,000.0000 as against a British total of $1,135,000,000.

Couple these conditions with Colonial ambitions dwarfed, or
unsuccessful in comparison with British success; continental power as
supreme, by virtue of military strength, as Napoleon’s was one hundred
years before by the force of genius, but hampered, as was his, by the
power of Britain on the seas; a productive force of industry increasing
out of all proportion to home requirements, competing with British
commerce in every corner of the world and threatened by a possible but
finally postponed combination of British countries in a system of
inter-Empire tariffs; a population of 64,000,000, increasing at the
rate of one million a year and having no suitable opening for
emigration or settlement within its own territories; and we have
conditions which explained and emphasized German naval construction.
Both German ambition and German naval construction were therefore
easily comprehensible.

Nor was the ambition for sea-power concealed. The first large naval
program was passed by the Reichstag in 1898 and fixed the naval
estimate up to 1903, when the total expenditure was to be
$45,000,000—in 1906 the naval expenditure was over $60,000,000. The
second Naval Bill was passed in 1900 during the Boer War, and the
preamble to this Act stated that its object was to give Germany “a
fleet of such strength that even for the mightiest Naval Power, a war
with her would involve such risks as to endanger its own supremacy.”
Other Acts were passed in 1906 and 1908, and for the years 1908 to 1917
arrangements were made for a total expenditure of $1,035,000,000—this
including a portion of the “accelerated program” and the Special
Dreadnought construction which caused the memorable debate in the
British Commons in 1909.

The Law of 1912—passing the Reichstag on May 21st of that year—provided
for an addition to the program of three battleships, three large
cruisers and three small ones. During the years 1898–1904 Great Britain
launched 26 battleships to Germany’s 14, with 27 armored cruisers, 17
protected cruisers and 55 destroyers to Germany’s 5, 16 and 35
respectively, or a total of 125 to 70. In 1905–11 Great Britain
launched 20 battleships to Germany’s 15, with 13 armored cruisers, 10
protected cruisers and 80 destroyers to Germany’s 6, 16 and 70
respectively, or a total of 123 to 107. Excluding destroyers Great
Britain launched 70 sea-going warships in the first period to Germany’s
25 and in the second period 43 to 37.

PREPARATION FOR WAR

Meanwhile German preparations for war went on apace in every direction.
Following up the war teachings of Nietzsche and Treitschke and others,
General Von Bernhardi issued book after book defining in clear language
the alleged national beneficence, biological desirability and
inevitability of war, which, when it came, would be “fought to conquer
for Germany the rank of a world-power;” the universities and schools
and press teemed with militarist ideals and practices; the army charges
rose to $250,000,000 and the trained soldiers available at the
beginning of 1910 were alleged to have 6,000 field-guns; Colonel
Gaedke, the German naval expert, stated on February 24th of that year
that the German government was building a fleet of 58 battleships and
that “the time is gradually approaching when the German fleet will be
superior to all the fleets of the world, with the single exception of
the English fleet,” and that in the past twelve years Germany had spent
on new ships alone 63,200,000 pounds, or $316,000,000, while between
then and 1914 she would spend 57,500,000 pounds more, or $287,500,000.

The annual report of the German Navy League in 1910 showed a total of
1,031,339 members as against an estimated membership in Britain’s
League of 20,000. Professor T. Schieman of the University of Berlin, in
the New York MCCLURE’S MAGAZINE for May of that year, clearly stated
that Germany would not submit in future to British naval supremacy or
to any limitation of armaments. During this period, also, Heligoland,
the island handed over by Britain in 1890 in exchange for certain East
African rights, became the key and center of the whole German coast
defense system against England. Cuxhaven, Borkum, Emden,
Wilhelmshaven—with twice as many Dreadnought docks as
Portsmouth—Wangeroog, Bremerhaven, Geestemunde, etc., were
magnificently fortified and guarded. Whether dictated by diplomatic
considerations and affected latterly by the British-French alliance or
influenced by Colonial and naval and commercial ambitions, there could
be no doubt as to the danger of the situation at the beginning of 1914.
In a book entitled “England and Germany,” published during 1912, Mr. A.
J. Balfour, the British conservative leader, replied to various German
contributors and gave the British view of the situation:

It must be remembered in the first place that we are a commercial
nation, and war, whatever its issue, is ruinous to commerce and to the
credit on which commerce depends. It must be remembered in the second
place that we are a political nation, and unprovoked war (by us) would
shatter in a day the most powerful Government and the most united
party. It must be remembered in the third place that we are an insular
nation, wholly dependent upon sea-borne supplies, possessing no
considerable army, either for home defense or foreign service, and
compelled therefore to play for very unequal stakes should Germany be
our opponent in the hazardous game of war. It is this last
consideration which I should earnestly ask enlightened Germans to weigh
well if they would understand the British point of view. It can be made
clear in a very few sentences. There are two ways in which a hostile
country can be crushed. It can be conquered or it can be starved. If
Germany were supreme in our home waters she could apply both methods to
Britain. Were Britain ten times Mistress in the North Sea she could
apply neither method to Germany. Without a superior fleet Britain would
no longer count as a Power. Without any fleet at all Germany would
remain the greatest power in Europe.

The Balkan wars proved and strengthened the power of Germany in
diplomacy and in the Eastern Question, while it showed that a deadly
struggle between nations might spring to an issue in a few days and a
million armed men leap into war at a word. The enormous German special
taxation of $250,000,000 authorized in the first part of 1913 for an
additional military establishment of 4,000 officers, 15,000
non-commissioned officers and 117,000 men indicated the basic strength
of the people’s military feeling, and ensured the still greater
predominance of its army.

EFFECT ON THE EMPIRE

When war broke out on August 1, 1914, between the five greater Powers
of Europe—Great Britain, Russia and France, on the one side and Germany
and Austria on the other—the issue was at once brought home to about
450 millions of people in America, Asia and Africa who were connected
with these nations by ties of allegiance or government, by racial
association, or historic conquest. Of these peoples and lands by far
the greater proportion were in the British Empire and included India,
Burmah, South Africa, Australia, Canada and a multitude of smaller
states and countries. Not the least remarkable of the events which
ensued in the succeeding early weeks of the great War was the
extraordinary way in which this vast and complex Empire found itself as
a unit in fighting force, a unit in sentiment, a unit in co-operative
action. Irish sedition, whether “loyal or disloyal,” Protestant or
Catholic, largely vanished like the shadow of an evil dream; Indian
talk of civil war and trouble disappeared; South African threats of
rebellion took form in a feeble effort which melted away under the
pressure of a Boer statesman and leader—General Botha; the idea that
Colonial Dominions were seeking separation and would now find it proved
as evanescent as a light mist before the sun. The following table
indicates the nature of the resources of opposing nations and the
character of their Colonial sources of support:


                Wealth            Population    Total Army   Navy   Population of Colonies
Great Britain   $80,000,000,000   45,000,000    800,000      681    368,000,000
France          65,000,000,000    39,000,000  2,100,000      382     41,000,000
Russia          40,000,000,000   171,000,000  8,000,000      249      5,000,000
Germany         60,000,000,000    65,000,000  5,000,000      354     12,000,000
Austria         25,000,000,000    49,000,000  2,200,000      155


It was a curious characteristic of the press comments and magazine
articles and book studies of the War during these months that while
varied fighting was going on in the various Colonies of these Powers
and in the case of Great Britain, notably, countries like Canada,
Australia, New Zealand and India were pouring out men and gifts to aid
the Empire, statistical calculations usually rated Great Britain as not
an Empire but simply a nation with the wealth and population of its two
little islands in the North Sea.

Properly the $80,000,000,000 of estimated British wealth should have e
included the thousands of millions of treasure in India and Egypt, the
gold mines and diamond resources of South Africa, the wheat fields and
mines of Canada, the sheep farms and gold of Australia and many other
sources; the estimate of population should have included the countless
millions from which Britain could draw and did draw in the day of
emergency. In this vast Empire British capital had been invested to an
enormous amount—the estimated total in 1914 being $2,570,0000,000 for
Canada and Newfoundland, $1,893,000,000 in India and
Ceylon,$1,850,000,000 in south Africa, $1,660,000,000 in Australia, or
a total in all British countries of $8,900,000,000. When the War broke
out these Dominions endeavored to help the Mother Country in every
possible way and the following table shows what was done in Canada
alone during the first few months of the conflict:

THE DOMINION

Expeditionary force of over 32,000 men, fully equipped; 50,000 others
under training for the front. Over 200 field and machine guns. Two
submarines, for general service ($1,050,000); H.M.C.S. Niobe and
Rainbow for general service. 1,000,000 bags of flour. $100,000 for
“Hospice Canadien” in France. $50,000 for the relief of Belgian
sufferers.

THE PROVINCES

ALBERTA: 500,000 bushels of oats; 5,000 bags of flour for Belgians.
Civil service, 5 per cent of salaries up to $1500 per annum, and 10 per
cent in excess of that amount to Canadian Patriotic Fund.

BRITISH COLUMBIA: 25,000 cases of canned salmon; $5,000 to Belgian
Relief Fund.

MANITOBA: 10,000 men; 50,000 bags of flour; $5,000 to Belgian Relief
Fund.

NEW BRUNSWICK: 1,000 men; 100,000 bushels of potatoes, 15,000 barrels
of potatoes for Belgium.

NOVA SCOTIA: $100,000 to the Prince of Wales Fund; apples for the
troops; food and clothing for Belgium.

ONTARIO: $500,000; 250,000 bags of flour; 100,000 lbs of evaporated
apples for the Navy; $15,000 to the Belgian Relief Fund.

PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND: 100,000 bushels of oats; cheese and hay.

QUEBEC: 4,000,000 lbs of cheese; $25,000 to Belgian Relief Fund.

SASKATCHEWAN: 1,500 horses ($250,000); $5,000 to Belgian Relief Fund

THE YUKON: $6,000 to the Canadian Patriotic fund

THE CITIES

OTTAWA: $300,000 (for machine gun sections—4 guns on armored motors and
a detachment of 30 men); $50,000 to the Canadian Patriotic Fund.

QUEBEC: $20,000 Canadian Patriotic fund; insuring lives of Quebec
volunteers.

MONTREAL: $150,000 (Canadian Patriotic Fund); battery of quick-firing
guns; $10,000 to Belgian Relief fund.

TORONTO: $50,000 (Canadian Patriotic Fund); insuring lives of all
Toronto volunteers; 100 horses for training purposes; carload for
Belgians of canned provisions.

WINNIPEG: $5,000 monthly to Patriotic Fund

REGINA: $1,000 for comfort of the city’s soldiers; $62,500 To Belgian
Relief Fund.

CALGARY: 1,000 MEN (Legion of Frontiersmen).

HAMILTON: $20,000 Patriotic Fund; $5,000 for local relief.

BERLIN: $10,000 Patriotic Fund.

ST. JOHNS, N.B. $10,000 Patriotic Fund; $2,000 Belgian Fund

THE WOMEN OF CANADA: Building, equipping and maintenance of “Canadian
Women’s Hospital” of 100 beds to supplement Naval Hospital at Haslar
($182,857); $100,000 To War Office (40 motor ambulance cars purchased).
Women of Nova Scotia $15,170 ($7,000 to Hospital, $5,000 Canadian
Patriotic fund and rest to Red Cross).

THE BANKS AND THE PATRIOTIC FUNDS

BANK OF MONTREAL $110,000
CANADIAN BANK OF COMMERCE 50,000
ROYAL BANK OF CANADA 50,000
MERCHANTS BANK 30,000
DOMINION BANK 25,000
UNION BANK OF CANADA 25,000
BANK OF TORONTO 25,000
BANK OF OTTAWA 25,000
BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA 25,000
BANK OF HAMILTON 25,000
BANK OF BRITISH NORTH AMERICA 25,000


Little Newfoundland sent a contingent of 510; placed a Naval Reserve
force of 1,000 men in training and prepared a second contingent of 500
men, while contributing $120,000 to a local Patriotic Fund. Australia
handed over its fleet of battleships and cruisers to the Admiralty and
one of these, The Sydney, captured the Emden of German fame, while the
New Zealand, a dreadnought from the Island Dominion of that name, held
a place in the North Sea fighting line. Australia also sent 20,000 men
who saw service before the end of the year in Egypt, provided reserves
and prepared two more contingents, while sending donations of all kinds
of food supplies for the poor in Britain or for the Belgian refugees.
From India at once went a portion of the British Army which was
replaced by native troops and then a large contingent of the latter,
which took part in the protection of Egypt and in the fighting in
France.

The great Princes of India—notably the Maharajahs of Nepaul, Gwalior,
Patiala, Baratppur, Sikkim and Dholpur—placed the entire military
resources of tens of millions of people at the disposal of the
King-Emperor. The Maharajah of Rewa cabled this splendid message: “What
orders from His Majesty for me and my troops?” The Nizam of Hyderabad
and the Maharajah of Bikanir offered not only their troops, but the
entire resources of their great states and their own personal services
at the front. Bengal gave a million bags of jute for the army and the
Maharajah of Mysore proffered 3,500 men and 50 lakhs of rupees (about
$350,000). Practically all the 700 native rulers of states in India
offered personal services, men and money. For active personal service
the Viceroy selected the Chiefs of Jodhpur, Bikanir, Kishangarh,
Rutlam, Sachin, Patiala, Sir Pertab Singh, Regent of Jodhpur, and
others. Contingents of cavalry and infantry, supplies and transports
were forwarded besides a camel corps from Bikanir, horses from many
states, machine guns, hospital-bed contributions, motor cars and large
gifts to the Patriotic and Belgian Relief Funds. New Zealand sent a
first contingent of 8,000 troops and relief forces, prepared to send
more and promised, like Canada and Australia, to continue training and
sending troops as long as they should be required. On the other hand
Great Britain undertook to finance the actual military operations of
these countries by lending the four Dominions $210,000,000 and
undertaking to provide more when needed.

It was with this unity, and in this spirit, that the British Empire
entered the great War for the redemption of its pledges to Belgium and
adherence to its French obligations—Russia only coming indirectly into
the first stage of the question and Japan, through the force of its
Treaty, undertaking to guard British interests in the East.



Chapter V.
THE WORLD’S GREATEST WAR


Wars as Mileposts—A Continent in Arms—How Canada Prepared for War—the
British Sentiment—Lord Kitchener’s Career—A Forceful Character

The history of the leading events in the nations of Europe during a
hundred years of the past, so far as they related to the decline of
autocratic power in the monarchs and the development of popular rights
and liberty, has been given in the preceding chapters, where it is
brought down to the close of the Balkan War and the opening of the
great war that succeeded in 1914. As regards this war, its story cannot
be told or even summarized in a chapter, but some indication of its
general character may be given.

WARS AS MILEPOSTS

Wars serve as convenient mileposts in the history of mankind. They deal
with the great struggles which break up the monotony of peace and bring
the nations into volcanic relations. They have been many and their
causes and effects various; strifes for spoil or dominion; savage
invasions of civilized lands; overflow of vast areas by conquering
tribes or nations. But among all the world has so far known there has
been none so stupendous in character, so portentous in purpose, so vast
in fighting multitudes, so terrible in bloodshed, as the one with which
we are here concerned, the lurid meeting of the nations on the
blood-stained fields of battle which broke upon the quiet of the world
with startling suddenness in the summer of 1914. Launched on the
borders of little Servia, it soon had the continent for its field of
action, and all but one of the greater nations of Europe for its
participants. It may therefore fitly be designated the Great War. Great
it was, alike in the number and strength of the Powers involved, in the
enormous array of armed men engaged, in the destructive power of the
weapons employed, in the loss of life and waste of wealth that attended
its earthquaking development.

In reading the history of the past we find it thickly strewn with
stories of fierce battles, a day, two days, rarely much longer in
extent, protracted intervals of marching and countermarching succeeding
before the armies again locked horns. Such was the case in the American
Civil War, in which the three days’ battle at Gettysburg was the
greatest in length, if the six days’ fighting before Richmond be taken
to constitute a succession of battles.

In the Russo-Japanese war much longer struggles took place. The armies
at Liaoyung fought for eight days and those before Mukden for twenty
days. But a more obstinate struggle still was that of September and
October, 1914, when two armies, stretched out over a line two hundred
miles or more in length, fought with ceaseless fury, by day and night
alike, for more than a month. On the moving picture screen of time this
vast conflict stands out without parallel in the world’s annals, the
most unyielding, incessant battling ever known.

A CONTINENT IN ARMS

In the giant warfare here described we behold a continent, well nigh a
world, in arms. Along the rivers north of Paris three powerful nations,
Germany, France and Britain, wrestled like mighty behemoths for
supremacy. Far eastward, on the borders of Russia, Austria and Germany,
two other great Powers, Russia and Austria, with German armies to aid
the latter, strove with equal fury for victory.

Thus raged the Great War. How many took part it is difficult to
estimate. Among the war tales of the past the most stupendous army on
record is that of Xerxes, said by Herodotus to number 2,317,600 men,
who marched from Asia to face defeat in the diminutive land of Greece.
How large this fabulously great army really was we shall never know,
but even at the figures given it was dwarfed by the hosts in arms in
the Great European War, in which between four and five million men
fought with fierceness unsurpassed.

The field of action of this mighty contest was not confined to Europe.
On the far-off border of Asia another Power, the warlike empire of
Japan, sent forth its soldiers to drive the Germans from China. In
Africa and on the South Pacific the colonists of Britain set other
forces in motion to invade the German colonial regions. From British
India sailed a strong array of dark-skinned warriors to take part in
the war in France. From Algeria and Senegal came hordes of sable
recruits for the French army, and from the cities and provinces of the
Dominion of Canada came still another army of ardent patriots eager to
aid the forces of their fatherland. We may well speak of the contest as
not one of a continent but of the entire world.

HOW CANADA PREPARED FOR WAR

The story of the patriotic ardor of the Canadians is of interest, as
given by a correspondent of the London GRAPHIC, who passed through the
Dominion after the opening of the war.

“The news of the great war came like a bolt from the blue. The effect
was startling. The ordinary flow of Canadian life was suddenly
arrested. The customary routine seemed to stop dead still. The whole of
Canadian thought and much of the people’s energy were switched on to
the great staggering fact that Europe was at war, and the old country
fighting for its life. A most wonderful and touching patriotism welled
up in the heart of the Canadians. The air became electric with
excitement and enthusiasm. The prairie was indeed on fire. Passing
through English towns on my journey to London the calm and peaceful
demeanor of the people and the even flow of life seemed in strange
contrast with the land I had just left, where the population was
throbbing with loyal passion, and the war dominated the existence of
the inhabitants, high and low, from Victoria to Halifax. One Canadian
scene that remains impressed upon my mind was the sea of upturned faces
in front of the offices of the Calgary News Telegram—every ear
straining to the point where the war news was announced at intervals
through a megaphone.

“‘We stand shoulder to shoulder.’ Sir Robert Borden, the Premier, had
said, ‘with Britain and the other British Dominions in this quarrel,
and that duty we shall not fail to fulfil as the honor of Canada
demands.’ It is being fulfilled in a score of different ways, but
mainly in the practical spirit that is characteristic of the country.
The Dominion is the Empire’s granary, and through the granary doors, as
the Motherland knows, are passing huge gifts of food to the British
population. At the same time the stoppage of the export of all
foodstuffs to other countries is proposed.

“Soon the Dominion began to mobilize. Regiments seemed to spring up, as
if by magic, from the ground—not hordes of untrained men, but stalwart
horsemen, accustomed to the rifle and inured to a hard outdoor life.
The Germans will knock against another ‘bit of hard stuff’ when they
meet the Canadian contingents. One of the regiments carries the name of
the Princess Patricia, who, by the way, holds quite a unique position
in the hearts of the people. The popular Princess was, shortly after I
left, to have presented her regiment with their colors—worked by her
own hands.

“Londoners were happy in the knowledge that more such men could be
sent, if necessary, up to 200,000 in number—such was the earnestness of
the people. One met this practical earnestness in a dozen different
directions—in such facts, for instance, as the conversion of the great
Winnipeg Industrial Hall into a military training center—and not the
least significant feature in the situation is the manner in which the
prevalent enthusiasm had spread to the American inhabitants of the
country. The trade intimacy between the United States and the Dominion
was, indeed, constantly growing, and the many great American
manufacturing concerns which had planted themselves in Canada had
attained prosperity. It was pleasant and reassuring to think that this
had not weakened the ties of attachment to the old country. In the days
to succeed the war the Dominion can look back with pride upon the part
she bore in sustaining the arms of Mother England, and can take her
place with happy confidence and added strength as the eldest daughter
in the great family of British peoples.”

The enthusiasm thus indicated among the Canadians, which had its
outcome in the despatch of 323,000 sons of the dominion in late
September to the seat of war, to be quickly followed by a second
contingent, was paralleled in India, which sent to France 70,000 of its
dusky sons to join the struggling hosts. As for the remaining countries
of the British empire, Australia, South Africa, East Africa, etc., a
similar sentiment of loyalty prevailed, manifested there by the sending
of contingents or in expeditions against the German colonies in the
South Sea and in Africa. The whole empire was ready to support the
mother country.

Certainly the Kaiser of Germany, William the War Lord, had set loose in
the air a nest of hornets to sting his well-trained warriors. By his
side stood only Austria, a composite empire which soon found all its
strength too little to hold back the mighty Russian tide that swept
across its borders. Thus this one stalwart nation, with its weak
auxiliary, was forced to face now east, now west, against a continent
in arms. It is difficult to imagine that the Kaiser could have hoped to
succeed, despite the training of his people and the strength of his
artillery. “God fights with the heaviest battalions,” said one who
knew, and the weight of battalions, though at first on William’s side,
could not remain so.

THE BRITISH SENTIMENT

While the British people, with their lack of a system of militarism,
were not in condition to send large bodies of troops at once to the aid
of the mobilized French, they were soon ready to despatch a useful
contingent of trained men. Probably the German emperor counted upon the
disturbance in Ireland between the Ulsterites and the people of the
Catholic provinces to tie the hands of the government, but these people
at once suspended their hostile sentiments in favor of the larger needs
of their country. In England itself the militant suffragettes showed
equal patriotism, at once agreeing to desist from all acts of violence
and offering to aid their country to the extent of their powers.

LORD KITCHENER’S CAREER

The British government appointed Lord Kitchener, the hero of many
successful expeditions, Secretary of State for War, putting the whole
management of military affairs into his competent hands. His fitness
for this was thoroughly attested by his long and brilliant service, and
as the presence of Napoleon was said to be equal to an army, so was
that of this able military leader.

For those who are not familiar with Kitchener’s career a brief
statement concerning it may be useful. Born in 1850, Horatio Herbert
Kitchener entered the army in 1871, was in civil life 1874–82, then
returned to army duty. He took part in the Nile expedition of 1884 for
the rescue of General Gordon and commanded a brigade in the Suakim
campaign of 1888. Governor of Suakim 1886–88, adjutant-general of the
Egyptian army 1888–92, he was appointed to the command of this army,
with the Egyptian rank of Sirdar, in 1890.

His service in Egypt was during the period of the Mahdi outbreak, which
began in 1883, defeated all the armies sent to quell it, and for years
held the Sudan region of Egypt. In 1896 Kitchener set out for its
suppression, recovering Dongola, and organizing an expedition against
the Khalifa, the successor of the Mahdi. He defeated the Dervish army
of the Khalifa in April, 1898, and on September 2d of that year utterly
crushed the Dervish hosts at Omdurman, regaining the Sudan for Egypt
and Britain.

This exploit brought him the thanks of parliament and the title of
baron, with a grant of 30,000 pounds and a sword of honor. In 1899 he
went with Lord Roberts to South Africa as chief of staff, and on Lord
Roberts’ return in 1900 he succeeded him as commander-in-chief and
brought the Boer War to a successful conclusion. He was now made full
general, with the rank of viscount, and subsequently served as
commander-in-chief in India.

A FORCEFUL CHARACTER

In an illuminating article in COLLIER’S WEEKLY, the well-known Irish
journalist, T. P. O’Connor, thus brought out the character of the hero
of Khartoum:

“I attribute something of the Lord Kitchener we know to the fact that,
though English by blood, he spent the first years of his life in
wandering over the hills and looking down on the sea-tossed shores of
County Kerry. That tact which enabled him to settle the issue with
Marchand, the French explorer, at Fashoda, suggests some of the lessons
in the soft answer which Ireland can teach. You remember how, when it
was possible that a collision between him and Marchand might mean a war
between England and France, Lord Kitchener sent some fresh vegetables
and champagne to the daring French explorer, who had gone through the
hunger, thirst, and hardship of the desert for months. Marchand had to
go from Fashoda all the same, but he went with no personal grievance.

“If I look for the roots of Lord Kitchener’s greatness, I trace them to
intense ambition to succeed, to make the most of his
opportunities—above all, to the incessant desire to work and fill every
hour of his days with something done. He is sent as a youngster to
Palestine, through peril to life, through great privation, through
heart-breaking drudgery, he pursues his work until he has completed a
map of all western Palestine to the amazement and delight of his
employers. And he values this experience so largely because he learns
Arabic, and, above all, he learns the Arabic character. One of the
chroniclers of his career makes the apt observation that, while the
baton of the marshal is in every French soldier’s knapsack, Kitchener
found his coronet in the Arab grammar. But how many soldiers or men of
any class would have devoted the leisure hours of a fiercely active
task like Kitchener’s in Palestine to the study of one of the most
difficult of languages?

“Hard work, patience, and the utilization of every second of time, the
eagerness always to learn—these are the chief secrets of Lord
Kitchener’s enormous success in life. But the man who works himself is
ineffective in great things unless he has the gift to choose the men
who can work for him and with him. This choice of subordinates is one
of Lord Kitchener’s greatest powers. He nearly always has had the right
man in the right place. And his men return his confidence because he
gives them absolute confidence. He never thinks of asking a subordinate
whether he has done the job he has given him; he takes that for
granted, knowing his man; and he never worries his subordinates.

“This is one of the reasons why, though he works so terrifically, he
never is tired, never worried. He sits down at his desk at the War
Office for about ten hours a day; but he sits there calmly, isn’t
ringing at bells and shouting down pipes; he does it all so quietly
that it seems mere pastime; and the effect of this perfect tranquillity
produces an extraordinary result on those who work with him. They also
do their work easily, tranquilly, and without feeling it.

“A great soldier certainly; but perhaps a greater organizer than
anything else. This is his supreme quality, and for that quality there
is necessary, above all things, a clear, penetrating brain. He doesn’t
form any visions—as Napoleon used to complain of some of his marshals.
At school he was celebrated for his knowledge of mathematics, and
especially for his phenomenal rapidity in dealing with figures, and it
was not accident that so truly a scientific mind found its natural
place in the engineers. A mathematician, an engineer, a man of science,
a great accountant—these things he has been in all his enterprises. It
was these qualities that enabled him to make that astounding railway
which brought Cairo almost into touch with the Khalifa, who, with his
predecessor, the Mahdi, and with his tragically potent ally, the hungry
and all-devouring desert, had beaten back so many other attempts to
reach and to beat him.

“This man, who has fought such tremendous and historic battles and
confronted great odds, is yet a man who prefers a deal to a struggle;
and, though he can be so stern, has yet a diplomatic tact that gets him
and his country out of difficult hours. The nature, doubtless, is
complex, and stern determination and tenacity are part of it; but there
is also the other side, which is much forgotten—especially by that
class of writers who have to describe human character as rigidly
symmetrical and unnaturally harmonious.

“That cold and penetrating eye of his makes it impossible to imagine
anybody taking any liberties with Lord Kitchener; yet one of his
greatest qualities, at once useful and charming, is his accessibility.
Anybody who has anything to say to him can approach him; anybody who
has anything to teach him will find a ready and grateful learner. This
is one of the secrets of his extraordinary success and universal
popularity in Egypt. Lord Cromer was a great Egyptian ruler, and his
services are imperishable and gigantic; but Lord Cromer was the stern,
solitary, and inaccessible bureaucrat who worked innumerable hours
every day at his desk, never learned the Arabic language, and possibly
never quite grasped the Arab nature. Lord Kitchener is the cadi under
the tree. The mayor or the citizens of the little Arab village can come
to him, and the old soldier, and even the fellah, alone; and they will
find Lord Kitchener ready to listen and to talk to them in their own
tongue, to enter with gusto into the pettiest details of their daily
and squalid lives, and ready also to apply the remedy to such
grievances as commend themselves to his judgment.

“As an illustration of his accessibility, let me repeat a delicious
story which delighted all Egypt. An old peasant came out of the depths
of the land all the way to Cairo to see the great Kitchener, with the
complaint that his white mule had been stolen. The whole official
machinery was interrupted for a while, and the old fellah went back
with his white mule. You can fancy how that story was repeated in every
fellah cabin in the land, and how the devotion to Kitchener and trust
in his justice and in his sympathy went trumpet-tongued among this
race, downtrodden and neglected almost from the beginning of time.”

Such is the man who, when chosen to head the British War Department,
had his bed sent to the office, that he might be on duty day and night
if needed; who insisted that no raw recruits should be sent to the
front, but put them through a rigid system of drill and physical
exercise to toughen their muscles and fit them for the work of a
soldier; who said that there would be abundant time for fighting, as in
his judgment there was a year or more of war in prospect.



Chapter VI.
THE EARTHQUAKE OF NAPOLEONISM


Its Effect on National conditions Finally Led to the War of 1914

Its Effect on National Conditions Finally Led to the War of 1914
Conditions in France and Germany—The Campaign in Italy—The Victory at
Marengo—Moreau at Hohenlinden—The Consul Made Emperor—The Code
Napoleon—Campaign of 1805—Battle of Austerlitz—The Conquest of
Prussia—The Invasion of Poland—Eylau and Friedland—Campaign of
1809—Victory at Wagram—The Campaign in Spain—The Invasion of Russia—A
Fatal Retreat—Dresden and Leipzig—The Hundred Days—The Congress of
Vienna—The Holy Alliance

When, after a weary climb, we find ourselves on the summit of a lofty
mountain, and look back from that commanding altitude over the ground
we have traversed, what is it that we behold? The minor details of the
scenery, many of which seemed large and important to us as we passed,
are now lost to view, and we see only the great and imposing features
of the landscape, the high elevations, the town-studded valleys, the
deep and winding streams, the broad forests. It is the same when, from
the summit of an age, we gaze backward over the plain of time. The
myriad of petty happenings are lost to sight, and we see only the
striking events, the critical epochs, the mighty crises through which
the world has passed. These are the things that make true history, not
the daily doings in the king’s palace or the peasant’s hut. What we
should seek to observe and store up in our memories are the turning
points in human events, the great thoughts which have ripened into
noble deeds, the hands of might which have pushed the world forward in
its career; not the trifling occurrences which signify nothing, the
passing actions which have borne no fruit in human affairs. It is with
such turning points, such critical periods in modern history, that we
are here dealing; not to picture the passing bubbles on the stream of
time, but to point out the great ships which have sailed up that stream
laden with a noble freight. This is history in its deepest and best
aspect, and we have set our camera to photograph only the men who have
made and the events which constitute history in the phase here
outlined.

The first fifteen years of the nineteenth century in Europe yield us
the history of a man rather than of a continent. France was the center
of Europe; Napoleon, the Corsican, was the center of France. All the
affairs of all the nations seemed to gather around this genius of war.
He was respected, feared, hated; he had risen with the suddenness of a
thunder-cloud on a clear horizon, and flashed the lightnings of victory
in the dazzled eyes of the nations. All the events of the period were
concentrated into one great event, and the name of that event was
Napoleon. He seemed incarnate war, organized destruction; sword in
hand, he dominated the nations, and victory sat on his banners with
folded wings. He was, in a full sense, the man of destiny, and Europe
was his prey.

Never has there been a more wonderful career. The earlier great
conquerors began life at the top; Napoleon began his at the bottom.
Alexander was a king; Caesar was an aristocrat of the Roman republic;
Napoleon rose from the people, and was not even a native of the land
which became the scene of his exploits. Pure force of military genius
lifted him from the lowest to the highest place among mankind, and for
long and terrible years Europe shuddered at his name and trembled
beneath the tread of his marching legions. As for France, he brought it
glory and left it ruin and dismay.

The career of Napoleon Bonaparte began in a very modest way. Born in
Corsica and trained in a military school in France, his native ability
as a man of action was first made evident in 1794, when, under the
orders of the National Convention, he quelled the mob of Paris with
loaded cannon and put a final end to the Reign of Terror that had long
prevailed.

Placed at the head of the French army in Italy, Napoleon quickly
astonished the world by a series of the most brilliant victories,
defeating the Austrians and the Sardinians wherever he met them,
seizing Venice, the city of the lagoon, and forcing almost all Italy to
submit to his arms. A republic was established here and a new one in
Switzerland, while Belgium and the left bank of the Rhine were held by
France.

His wars here at an end, Napoleon’s ambition led him to Egypt, inspired
by great designs which he failed to realize. In his absence anarchy
arose in France. The five Directors, then at the head of the
government, had lost all authority, and Napoleon, who had unexpectedly
returned, did not hesitate to overthrow them and the Assembly which
supported them. A new government, with three Consuls at its head, was
formed, Napoleon, as First Consul, holding almost royal power. Thus
France stood in 1800, at the end of the eighteenth century.

CONDITIONS IN FRANCE AND GERMANY

In the remainder of Europe there was nothing to compare with the
momentous convulsion which had taken place in France. England had gone
through its two revolutions more than a century before, and its people
were the freest of any in Europe. Recently it had lost its colonies in
America, but it still held in that continent the broad domain of
Canada, and was building for itself a new empire in India, while
founding colonies in twenty other lands. In commerce and manufactures
it entered the nineteenth century as the greatest nation on the earth.
The hammer and the loom resounded from end to end of the island, mighty
centers of industry arose where cattle had grazed a century before,
coal and iron were being torn in great quantities from the depths of
the earth, and there seemed everywhere an endless bustle and whirr. The
ships of England haunted all seas and visited the most remote ports,
laden with the products of her workshops and bringing back raw material
for her factories and looms. Wealth accumulated, London became the
money market of the world, the riches and prosperity of the island
kingdom were growing to be a parable among the nations of the earth.

On the continent of Europe, Prussia, destined in time to become great,
had recently emerged from its medieval feebleness, mainly under the
powerful hand of Frederick the Great, whose reign extended until 1786,
and whose ambition, daring, and military genius made him a fitting
predecessor of Napoleon the Great, who so soon succeeded him in the
annals of war. Unscrupulous in his aims, this warrior king had torn
Silesia from Austria, added to his kingdom a portion of unfortunate
Poland, annexed the principality of East Friesland, and lifted Prussia
into a leading position among the European states.

Germany, now—with the exception of Austria—a compact empire, was then a
series of disconnected states, variously known as kingdoms,
principalities, margravates, electorates, and by other titles, the
whole forming the so-called Holy Empire, though it was “neither holy
nor an empire.” It had drifted down in this fashion from the Middle
Ages, and the work of consolidation had but just begun, in the
conquests of Frederick the Great. A host of petty potentates ruled the
land, whose states, aside from Prussia and Austria, were too weak to
have a voice in the councils of Europe. Joseph II, the titular emperor
of Germany, made an earnest and vigorous effort to combine its elements
into a powerful unit; but he signally failed, and died in 1790, a
disappointed and embittered man.

Austria, then far the most powerful of the German states, was from 1740
to 1780 under the reign of a woman, Maria Theresa, who struggled in
vain against her ambitious neighbor, Frederick the Great, his kingdom
being extended ruthlessly at the expense of her imperial dominions.
Austria remained a great country, however, including Bohemia and
Hungary among its domains. It was lord of Lombardy and Venice in Italy,
but was destined to play an unfortunate part in the coming Napoleonic
wars.

We have briefly epitomized Napoleon’s early career, his doings in the
Revolution, in Italy, and in Egypt, unto the time that France’s worship
of his military genius raised him to the rank of First Consul, and gave
him in effect the power of a king. No one dared question his word, the
army was at his beck and call, the nation lay prostrate at his feet—not
in fear but in admiration. Such was the state of affairs in France in
the closing year of the eighteenth century. The Revolution was at an
end, the Republic existed only as a name; Napoleon was the autocrat of
France and the terror of Europe. From this point we resume the story of
his career.

The First Consul began his reign with two enemies in the field, England
and Austria. Prussia was neutral, and he had won the friendship of
Paul, the emperor of Russia, by a shrewd move. While the other nations
refused to exchange the Russian prisoners they held, Napoleon sent home
6,000 of these captives, newly clad and armed, under their own leaders,
and without demanding ransom. This was enough to win to his side the
weak-minded Paul, whose delight in soldiers he well knew.

Napoleon now had but two enemies in arms to deal with. He wrote letters
to the king of England and the emperor of Austria, offering peace. The
answers were cold and insulting, asking France to take back her Bourbon
kings and return to her old boundaries. Nothing remained but war.
Napoleon prepared it with his usual rapidity, secrecy, and keenness of
judgment.

THE CAMPAIGN IN ITALY

There were two French armies in the field in the spring of 1800, Moreau
commanding in Germany, Massena in Italy. Switzerland, which was
occupied by the French, divided the armies of the enemy, and Napoleon
determined to take advantage of the separation of their forces, and
strike an overwhelming blow. He sent word to Moreau and Massena to keep
the enemy in check at any cost, and secretly gathered a third army,
whose corps were dispersed here and there, while the Powers of Europe
were aware only of the army of reserve at Dijon, made up of conscripts
and invalids. All was ready for the great movement which Napoleon had
in view.

Twenty centuries before, Hannibal had led his army across the great
mountain barrier of the Alps, and poured down like an avalanche upon
the fertile plains of Italy. The Corsican determined to repeat this
brilliant achievement and emulate Hannibal’s career. Several passes
across the mountains seemed favorable to his purpose, especially those
of the St. Bernard, the Simplon and Mount Cenis. Of these the first was
the most difficult; but it was much the shorter, and Napoleon
determined to lead the main body of his army over this ice-covered
mountain pass, despite its dangers and difficulties. The enterprise was
one to deter any man less bold than Hannibal or Napoleon, but it was
welcome to the hardihood and daring of these men, who rejoiced in the
seemingly impossible and spurned faltering at hardships and perils.

The task of the Corsican was greater than that of the Carthaginian. He
had cannon to transport, while Hannibal’s men carried only swords and
spears. But the genius of Napoleon was equal to the task. The cannon
were taken from their carriages and placed in the hollowed-out trunks
of trees, which could be dragged with ropes over the ice and snow.
Mules were used to draw the gun-carriages and the wagon-loads of food
and munitions of war. Stores of provisions had been placed at suitable
points along the road.

The sudden appearance of the French in Italy was an utter surprise to
the Austrians. They descended like a torrent into the valley, seized
Ivry, and five days after reaching Italy met and repulsed an Austrian
force. The divisions which had crossed by other passes one by one
joined Napoleon. On June 9th Marshal Lannes met and defeated the
Austrians at Montebello, after a hot engagement. “I heard the bones
crackle like a hailstorm on the roofs,” he said. On the 14th, the two
armies met on the plain of Marengo, and one of the most famous of
Napoleon’s battles began.

THE VICTORY AR MARENGO

Napoleon was not ready for the coming battle, and was taken by
surprise. He had been obliged to break up his army in order to guard
all the passages open to the enemy. Suddenly attacked and taken by
surprise, his army was defeated and driven back in retreat in the first
stage of the battle. But Napoleon was not the man to accept defeat.
Hurrying up Desaix, one of his most trusted generals, with his corps,
he flung these fresh troops upon the enemy, following up the assault
with the dragoons of Kellermann. The result was a disastrous rout of
the Austrians, who were driven from the field, leaving thousands of
dead, and other thousands of prisoners in the hands of the enemy.

A few days afterwards on the 19th, Moreau in Germany won a brilliant
victory at Hockstadt, near Blemheim, took 5,000 prisoners and twenty
pieces of cannon, and forced from the Austrians an armed truce which
left him master of South Germany. A still more momentous armistice was
signed by Melas in Italy, by which the Austrians surrendered Piedmont,
Lombardy, and all their territory as far as the Mincio, leaving France
master of Italy.

MOREAU AT HOHENLINDEN

What followed must be briefly detailed. Only a truce, not a peace, had
followed the victories of Napoleon and Moreau, and five months later,
Austria refusing to make peace without the concurrence of England, the
war began again. Moreau winning another famous victory on the plains of
Hohenlinden, the Austrians losing 8,000 in killed and wounded and
12,000 in prisoners.

Moreau advanced to Vienna, where the emperor was forced to sign an
armistice, giving up to France the valley of the Danube, the country of
the Tyrol, a number of fortresses and large magazines of war material.
This truce was followed by a peace in February, 1801. It was one that
left Napoleon the idol of France, the terror of Europe, and the
admiration of the world. He had proved himself the mate of Caesar and
Alexander as a conqueror.

THE CONSUL MADE EMPEROR

The events that followed must be briefly epitomized. For nearly the
only time in his career Napoleon had a period of peace. In this he
showed himself an autocratic but able ruler, making himself king in
everything but name, restoring the old court customs and etiquette, but
not interfering with the liberties and privileges which the people had
won by the Revolution. Feudalism had been definitely overthrown and
Napoleon’s supremacy in the state was one that recognized the popular
freedom.

The culmination of Napoleon’s ambition came in 1804, when he followed
the example of Caesar, the Roman conqueror, seeking the crown as a
reward for his victories. Like Caesar, he had his enemies, but, more
fortunate than Caesar, he escaped their plots and was elected Emperor
of the French by an almost unanimous vote of the people. The Pope was
obliged to come to Paris at the fiat of the new autocrat and to anoint
him as emperor, the sanction of the Church being thus given to his new
dignity. His empire was one founded upon modern ideas, one called into
existence by the votes of a free people, not resting upon the necks of
a nation of serfs.

THE CODE NAPOLEON

During his brief respite from war Napoleon’s activity was great, his
statesmanship notable. Great public works, monuments to his glory, were
constructed, wide schemes of public improvement were entered upon, and
important changes were made in the financial system that provided the
great sums needed for these enterprises. The most important of these
evidences of intellectual activity was the Code Napoleon, the first
organized code of French law and still the basis of jurisprudence in
France. This, first promulgated in 1801 as the civil code of France,
had its title changed to Code Napoleon in 1804, and as such stands as
one of the greatest monuments to the mental capacity of this
extraordinary man.

The period of peace during which these events took place was one of
brief endurance. It practically ended in 1803, when Great Britain,
Napoleon’s most persistent foe, again declared war. But actual war did
not begin until two years later.

The Emperor’s role in this period was one of threat. England had been
invaded and conquered from France once before. It might be again. Like
William of Normandy, Napoleon prepared a large fleet and strong army
and threatened an invasion of the island kingdom. This might possibly
have been successful but for the shrewd policy of William Pitt, the
British Prime Minister, who organized a coalition of Napoleon’s enemies
in Europe which gave him a new use for his army.

CAMPAIGN OF 1805

The coalition embraced Austria, Prussia, Russia, Sweden and Norway,
with Great Britain at their back. The bold Corsican had roused nearly
all Europe against him. He dealt with it in his usual alert and
successful manner.

Quick as were his enemies to come into the field, they were not quick
enough for their vigilant foe. The army prepared for the invasion of
England was at once set in motion towards the Rhine, and was handled
with such skill as to surround at Ulm the Austrian army under General
Mack and force its surrender.

This took place in October. On the 1st of December the two armies
(92,000 of the allies to 70,000 French) came face to face on the field
of Austerlitz, where on the following day was to be fought one of the
world’s most memorable battles.

BATTLE OF AUSTERLITZ

The Emperor Alexander had joined Francis of Austria, and the two
monarchs with their staff officers, occupied the castle and village of
Austerlitz. Their troops hastened to occupy the plateau of Pratzen,
which Napoleon had designedly left free. His plans of battle were
already fully made. He had, with the intuition of genius, foreseen the
probable maneuvers of the enemy, and had left open for them the
position which he wished them to occupy. He even announced their
movement in a proclamation to his troops.

“The positions that we occupy are formidable,” he said, “and while the
enemy march to turn my right they will present to me their flank.”

This movement to the right was indeed the one that had been decided
upon by the allies, with the purpose of cutting off the road to Vienna
by isolating numerous corps dispersed in Austria and Styria. It had
been shrewdly divined by Napoleon in choosing his ground.

He held his own men in readiness while the line of the enemy deployed.
The sun was rising, its rays gleaming through a mist, which dispersed
as it rose higher. It now poured its brilliant beams across the field,
the afterward famous “sun of Austerlitz.” The movement of the allies
had the effect of partly withdrawing their troops from the plateau of
Pratzen. At a signal from the emperor the strongly concentrated center
of the French army moved forward in a dense mass, directing their march
towards the plateau, which they made all haste to occupy. They had
reached the foot of the hill before the rising mist revealed them to
the enemy.

The two emperors watched the movement without divining its intent. “See
how the French climb the height without staying to reply to our fire,”
said Prince Czartoryski, who stood near them.

They were soon to learn why their fire was disdained. The allied force,
pierced in its center by the French, was flung back in disorder and on
all sides broke into a disorderly retreat. The slaughter was frightful.
One division, cut off from the army, threw down its arms and
surrendered. Two columns rushed upon the ice of a frozen lake. Upon
this the fire of the French cannon was turned, the ice splintered and
gave way beneath their feet and thousands of the despairing troops
perished in the freezing waters. Of the whole army only one corps left
the field in order of battle. More than 30,000 prisoners, including
twenty generals, remained in Napoleon’s hands, and with them a hundred
and twenty pieces of cannon and forty flags. Thus ended the most famous
of Napoleon’s battles.

The victory of Austerlitz left Germany in Napoleon’s hands, and the
remodeling of the map of Europe was one of the greatest that has ever
taken place at any one time. Kingdoms were formed and placed under
Napoleon’s brothers or favorite generals. His changes in the states of
Germany were numerous and radical. Those of south and west Germany were
organized into the Confederation of the Rhine, under his protection.
Many of the small principalities were suppressed and their territories
added to the larger states. As to the “Holy Roman Empire,” a once
powerful organization which had long since sunk into a mere shadow, it
finally ceased to exist. The empire of France was extended by these and
other changes until is spread over Italy, the Netherlands and the south
and west of Germany.

Changes so great as these could scarcely be made without exciting
bitter opposition. Prussia had been seriously affected by Napoleon’s
map-making, and in the end its king, Frederick William, became so
exasperated that he broke off all communication with France and began
to prepare for war.

THE CONQUEST OF PRUSSIA

It is by no means impossible that Napoleon had been working for this.
It is certain that he was quick to take advantage of it. While the
Prussian king was slowly collecting his troops and war material, the
veterans of France were already on the march and approaching the
borders of Prussia. The hasty levies of “Frederick William were no
match for the war-hardened French, the Russians failed to come to their
aid, and on the 4th of October, 1806, the two armies met at Jena.

The Prussians proved incapable of withstanding the impetuous attack of
the French and were soon broken and in panic and flight. Nothing could
stop them. Reinforcements coming up, 20,000 in number, were thrown
across their path, but in vain, being swept away by the fugitives and
pushed back by the triumphant pursuers.

At the same time another battle was in progress near Auerstadt between
Marshal Davoust and the forces of the Duke of Brunswick. This, too,
ended in victory for the French. The king had been with the duke and
was borne back by the flying host, the two bodies of fugitives finally
coalescing. In that one fatal day Frederick William had lost his army
and placed his kingdom in jeopardy. “They can do nothing but gather up
the debris,” said Napoleon.

The occupation of Berlin, the Prussian capital, quickly followed, and
the war ended with new map-making which greatly reduced the influence
of Prussia as a European Power.

THE INVASION OF POLAND

Russia was still in arms, and occupied Poland. Thither the victorious
French now advanced, making Warsaw, the Polish capital, the goal of
their march. The Russians were beaten and forced back in every battle,
and the Poles, hoping to regain their lost liberties, gladly rose in
aid of the invader. But the French army found itself exposed to serious
privations. The country was a frozen desert, incapable of supplying
food for an army. The wintry chill and the desolate character of the
country seriously interfered with Napoleon’s plans, the troops being
obliged to make their way through thick and rain-soaked forests, and
march over desolate and marshy plains. The winter of the north fought
against them like a strong army and many of them fell dead without a
battle. Warlike movements became almost impossible to the troops of the
south, though the hardy northerners, accustomed to the climate,
continued their military operations.

EYLAU AND FRIEDLAND

By the end of January the Russian army was evidently approaching in
force, and immediate action became necessary. The cold increased. The
mud was converted into ice. On January 30, 1807, Napoleon left Warsaw
and marched in search of the enemy. General Benningsen retreated,
avoiding battle, and on the 7th of February entered the small town of
Eylau, from which his troops were pushed by the approaching French. He
encamped outside the town, the French in and about it; it was evident
that a great battle was at hand.

The weather was cold. Snow lay thick upon the ground and still fell in
great flakes. A sheet of ice covering some small lakes formed part of
the country upon which the armies were encamped, but was thick enough
to bear their weight. It was a chill, inhospitable country to which the
demon of war had come.

Before daybreak on the 8th Napoleon was in the streets of Eylau,
forming his line of battle for the coming engagement. Soon the
artillery of both armies opened, and a rain of cannon balls began to
decimate the opposing ranks. The Russian fire was concentrated on the
town, which was soon in flames. That of the French was directed against
a hill which the emperor deemed it important to occupy. The two armies,
nearly equal in numbers,—the French having 75,000 to the Russian
70,000—were but a short distance apart, and the slaughter from the
fierce cannonade was terrible.

Nature, which had so far acted to check the advance of the French in
Poland, now threatened their defeat and destruction. A snow-fall began,
so thick and dense that the armies lost sight of each other, the French
columns losing their way in the gloom. When the snow ceased, after a
half-hour’s fall, the French army was in a critical position. It was in
a wandering and disorganized state, while the Russians were on the
point of executing a vigorous turning movement.

Yet the genius of Napoleon turned the scale. He ordered a grand charge
of all the cavalry of his army, driving the Russians back, occupying a
hilly ground in their rear, and in the end handling them so vigorously
that a final retreat began.

Thus ended the most indecisive of Napoleon’s victories, one which had
almost been a defeat and which left both armies so exhausted that
months passed before either was in condition to resume the war. It was
the month of June before the armies were again put in motion. Now the
wintry desolation was replaced by a scene of green woodland, shining
lakes and attractive villages, the conditions being far more favorable
for warlike operations.

On June 13th the armies again met, this time at the town of Friedland,
on the River Alle, in the vicinity of Konigsberg, toward which the
Russians were marching. Here Benningsen, the Russian general, had
incautiously concentrated his troops within a bend of the river, a
tactical mistake of which Napoleon hastened to take advantage.

General Ney fought his way into the town and took the bridges, while
the main force of the French marched upon the entrapped enemy, who met
with complete defeat, many being killed on the field, many more drowned
in the river. Konigsberg, the prize of victory, was quickly occupied by
the French, Prussia the ally of Russia, thus losing all its area except
the single town of Memel. The result was disastrous to the Prussian
king, who was forced to yield more than half his kingdom.

Louisa, the beautiful queen of Frederick William of Prussia, had an
interview with Napoleon and earnestly sought to induce him to mitigate
his harsh terms. In vain she brought to bear upon him all her powers of
persuasion and attractive charm of manner. He continued cold and
obdurate and she left Tilsit deeply mortified and humiliated.

If Napoleon had come near defeat in the campaign of 1807, he came much
nearer in that of 1809, in which his long career of victory was for a
time diversified by an example of defeat, from the consequences of
which only his indomitable energy saved him. And this was at the hands
of the Austrians, who had so often met with defeat and humiliation at
his hands.

In 1808 the defeat of his armies in Spain by the people organized into
guerilla bands forced him to take command there in person. He defeated
the insurgents wherever met, took the city of Saragossa and replaced
his brother Joseph on the throne. Then the outbreak of war in Austria
called him away and he was forced to leave Spain for later attention

CAMPAIGN OF 1809

The declaration of war by Austria arose from indignation at the
arbitrary acts of the conqueror, this growing so intense that in April
1809, a new declaration was made and new armies called into the field.

The French campaign was characterized by the usual rapidity. But on
this occasion the Archduke Charles, who led the Austrians, proved
equally rapid, and was in the field so quickly that the widely-spread
French army was for a time in imminent danger of being cut in two by
the alert enemy.

Only a brief hesitation on the part of the Archduke saved the French
from this peril. They concentrated with the utmost haste, forced the
Austrians back, and captured a large number of prisoners and cannon. In
Italy, on the contrary, the Austrians, were victorious, but the rapid
advance of Napoleon towards Vienna caused their recall and the campaign
became a race for the capital of Austria. In this Napoleon succeeded,
the garrison yielding the city to his troops.

Meanwhile the Archdukes Charles and John, the latter in command of the
army from Italy, were marching hastily towards the opposite side of the
Danube. Napoleon, seeking to strike a blow before a junction between
the armies could be made, crossed the river by the aid of bridges
thrown from the island of Lobau and occupied the villages of Aspern and
Essling.

This was done on May 20th, but during that night the strong current of
the river carried away the bridge, leaving the French in a perilous
situation. On the afternoon of the 21st the entire Austrian army,
70,000 to 80,000 strong, attacked the French in the two villages, who
held their posts only with the greatest difficulty.

By dawn of the 21st more than 70,000 French had crossed, but at this
critical interval the bridge again gave way, broken by the fireships
and the stone-laden boats sent by the Austrians down the swift current.
The struggle went on all day, the bridge being again built and again
broken, and at night the French, cut off from their supply of
ammunition, were forced to retreat. Napoleon, for the first time in his
career, had met with defeat. More than 40,000 dead and wounded lay on
that fatal field, among them the brilliant Marshal Lannes, one of
Napoleon’s ablest aids.

VICTORY AT WAGRAM

Napoleon, however, had no thought of yielding his hold upon Vienna. He
brought forward new troops with all haste, until by July 1st he had an
army of 150,000 men. The Austrian army had also been augmented and now
numbered 135,000 or 140,000 men. They had fortified the positions of
the recent battle, expecting a new attack in that quarter.

But of this Napoleon had no intention. He had selected the heights from
Neusiedl to Wagram, occupied by the Austrians, but not fortified by
them, as a more favorable point, and during the night of July 4th he
threw fresh bridges from Lobau to the main land and set in motion the
strong force occupying the island. This moved against the heights of
Wagram, occupying Aspern and Essling in its advance.

The battle of the next day was one of desperate fury. Finally the
height was gained, giving the French the key of the battlefield. The
Archduke Charles looked in vain for the army under his brother John,
which failed to appear, and, assailed at every point, was obliged to
order a retreat. But this was no rout. The retreat was conducted slowly
and in battle array. Both the Russians and the Austrians were proving
worthy antagonists of the great Corsican. Further hostilities were
checked by a truce, preliminary to a treaty of peace, signed October
14, 1809.

Ambition, unrestrained by caution, uncontrolled by moderation, has its
inevitable end. An empire built upon victory, trusting solely to
military genius, prepared for itself the elements of its overthrow.
This fact Napoleon was to learn. In the outset of his career he opposed
a new art of war to the obsolete one of his enemies, and his path to
empire was over the corpses of slaughtered armies and the ruins of
fallen kingdoms. But year by year his foes learned his art, in war
after war their resistance grew more stringent, each successive victory
was won with more difficulty and at greater cost, and finally, at the
crossing of the Danube, the energy and genius of Napoleon met their
equal, and the standards of France, for the first time under Napoleon’s
leadership, went back in defeat. It was the tocsin of fate. His career
of victory had culminated. From that day its decline began.

THE CAMPAIGN IN SPAIN

The second check to Napoleon’s triumphant career came from one of the
weaker nations of Europe, aided by the British under a commander of
renown. Napoleon, as already stated, after overturning Spain had been
called away by the Austrian war. This ended by the treaty of peace, he
filled Spain once more with his veterans, increasing the strength of
the army there to 300,000 men, under his ablest generals, Soult,
Massena, Ney, Marmont, Macdonald and others. They marched through Spain
from end to end, yet, though they held all the salient points, the
people refused to submit, but from their mountain fastnesses kept up a
petty and annoying war.

Massena invaded Portugal in 1811, but here he was faced by General
Wellington, leading a British army, and was forced to retreat. Soult,
who followed him, was equally unsuccessful, and when Napoleon in 1812
depleted his army in Spain for the Russian campaign, Wellington marched
his army into Spain and, aided by the Spanish patriots, took possession
of Madrid, driving King Joseph from his throne.

THE INVASION OF RUSSIA

Meanwhile Napoleon had entered upon the greatest and most disastrous
campaign in his history. Defied by Alexander I, Czar of Russia, he had
declared war upon that empire and sought its conquest with the greatest
army that ever marched under his banners. On the banks of the Niemen, a
river that flows between Prussia and Poland, there gathered near the
end of June 1812, an immense army of more than 600,000 men, attended by
an enormous multitude of non-combatants, their purpose being the
invasion of the empire of Russia. Of this great army, made up of troops
from half the nations of Europe, there reappeared six months later on
that broad stream about 16,000 armed men, almost all that were left of
that stupendous host. The remainder had perished on the desert soil or
in the frozen rivers of Russia, few of them surviving as prisoners in
Russian hands. Such was the character of the dread catastrophe that
broke the power of the mighty conqueror and delivered Europe from his
autocratic grasp.

We cannot give the details of this fatal campaign, and shall only
summarize its chief incidents. Barclay de Tolly, Alexander’s commander
in chief, adopted a Fabian policy, that of persistently avoiding
battle, and keeping the French in pursuit of a fleeting
will-of-the-wisp while their army wasted away from hardship and disease
in the inhospitable Russian clime.

His method was a wise one, desertion, illness, death of the untrained
recruits in rapid march under the hot midsummer sun, did the work of
many battles, and when Smolensk was reached after two months of
bootless marching, the “Grand Army” was bound to have been reduced to
half its numbers.

Moscow, the old capital of the Empire, was Napoleon’s goal. He felt
sure that the occupation of that city would bring the Russians to bay
and force them to accept terms of peace. He was sadly mistaken. The
Russians, weary of retreating, faced him in one battle, that of
Borodino. Here they fought stubbornly, but with the usual result. They
could not stand against the impetuous dash of Napoleon’s veterans and
were forced to retreat, leaving 40,000 dead and wounded upon the field.
But the French army had lost more than 30,000, including an unusual
number of generals, two being killed and thirty-nine wounded.

A FATAL RETREAT

On the 15th of September, Moscow, the “Holy City” of Russia was
occupied, Napoleon taking up his quarters in the famous palace of the
Kremlin, from which he hoped to dictate terms of peace to the obstinate
Czar. What were his feelings on the next morning when word was brought
him that Moscow was on fire, and flames were seen leaping into the air
in all directions.

The fire had been premeditated. From every quarter rose the devouring
flames. Even the Kremlin did not escape and Napoleon was obliged to
seek shelter outside the city, which continued to burn for three days,
when the wind sank and rain poured upon the smoldering embers.

The dismayed conqueror waited in vain. He wrote letters to the Czar,
suggesting peace. His letters were left unanswered. He hung on
despairingly until the 18th of October, when he reluctantly gave the
order to retreat. Too long he had waited, for the terrible Russian
winter was about to descend.

That retreat was a frightful one. The army had been reduced to 103,000
men; the army followers had also greatly decreased in numbers. But it
was still a large host that set out upon its long march over the frozen
Russian plains.

The Russian policy now changed. The retreating army was attacked at
every suitable point. The food supply rapidly failed. On again reaching
Smolensk the army was only 42,000 strong, though the camp followers are
said to have still numbered 60,000.

On the 26th of November the ice-cold River Beresina was reached,
destined to be the most terrible point on the whole dreadful march. Two
bridges were thrown in all haste across the stream, and most of the men
under arms crossed, but 18,000 stragglers fell into the hands of the
enemy. How many were trodden to death in the press or were crowded from
the bridge into the icy river cannot be told. It is said that when
spring thawed the ice, 30,000 bodies were found and burned on the banks
of the stream. A mere fragment of the great army remained alive. Ney,
who had been the hero of the retreat, was the last man to cross that
frightful stream.

On the 13th of December some 16,000 haggard and staggering men, almost
too weak to hold the arms to which they still despairingly clung,
recrossed the Niemen, which the “Grand Army” had passed in such
magnificent strength and with such abounding resources less than six
months before. It was the greatest and most astounding disaster in the
military history of the world.

DRESDEN AND LEIPZIG

The lion was at bay, but there was fight left in him still. He hurried
back to France, gathered another army, refused all offers of peace on
the terms suggested by his enemies, and concentrated an army at
Dresden. Here on August 26, 1813, his last great victory was won.

The final stand came at Leipzig, where, October 16–18, he waged a three
days’ battle against all the powers of central and eastern Europe.
Then, his ammunition nearly exhausted, he was forced to give the order
to retreat.

The struggle was soon at an end. France was quickly invaded, Paris was
obliged to surrender, and on April 7, 1814, the emperor signed an act
of abdication and was exiled to the small island of Elba, in the
Mediterranean, with an army of 400 men, chosen from his famous Old
Guard. But the Powers of Europe, despite their long experience of
Napoleon, did not yet recognize the ability and audacity of the man
with whom they had to deal. While the Congress of Vienna, convened to
restore the old constitution of Europe, was deliberating and disputing,
word came that their dethroned enemy was again on the soil of France
and Louis XVIII, his successor, was in full flight. He had landed on
March 1, 1815, and was marching back to Paris, the people and the army
rallying to his support.

THE HUNDRED DAYS

Then came the famous Hundred Days, in which Napoleon showed much of his
old ability, rapidly organizing a new army, with which in June he
marched into Belgium, where the British under Wellington and the
Prussians under Blucher had gathered to meet him.

On the 16rh he defeated Blucher at Ligny. On the 18th he met Wellington
at Waterloo, and after a desperate struggle went down in utter defeat.
All day long the French and British had fought without victory for
either, but the arrival of Blucher with his Prussians turned the scale.
The French army broke and fled in disastrous rout, three-fourths of its
force being left on the field, dead, wounded, or prisoners. It was the
great soldier’s last fight. He was forced to surrender the throne, and
was again exiled, this time to the island of St. Helena, in the south
Atlantic. No such mistake as that of Elba was safe to make again. Here
ended the days of Napoleon Bonaparte, the greatest soldier the world
had ever known. His final hour of glory came in 1842, when his remains
were brought in pomp to Paris, there to find a final resting place in
the Hotel des Invalides.

THE CONGRESS OF VIENNA

This Congress of the rulers and statesmen of Europe, which opened in
September, 1814, and continued its work after the fall of Napoleon at
Waterloo, occupied itself with map-making on a liberal scale. The
empire which the conqueror had built up at the expense of the
neighboring countries, was quickly dismembered and France reduced to
its former limits, while all the surrounding Powers took their shares
of the spoils, Belgium and Holland being combined into a single
kingdom.

As for the rights of the people, what had become of them? Had they been
swept away and the old wrongs of the people brought back? Not quite.
The frenzied enthusiasm for liberty and human rights of the past
twenty-five years could not go altogether for nothing. The lingering
relics of feudalism had vanished, not only from France but from all
Europe, and no monarch or congress could bring them back again. In its
place the principles of democracy had been carried by the armies of
France throughout Europe and deeply planted in a hundred places, and
their establishment as actual conditions was the most important part of
the political development of the nineteenth century.

THE HOLY ALLIANCE

Map-making was not the whole work of the Congress of Vienna. An
association was made of the rulers of Russia, Austria and Prussia,
under the promising title of the “Holy Alliance.” These devout
autocrats proposed to rule in accordance with the precepts of the
Bible, to govern their subjects like loving parents, and to see that
peace, justice and religion should flourish in their dominions.

Such was the theory, the real purpose was one of absolute dominion,
that of uniting their forces against democracy and revolution wherever
these should show themselves. It was not long before there was work for
them to do. The people began to move. The attempt to re-establish
absolute governments shook them out of sluggish acceptance. Revolution
lifted its head in spite of the Holy Alliance, its first field being
Spain. Revolt broke out there in 1820 and was quickly followed by a
similar revolt in Naples.

These revolutionary movements roused the members of the Alliance. An
Austrian army invaded Italy, a French one, under the influence of the
Alliance, was sent to Spain, and both the revolutions were vigorously
quelled. The only revolt that succeeded was one in Greece against the
Turkish power. There was no desire to sustain the Turks, and a Russian
army was finally sent to aid the Greeks, whose freedom was attained in
April, 1830.

Such were the chief events that followed the fall of Napoleon. Reaction
was the order of the day. But it was a reaction that was to be
violently shaken in the period now reached, the revolutionary year of
1830.



Chapter VII.
PAN-SLAVISM VERSUS PAN-GERMANISM


Russia’s Part in the Servian Issue—Strength of the Russian Army—The
Distribution of the Slavs—Origin of Pan-Slavism—The Czar’s
Proclamation—The Teutons of Europe—Intermingling of Races—The Nations
at War

Pan-Slavism against Pan-Germanism was the issue which was launched when
the Emperor of all the Russias took up Servia’s quarrel with
Austria-Hungary. Russia, if she wanted a ground for war, could have
found no better one. The popularity of her aggressive big-brother
attitude to all the Slavs was quickly attested in St. Petersburg. It
had been a long time since war had appealed with the same favor to so
large a part of the Czar’s people. Slavs there were in plenty to menace
the allied German Powers, even if there were not allied French arms, on
Germany’s other flank, and Britain’s naval supremacy to cope with.
Slavs in past times had spread over all of eastern Europe, from the
Arctic to the Adriatic and the Aegean Seas. Their continuity was long
ago broken into by an intrusion of Magyars. Finns, and Roumanians,
leaving a northern Slavic section composed of North Russians, Poles,
Czechs, and Slovaks, and a southern section comprising the main body of
the Balkan people. For over a thousand years these Slavs have peopled
Europe east of the Elbe River. And for centuries they kept the hordes
of Cossacks, Turks and barbarians off Europe. Russia in those days was
called “the nation of the sword.” And over a hundred years ago that
sword was drawn for Servia. After 400 years of vassalage to Turkey, the
Serbs rebelled in 1804, and then only Russian intervention saved them
from defeat. In later wars oppression of the Slavs was a prominent
issue.

RUSSIA’S PART IN THE SERVIAN ISSUE

What rendered the Russian menace so formidable at the opening of the
1914 war was the unusual enthusiasm which was displayed. Ordinarily,
the huge population of Russia has been rather apathetic toward the
purposes of the Emperor. But in the case of Austria’s injustice to
Servia the Czar, judging from the demonstrations in St. Petersburg,
could reasonably count upon having behind him possibly 100,000,000
Slavs among his subjects. Moscow and Odessa gave similar demonstrations
of good feeling, and it seemed as if, in the event of the Czar’s
assuming command as generalissimo of all the forces, the wave of
enthusiasm would sweep over the whole empire. Who knows that is the
strength of the Russian bear, once he is roused to sullen fury? In the
ten years following the Russo-Japanese War Russia had greatly added to
her army and navy, and materially cut down the time required for the
mobilization of her forces by eliminating many of the difficulties
attendant upon transportation and equipment of troops. Her quiet
advances toward becoming a Power to be feared by the most formidable
European Nation had come to be recognized even if in a vague way.

In considering the potential strength of the armies which Russia, in
the course of a long war, might put in the field, it may be pointed out
that military service in that empire of more than 160,000,000 people is
universal and compulsory. Service under the flag begins at the age of
twenty and lasts for twenty-three years. Usually it is proportioned as
follows: Three or four years in the active army, fourteen or fifteen in
the Zapas, or first reserve, and five years in the Opolchenie, or
second reserve. For the Cossacks, those fighters who are a conspicuous
element of Russia’s military strength, there is hardly a cessation in
discipline during their early manhood. Holding their lands by military
tenure, they are liable to service for life. Furnishing their own
equipment and horses—the Cossack is almost invariably a cavalryman—they
pass through three periods of four years each, with diminishing duties,
until they wind up in the reserve, which is liable to be called into
the field in time of war.

STRENGTH OF THE RUSSIAN ARMY

Russia’s field army consists of three powerful divisions—the army of
European Russia, the army of Asia, already referred to, and the army of
the Caucasus. The European Russian field army consists of twenty-seven
army corps—each corps comprising, at fighting strength, about 36,000
men—and some twenty-odd cavalry divisions, of 4,000 horsemen each. With
the field army of the Caucasus and the first and second reserve
divisions of the Cossacks, the total would be brought to nearly
1,600,000 men. With the Asiatic army, the grand total, according to the
latest figures, would give the Russian armies a fighting strength of
1,850,000 men, of whom it would be practicable to assemble, say,
1,200,000 in a single theater of war. With respect to the armies which
could be put in the field in time of urgent demand, there are
conflicting estimates. It seems certain that Russia’s war strength is
more than 5,500,000 men, but, of course, the train service and the
artillery for such a force is lacking. Two and three-quarter million
men could probably be mustered at one time.

In the event of a prolonged war, in which the tide of affairs should
put Russia strictly on the defensive, she would be less easily invaded
than any large country of Europe. The very extent of her empire,
protected by natural barriers at almost every side save where she
touches Northeast Europe, would present almost insuperable difficulties
to the invader. Napoleon paid dearly for his fortitude in pushing his
columns into Moscow. The only conditions under which a repetition of
such a feat is conceivable were not likely to be found during a general
European struggle.

THE DISTRIBUTION OF THE SLAVS

To make matters worse for the Austrian or German invader, there are
conflicting relations between their own people and the Russians. The
Polish provinces, for instance, however unfriendly toward Russia, as
one of the dismemberers of the Polish kingdom, are strongly bound in
blood and speech to the Russian nation. The Poles and Russians are
brother Slavs, and are likely to remember this in any conflict which
approaches an issue between Pan-Germanism and Pan-Slavism. The Poles of
East Prussia have an ingrained hatred of their German masters and have
been embittered by political oppression almost to the point of revolt.
Those along Austria’s eastern border are little less bitter.

The estimate is made that Europe contains in all about 140,000,000
Slavs, this being the most numerous race on the continent, the Teutons
ranking second. While the great bulk of these are natives of Russia,
they have penetrated in large numbers to the west and south, and are to
be found abundantly in the Balkan region, in the Austrian realm, and in
the region of the disintegrated kingdom of Poland.

According to recent authoritative statistics the race question in
Austria-Hungary is decidedly complicated and diversified. In the
kingdoms and provinces represented in the Reichsrath in Vienna there
are nearly 10,000,000 Germans and 18,500,000 non-Germans. Of these
nearly 17,500,000 are Slavs. Among these Slavs, the Croats and Serbs
number 780,000, chiefly in Dalmatia, while there are in all 660,000
Orthodox and nearly 3,500,000 Greek Uniats.

In Hungary, with its subject kingdoms of Croatia and Slavonia, there
are 8,750,000 Magyars, 2,000,000 Germans, and 8,000,000 other
non-Magyars. Of these, 3,000,000 are Roumanians and well over 5,000,000
Slavs. The Croats, or Roman Catholic Serbs, number 1,800,000, and their
Orthodox brothers are 1,100,000 in number. All told, Hungary has nearly
11,000,000 Roman Catholic subjects, 2,000,000 Greek Uniats, and
3,000,000 Orthodox. In this connection it should be remembered that the
Patriarchate of the Orthodox Serb Church has been fixed at Karlowitz,
under Hungarian rule, for over two centuries.

In Bosnia there are 434,000 Roman Catholic Croats, 825,000 Orthodox
Serbs, and over 600,000 Bosniaks, or Moslem Serbs. Thus it will be seen
that the Emperor Francis Joseph rules over more than 24,000,000 Slavs
and 3,225,000 Roumanians, of whom nearly 4,500,000 adhere to various
Orthodox Churches and 5,400,000 are Uniats. Of this Slav mass 5,000,000
Poles, mostly Roman Catholics, are not particularly susceptible to
Pan-Slav propaganda, as that is largely Russian and Orthodox.

Within the boundaries of Germany herself there are over 3,000,000
Slavs, chiefly Poles, the Slavs of Polish descent in all being
estimated at 15,000,000. To these must be added the Bulgarians, Serbs
and Montenegrins of the Balkan region, constituting about 7,0000,000
more.

ORIGIN OF PAN-SLAVISM

The term Pan-Slavism has been given to the agitation carried on by a
great party in Russia, its purpose being the union of the Slavic
peoples of Europe under Russian rule, as an extensive racial empire.
This movement originated about 1830, when the feeling of race
relationship in Russia was stirred up by the revolutionary movement in
Poland. It gained renewed strength from the Polish revolution of 1863,
and still survives as the slogan of an ardent party. The ideals of
Pan-Slavism have made their way into the Slavic populations of Bohemia,
Silesia, Croatia and Slavonia, where there is dread of the members of
the race losing their individuality under the aggressive addition of
the Austrian, German or Hungarian governments. In 1877–78 Russia
entered into war against Turkey as the champion of the Balkan Slavs. A
similar movement was that made in 1914, when the independence of the
Servian Slavs was threatened by Austria. The immediate steps taken by
Russia to mobilize her forces in protection of the Serbs was followed
as immediately by a declaration of war on the part of the German
emperor and the quick plunging of practically the whole of Europe into
a war.

THE CZAR’S PROCLAMATION

In this connection the proclamation made by the Russian Czar to his
people on August 3d, possesses much interest, as indicating his Slavic
sentiment. The text is as follows:

“By the grace of God we, Nicholas II, Emperor and Autocrat of all the
Russias, King of Poland and Grand Duke of Finland, etc, to all our
faithful subjects make known that Russia, related by faith and blood to
the Slav peoples and faithful to her historical traditions, has never
regarded their fate with indifference.

“But the fraternal sentiments of the Russian people for the Slavs have
been awakened with perfect unanimity and extraordinary force in these
last few days, when Austria-Hungary knowingly addressed to Servia
claims unacceptable to an independent state.

“Having paid no attention to the pacific and conciliatory reply of the
Servian Government and having rejected the benevolent intervention of
Russia, Austria-Hungary made haste to proceed to an armed attack and
began to bombard Belgrade, an open place.

“Forced by the situation thus created to take necessary measures of
precaution, we ordered the army and the navy put on a war footing, at
the same time using every endeavor to obtain a peaceful solution.
Pourparlers were begun amid friendly relations with Germany and her
ally, Austria, for the blood and the property of our subjects were dear
to us.

“Contrary to our hopes in our good neighborly relations of long date,
and disregarding our assurances that the mobilization measures taken
were in pursuance of no object hostile to her, Germany demanded their
immediate cessation. Being rebuffed in this demand, Germany suddenly
declared war on Russia.

“Today it is not only the protection of a country related to us and
unjustly attacked that must be accorded, but we must safeguard the
honor, the dignity and the integrity of Russia and her position among
the Great Powers.

“We believe unshakably that all our faithful subjects will rise with
unanimity and devotion for the defense of Russian soil; that internal
discord will be forgotten in this threatening hour; that the unity of
the Emperor with his people will become still more close and that
Russia, rising like one man, will repulse the insolent attack of the
enemy.

“With a profound faith in the justice of our work and with a humble
hope in omnipotent providence in prayer we call God’s blessing on holy
Russia and her valiant troops.

“Nicholas.”


Later than this was an appeal made by the Czar to the Poles under his
rule, asking for their earnest support in the war arising from the
cause above stated, and promising them the boon which the Polish people
have long coveted: that of self-government and a practical
acknowledgment of their national existence.

THE TEUTONS OF EUROPE

While the Slavs form the great bulk of the inhabitants of eastern
Europe, the Teutons, or people of Teutonic race and language, are
widely spread in the west and north, including the German-speaking
people of Germany, Austria-Hungary and Switzerland, the
English-speaking people of the British Islands (in a very far-away
sense), the Scandinavian-speaking people of Norway and Sweden, the
Flemish-speaking people of Belgium, and practically the whole people of
Denmark and Holland. Yet, though these are racially related there is no
such feeling as a Pan-Teutonic sentiment combining them into a racial
unity. Instead of community and fraternity, a very marked racial and
natural divergence exists between the several peoples named, especially
between the British and Germans. Pan-Germanism is not Pan-Teutonism in
any proper sense, being confined to the several German countries of
Europe, and especially to the combination of states in the German
Empire. It is the Teuton considered in this minor sense that has set
himself against the Slav, as a measure of self-defense against the
torrent of Slavism apparently seeking an outlet in all directions.

Prolific as we know the Anglo-Saxons to have once been and as the
Germans still appear to be, there are few instances in human history of
a natural growth of population like that of the Slavs in recent years.
They have grown to outnumber the Germans nearly three to one, and may
perhaps do so in the future in a still greater proportion.

This is a scarcely desirable state of affairs in view of the fact that
the Slavs as a whole are lower and more primitive in character and
condition than the Germans. The cultivated portion of Slavic
populations forms a very small proportion in number of the whole, and
stands far in advance of the abundant multitude of peasants and
artisans, a vast body of people who are ruled chiefly by fear; fear of
the State on one side, of the Church on the other.

INTERMINGLING OF RACES

There has long been an embittered, remorseless, and often bloody
struggle for supremacy between the Teuton and the Slav, yet there has
been considerable intermingling of the races, many German traders
making their way into Russian towns, while multitudes of Slavic
laborers have penetrated into German communities. Eastern Prussia has
large populations of Slavs and its Polish subjects in Posen have been
persistently non-assimilable. But only within recent times has there
arisen a passion to “Russianize” all foreign elements in the one nation
and on the other hand to “Germanize” all similar foreign elements in
the other. Austria-Hungary is the most remarkable combination of
unrelated peoples ever got together to make part of a state, and is
especially notable for its many separate groups of Slavs. Bohemia, for
instance, has a very large majority of Slavic population, eager to be
recognized as such, and there are Slavic populations somewhat
indiscriminately scattered throughout the dual-monarchy, especially in
Hungary.

These Slavic populations, however, differ widely in religious belief.
While largely of the Greek confession of faith, a considerable section
of them are Roman Catholics, and many are faithful Mohammedans. This
difference in religion plays a major part in their political relations,
a greater one than any feeling of nationality and racial unity, and
aids greatly in adding to the diversity of condition and sentiment
among these mixed populations.

THE NATIONS AT WAR

In the war which sprang so suddenly and startlingly into the field of
events in 1914 very little of this sentiment of race animosity
appeared. While the German element remained intact in the union of
Germany and Austria, there was a strange mingling of races in the other
side of the struggle, that of the Slavic Russian, the Teutonic Britain,
and the Celtic French. As for Italy, the non-Germanic member of the
Triple Alliance, it at first wisely declared itself out of the war, as
one in which it was in no sense concerned and under no obligation to
enter into from the terms of its alliance. Later events tended to bring
it into sympathy with the non-Germanic side, as a result of enmity to
Austria. So the conflict became narrowed down to a struggle between
Pan-Germanism on the one hand and a variety of unrelated racial
elements on the other. It may be that Emperor William had a secret
purpose to unite, if possible, all German-speaking peoples under his
single sway and that Czar Nicholas had similar views regarding a union
of the Slavs, but as they did not take the world into their confidence
no one can say what plans and ambitions lay hidden in their mental
treasure chests. In this connection it is certainly of interest that
three of the leaders in this five-fold war were near relatives, the
Czar, the Kaiser and the British King being cousins and all of Teutonic
blood. This is a result of the intermarriage of royal families in these
later days.



Chapter VIII.
THE AMBITION OF LOUIS NAPOLEON


The Final Overthrow of Napoleonism

The Coup-d’état of 1851—From President to Emperor—The Empire is
Peace—War With Austria—The Austrians Advance—The Battle of
Magenta—Possession of Lombardy—French Victory at Solferino—Treaty of
Peace—Invasion of Mexico—End of Napoleon’s Career

The name of Napoleon is a name to conjure with in France. Two
generations after the fall of Napoleon the Great the people of that
country had practically forgotten the misery he had brought them, and
remembered only the glory with which he had crowned the name of France.
When, then, a man who has been designated as Napoleon the Little
offered himself for their suffrages, they cast their votes almost
unanimously in his favor.

Charles Louis Napoleon Bonaparte, to give this personage his full name,
was a son of Louis Bonaparte, once king of Holland, and Hortense de
Beauharnais, and had been recognized by Napoleon as, after his father,
the direct successor to the throne. This he made strenuous efforts to
obtain, hoping to dethrone Louis Philippe and install himself in his
place. In 1836, with a few followers, he made an attempt to capture
Strasbourg. His effort failed and he was arrested and transported to
the United States. In 1839 he published a work entitled “Napoleonic
Ideas,” which was an apology for the ambitious acts of the first
Napoleon.

The growing unpopularity of Louis Philippe tempted Louis Napoleon to
make a second attempt to invade France. He did it in a rash way almost
certain to end in failure. Followed by about fifty men, and bringing
with him a tame eagle, which was expected to perch upon his banner as
the harbinger of victory, he sailed from England in August, 1840, and
landed at Boulogne. This desperate and foolish enterprise proved a
complete failure. The soldiers whom the would-be sovereign expected to
join his standard arrested him, and he was tried for treason by the
House of Peers. This time he was not dealt with so leniently as before,
but was sentenced to imprisonment for life and was confined in the
Castle of Ham. From this fortress he escaped in disguise in May, 1846,
and made his way to England.

The revolution of 1848 gave the restless and ambitious claimant a more
promising opportunity. He returned to France, was elected to the
National Assembly, and on the adoption of the republican constitution
offered himself as a candidate for the presidency of the new republic.
And now the magic of the name of Napoleon told. General Cavaignac, his
chief competitor, was supported by the solid men of the country, who
distrusted his opponent; but the people rose almost solidly in his
support, and he was elected president for four years by 5,562,834
votes, against 1,469,166 for Cavaignac.

The new President of France soon showed his ambition. He became engaged
in a contest with the Assembly and aroused the distrust of the
Republicans by his autocratic remarks. In 1849 he still further
offended the democratic party by sending an army to Rome, which put an
end to the republic in that city. He sought to make his cabinet
officers the pliant instruments of his will, and thus caused De
Tocqueville, the celebrated author, who was minister for foreign
affairs, to resign. “We were not the men to serve him on those terms,”
said De Tocqueville, at a later time.

The new-made president was feeling his way to imperial dignity. He
could not forget that his illustrious uncle had made himself emperor,
and his ambition instigated him to the same course. A violent
controversy arose between him and the Assembly, which body had passed a
law restricting universal suffrage, thus reducing the popular support
of the president. In June, 1850, it increased his salary at his
request, but granted the increase only for one year—an act of distrust
which proved a new source of discord.

THE “COUP D’ETAT” OF 1851

Louis Napoleon meanwhile was preparing for a daring act. He secretly
obtained the support of the army leaders and prepared covertly for the
boldest stroke of his life. On the 2d of December 1851—the anniversary
of the establishment of the first empire and of the battle of
Austerlitz—he got rid of his opponents by means of the memorable COUP
D’ETAT, and seized the supreme power of the state.

The most influential members of the Assembly had been arrested during
the preceding night, and when the hour for the session of the House
came the men most strongly opposed to the President were in prison.
Most of them were afterwards exiled, some for life, some for shorter
terms. This act of outrage and alleged violation of plighted faith by
their ruler roused the socialists and republicans to the defense of
their threatened liberties, insurrections broke out in Paris, Lyons,
and other towns, street barricades were built, and severe fighting took
place. But Napoleon had secured the army, and the revolt was suppressed
with blood and slaughter. Baudin, one of the deposed deputies, was shot
on the barricade in the Faubourg St. Antoine, while waving in his hand
the decree of the constitution. He was afterwards honored as a martyr
to the cause of republicanism in France.

Napoleon had previously sought to gain the approval of the people by
liberal and charitable acts, and to win the good will of the civic
authorities by numerous progresses through the interior. He now stood
as a protector and promoter of national prosperity and the rights of
the people, and sought to lay upon the Assembly all the defects of his
administration. By these means, which aided to awaken the Napoleonic
fervor in the state, he was enabled safely to submit his acts of
violence and bloodshed to the approval of the people. The new
constitution offered by the president was put to vote, and was adopted
by the enormous majority of more than seven million votes. By its terms
Louis Napoleon was to be president of France for ten years, with power
equal to that of a monarch, and the Parliament was to consist of two
bodies, a Senate and a Legislative House, which were given only nominal
power.

FROM PRESIDENT TO EMPEROR

This was as far as Napoleon dared to venture at that time. A year
later, on December 1, 1852, having meanwhile firmly cemented his
position in the state, he passed from president to emperor, again by a
vote of the people, of whom, according to the official report,
7,824,189 cast their votes in his favor. That this report told the
truth, many denied, but it served the President’s purpose.

Thus ended the second French republic, by an act of usurpation of the
strongest and yet most popular character. The partisans of the new
emperor were rewarded with the chief offices of the state; the leading
republicans languished in prison or in exile for the crime of doing
their duty to their constituents; and Armand Marrast, the most zealous
champion of the republic, died of a broken heart from the overthrow of
all his efforts and aspirations. The honest soldier and earnest
patriot, Cavaignac, in a few years followed him to the grave. The cause
of liberty in France seemed lost.

The crowning of a new emperor of the Napoleonic family in France
naturally filled Europe with apprehensions. But Napoleon III, as he
styled himself, was an older man than Napoleon I, and seemingly less
likely to be carried away by ambition. His favorite motto, “The Empire
is peace,” aided to restore quietude, and gradually the nations began
to trust in his words: “France wishes for peace; and when France is
satisfied the world is quiet.”

Warned by one of the errors of his uncle, he avoided seeking a wife in
the royal families of Europe, but allied himself with a Spanish lady of
noble rank, the young and beautiful Eugenie de Montijo, dutchess of
Teba. At the same time he proclaimed that, “A sovereign raised to the
throne by a new principle should remain faithful to that principle, and
in the face of Europe frankly accept the position of a parvenu, which
is an honorable title when it is obtained by the public suffrage of a
great people. For seventy years all princes’ daughters married to
rulers of France have been unfortunate; only one, Josephine, was
remembered with affection by the French people, and she was not born of
a royal house.”

The new emperor continued his efforts as president to win the approval
of the people by public works. He recognized the necessity of aiding
the working classes as far as possible, and protecting them from
poverty and wretchedness. During a dearth in 1853 a “baking fund” was
organized in Paris, the city contributing funds to enable bread to be
sold at a low price. Dams and embankments were built along the rivers
to overcome the effects of floods. New streets were opened, bridges
built, railways constructed, to increase internal traffic. Splendid
buildings were erected for municipal and government purposes. Paris was
given a new aspect by pulling down its narrow lanes, and building wide
streets and magnificent boulevards—the latter, as was charged, for the
purpose of depriving insurrection of its lurking places. The great
exhibition of arts and industries in London was followed in 1854 by one
in France, the largest and finest seen up to that time. Trade and
industry were fostered by a reduction of tariff charges, joint stock
companies and credit associations were favored, and in many ways
Napoleon III worked wisely and well for the prosperity of France, the
growth of its industries, and the improvement of the condition of its
people.

THE EMPIRE IS PEACE

But the new emperor, while thus actively engaged in labors of peace
means lived up to the spirit of his motto, “The Empire is peace.” An
empire founded upon the army needs to give employment to that army. A
monarchy sustained by the votes of a people athirst for glory needs to
do something to appease that thirst. A throne filled by a Napoleon
could not safely ignore the “Napoleonic Ideas,” and the first of these
might be stated as “The Empire is war.” And the new emperor was by no
means satisfied to pose simply as the “nephew of his uncle.” He
possessed a large share of the Napoleonic ambition, and hoped by
military glory to surround his throne with some of the luster of that
of Napoleon the First.

Whatever his private views, it is certain that France under his reign
became the most aggressive nation of Europe, and the overweening
ambition and self-confidence of the new emperor led him to the same end
as his great uncle, that of disaster and overthrow. He was evidently
bent on playing a leading part in European politics, showing the world
that one worthy to bear the name of Napoleon was on the throne.

The very beginning of Louis Napoleon’s career of ambition, as president
of the French Republic, was signalized by an act of military force, in
sending an army to Rome and putting an end to the attempted Italian
republic. These troops were kept there until 1866, and the aspirations
of the Italian patriots were held in check until that year. Only when
United Italy stood menacingly at the gates of Rome were these foreign
troops withdrawn. They had retarded, perhaps, for a time the inevitable
union of the Italian states into a single kingdom; they certainly
prevented the establishment of a republic.

In 1854 Napoleon allied himself with the British and the Turks against
Russia, and sent an army to the Crimea, which played an effective part
in the great struggle in that peninsula. The troops of France had the
honor of rendering Sebastopol untenable, carrying by storm one of its
two great fortresses and turning its guns upon the city.

WAR WITH AUSTRIA

The next act of war-policy by the French emperor was against Austria.
As the career of conquest of Napoleon had begun with an attack upon the
Austrians in Italy, Napoleon III attempted a similar enterprise, and
with equal success. He was said to have been cautiously preparing for
hostilities with Austria, thus to emulate his great uncle, but lacked a
satisfactory excuse for declaring war. This came in 1858 from an
attempt at assassination. Felice Orsini, a fanatical Italian patriot,
incensed at Napoleon from his failing to come to the aid of Italy,
launched three explosive bombs against his carriage. The effect was
fatal to many of the people in the street, though the intended victim
escaped. Orsini while in prison expressed patriotic sentiments and a
loud-voiced love for his country. “Remember that the Italians shed
their blood for Napoleon the Great,” he wrote to the emperor. “Liberate
my country, and the blessings of twenty-five millions of people will
follow you to posterity.”

Louis Napoleon, it was alleged, had once been a member of a secret
political society of Italy; he had taken the oath of initiation; his
failure to come to the aid of that country when in power constituted
him a traitor to his oath and one doomed to death; the act of Orsini
was apparently the work of the society. That Napoleon was deeply moved
by the attempted assassination is certain, and the result of his
combined fear and ambition was soon to be shown by a movement in favor
of Italian independence.

On New Year’s Day, 1859, while receiving the diplomatic corps at the
Tuileries, Napoleon addressed the following significant words to the
Austrian ambassador: “I regret that our relations are not so cordial as
I could wish, but I beg you to report to the Emperor that my personal
sentiments towards him remain unaltered.” Such is the masked way in
which diplomats announce an intention of war. The meaning of the
threatening words was soon shown, when victor Emmanuel, shortly
afterwards, announced at the opening of the Chambers in Turin that
Sardinia could no longer remain indifferent to the cry for help which
was rising from all Italy. Ten years had passed since the defeat of the
Sardinians by an Austrian army on the plains of Lombardy, and the end
for the time of their hopes of a free and united Italy. During that
time they had cherished a hope of retribution, and the words of
Napoleon and Victor Emmanuel made it evident to them that an alliance
had been made with France and that the hour of vengeance was at hand.

Austria was ready for the contest. Her finances, indeed, were in a
serious state, but she had a large army in Lombardy. This was
increased, Lombardy was declared in a state of siege, and every step
was taken to guard against assault from Sardinia. Delay was
disadvantageous to Austria, as it would permit her enemies to complete
their preparations, and on April 23, 1859, an ultimatum came from
Vienna, demanding that Sardinia should put her army on a peace footing
or war would ensue.

THE AUSTRIANS ADVANCE

A refusal came from Turin. Immediately Field-marshal Gyulai received
orders to cross the Ticino. Thus, after ten years of peace, the
beautiful plains of Northern Italy were once more to endure the ravages
of war. This act of Austria was severely criticized by the neutral
Powers, which had been seeking to allay the trouble. Napoleon took
advantage of it, as an aid to his purposes, and accused Austria of
breaking the peace by invading the territory of his ally, the king of
Sardinia.

The real fault committed by Austria, under the circumstances, was not
in precipitating war, which could not well be avoided in the temper of
her antagonists, but in putting, through court favor and privileges of
rank, an incapable leader at the head of the army. Old Radetzky, the
victor in the last war, was dead, but there were other able leaders who
were thrust aside in favor of the Hungarian noble Franz Gyulai, a man
without experience as commander-in-chief of an army.

By his uncertain and dilatory movements Gyulai gave the Sardinians time
to concentrate an army of 80,000 men around the fortress of
Alessandria, and lost all the advantage of being the first in the
field. In early May the French army reached Italy, partly by way of the
St. Bernard Pass, partly by sea; and Garibaldi, with his mountaineers,
took up a position that would enable him to attack the right wing of
the Austrians.

Later in the month Napoleon himself appeared, his presence and the name
he bore inspiring the soldiers with new valor, while his first order of
the day, in which he recalled the glorious deeds which their fathers
had done on those plains under his great uncle, roused them to the
highest enthusiasm. While assuming the title of commander-in-chief, he
was wise enough to leave the conduct of the war to his abler
subordinates, MacMahon, Niel, and others.

The Austrian general, having lost the opportunity to attack, was now
put on the defensive, in which his incompetence was equally manifested.
Being quite ignorant of the position of the foe, he sent Count Stadion,
with 12,000 men, on a reconnaissance. An encounter took place at
Montebello on May 20th, in which, after a sharp engagement, Stadion was
forced to retreat. Gyulai directed his attention to that quarter,
leaving Napoleon to march unmolested from Alessandria to the invasion
of Lombardy. Gyulai then, aroused by the danger of Milan, began his
retreat across the Ticino, which he had so uselessly crossed.

The road to Milan crossed both the Ticino River and the Naviglio
Grande, a broad and deep canal, a few miles east of the river. Some
distance farther on lies the village of Magenta, the seat of the first
great battle of the war. Sixty years before, on those Lombard plains,
Napoleon the Great had first lost, and then, by a happy chance, won the
famous battle of Marengo. The Napoleon now in command was a very
different man from the mighty soldier of the year 1800, and the French
escaped a disastrous rout only because the Austrians were led by a
still worse general. Some one has said that victory comes to the army
that makes the fewest blunders. Such seems to have been the case in the
battle of Magenta, where military genius was the one thing wanting.

The French pushed on, crossed the river without finding a man to
dispute the passage—other than a much-surprised customs official—and
reached an undefended bridge across the canal. The high road to Milan
seemed deserted by the Austrians. But Napoleon’s troops were drawn out
in a preposterous line, straddling a river and a canal, both difficult
to cross, and without any defensive positions to hold against an attack
in force. He supposed that the Austrians were stretched out in a
similar long line. This was not the case. Gyulai had all the advantages
of position, and might have concentrated his army and crushed the
advanced corps of the French if he had known his situation and his
business. As it was, between ignorance on the one hand and indecision
on the other, the battle was fought with about equal forces in the
field on either side.

The first contest took place at Buffalora, a village on the canal,
where the French encountered the Austrians in force. Here a bloody
struggle went on for hours, ending in the capture of the place by the
Grenadiers of the Guard, who held on to it afterwards with stubborn
courage.

THE BATTLE OF MAGENTA

General MacMahon, in command of the advance, had his orders to march
forward, whatever happened, to the church-tower of Magenta, and, in
strict obedience to orders, he pushed on, leaving the grenadiers to
hold their own as best they could at Bufflora, and heedless of the fact
that the reserve troops of the army had not yet begun to cross the
river. It was the 5th of June, and the day was well advanced when
MacMahon came in contact with the Austrians at Magenta, and the great
contest of the day began.

It was a battle in which the commanders on both sides, with the
exception of MacMahon, showed lack of military skill and the soldiers
on both sides the staunchest courage. The Austrians seemed devoid of
plan or system, and their several divisions were beaten in detail by
the French. On the other hand, General Camou, in command of the second
division of MacMahon’s corps, acted as Desaix had done at the battle of
Marengo, marched at the sound of the distant cannon. But, unlike
Desaix, he moved so deliberately that it took him six hours to make
less than five miles. He was a tactician of the old school, imbued with
the idea that every march should be made in perfect order.

At half-past four MacMahon, with his uniform in disorder and followed
by a few officers of his staff, dashed back to hurry up this deliberate
reserve. On the way thither he rode into a body of Austrian
sharpshooters. Fortune favored him. Not dreaming of the presence of the
French general, they saluted him as one of their own commanders. On his
way back he made a second narrow escape from capture by the Uhlans.

The drums now beat the charge, and a determined attack was made by the
French, the enemy’s main column being taken between two fires.
Desperately resisting, it was forced back step by step upon Magenta.
Into the town the columns rolled, and the fight became fierce around
the church. High in the tower of this edifice stood the Austrian
general and his staff, watching the fortunes of the fray; and from this
point he caught sight of the four regiments of Camou, advancing as
regularly as if on parade. They were not given the chance to fire a
shot or receive a scratch, eager as they were to take part in the
fight. At sight of them the Austrian general ordered a retreat and the
battle was at an end. The French owed their victory largely to General
Mellinet and his Grenadiers of the Guard, who held their own like
bull-dogs at Buffalora while Camou was advancing with the deliberation
of the old military rules.

MacMahon and Mellinet and the French had won the day. Victor Emmanuel
and the Sardinians did not reach the ground until after the battle was
at an end. For his services on that day of glory for France MacMahon
was made Marshal of France and Duke of Magenta.

POSSESSION OF LOMBARDY

The prize of the victory of Magenta was the possession of Lombardy.
Gyulai, unable to collect his scattered divisions, gave orders for a
general retreat. Milan was evacuated with precipitate haste, and the
garrisons were withdrawn from all the towns, leaving them to be
occupied by the French and Italians. On the 8th of June Napoleon and
Victor Emmanuel rode into Milan side by side, amid the loud
acclamations of the people, who looked upon this victory as an
assurance of Italian freedom and unity. Meanwhile the Austrians
retreated without interruption, not halting until they arrived at the
Mincio, where they were protected by the famous Quadrilateral,
consisting of the four powerful fortresses or Peschiera, Mantua,
Verona, and Leguano, the mainstay of the Austrian power in Italy.

The French and Italians slowly pursued the retreating Austrians, and on
the 23d of June bivouacked on both banks of the Chiese River, about
fifteen miles west of the Mincio. The Emperor Francis Joseph had
recalled the incapable Gyulai, and, in hopes of inspiring his soldiers
with new spirit, himself took command. The two emperors, neither of
them soldiers, were thus pitted against each other, and Francis Joseph,
eager to retrieve the disaster at Magenta, resolved to quit his strong
position of defense in the quadrilateral and assume the offensive.

FRENCH VICTORY AT SOLFERINO

At two o’colck in the morning of the 24th the allied French and Italian
army resumed its march, Napoleon’s orders for the day being based upon
the reports of his reconnoitering parties and spies. These led him to
believe that, although a strong detachment of the enemy might be
encountered west of the Mincio, the main body of the Austrians was
awaiting him on the eastern side of the river. But the French
intelligence department was badly served. The Austrians had stolen a
march upon Napoleon. Undetected by the French scouts, they had
recrossed the Mincio, and by nightfall of the 23rd their leading
columns were occupying the ground on which the French were ordered to
bivouac on the evening of the 24th. The intention of the Austrian
emperor, now commanding his army in person, had been to push forward
rapidly and fall upon the allies before they had completed the passage
of the river Chiese. But this scheme, like that of Napoleon, was based
on defective information. The allies broke up from their bivouacs many
hours before the Austrians expected them to do so, and when the two
armies came in contact early in the morning of the 24th of June the
Austrians were quite as much taken by surprise as the French.

The Austrian army, superior in numbers to its opponents, was posted in
a half-circle between the Mincio and Chiese, with the intention of
pressing forward from these points upon a center. But the line was
extended too far, and the center was comparatively weak and without
reserves. Napoleon, who that morning received complete intelligence of
the position of the Austrian army, accordingly directed his chief
strength against the enemy’s center, which rested upon a height near
the village of Solferino.

Here, on the 24th of June, after a murderous conflict, in which the
French commanders hurled continually renewed masses against the
decisive position, while on the other side the Austrian reinforcements
failed through lack of unity of plan and decision of action, the
heights were at length won by the French troops in spite of heroic
resistance on the part of the Austrian soldiers; the Austrian line of
battle being cut through, and the army thus divided into two separate
masses. A second attack which Napoleon promptly directed against
Cavriano had a similar result; for the commands given by the Austrian
generals were confused and had no general and definite aim.

The fate of the battle was already in a great measure decided, when a
tremendous storm broke forth that put an end to the combat at most
points, and gave the Austrians an opportunity to retire in order. Only
Benedek, who had twice beaten back the Sardinians at various points,
continued the struggle for some hours longer. On the French side
Marshal Niel had pre-eminently distinguished himself by acuteness and
bravery. It was a day of bloodshed, on which two great powers had
measured their strength against each other for twelve hours. The
Austrians had to lament the loss of 13,000 dead and wounded, and left
9,000 prisoners in the enemy’s hands; on the side of the French and
Sardinians the number of killed and wounded was even greater, for
repeated attacks had been made upon well-defended heights, but the
number of prisoners was not nearly so great.

TREATY OF PEACE

The victories in Italy filled the French people with the warmest
admiration for their emperor, they thinking, in their enthusiasm, that
a true successor of Napoleon the Great had come to bring glory to their
arms. Italy also was full of enthusiastic hope, fancying that the
freedom and unity of the Italians was at last assured. Both nations
were, therefore, bitterly disappointed in learning that the war was at
an end, and that a hasty peace had been arranged between the emperors
which left the hoped-for work but half achieved.

Napoleon estimated his position better than his people. Despite his
victories, his situation was one of danger and difficulty. The army had
suffered severely in its brief campaign, and the Austrians were still
in possession of the Quadrilateral, a square of powerful fortresses
which he might seek in vain to reduce. And a threat of serious trouble
had arisen in Germany. The victorious career of a new Napoleon in Italy
was alarming. It was not easy to forget the past. The German powers,
though they had declined to come to the aid of Austria, were armed and
ready, and at any moment might begin a hostile movement upon the Rhine.

Napoleon, wise enough to secure what he had won, without hazarding its
loss, arranged a meeting with the Austrian emperor, whom he found quite
as ready for peace. The terms of the truce arranged between them were
that Austria should abandon Lombardy to the line of the Mincio, almost
its eastern boundry, and that Italy should form a confederacy under the
presidency of the pope. In the treaty subsequently made only the first
of these conditions was maintained, Lombardy passing to the king of
Sardinia. Hw received also the small states of Central Italy, whose
tyrants had fled, and ceded to Napoleon, as a reward for his
assistance, the realm of Savoy and the city and territory of Nice.

INVASION OF MEXICO

Napoleon III had now reached the summit of his career. In succeeding
years the French were to learn that whatever his ability Napoleon III
was not a counterpart of the great Napoleon. He gradually lost the
prestige he had gained at Magenta and Solferino. His first serious
mistake was when he yielded to the voice of ambition, and, taking
advantage of the occupation of the Americans in their civil war, sent
an army to invade Mexico.

The ostensible purpose of this invasion was to collect a debt which the
Mexicans had refused to pay, and Great Britain and Spain were induced
to take part in the expedition. But their forces were withdrawn when
they found that Napoleon had other purposes in view, and his army was
left to fight its battles alone. After some sanguinary engagements, the
Mexican army was broken into a series of guerilla bands, incapable of
facing his well-drilled troops, and Napoleon proceeded to reorganize
Mexico into an empire, placing the Archduke Maximilian of Austria on
the throne.

All went well while the people of the United States were fighting for
their national union, but when their war was over the ambitious French
emperor was soon taught that he had committed a serious error. He was
given plainly to understand that the French troops could only be kept
in Mexico at the cost of a war with the United States, and he found it
convenient to withdraw them early in 1867. They had no sooner gone than
the Mexicans were in arms against Maximilian, whose rash acceptance of
the advice of the clerical party and determination to remain quickly
led to his capture and execution as a usurper. Thus ended in utter
failure the most daring effort to ignore the “Monroe Doctrine.”

END OF NAPOLEON’S CAREER

The inaction of Napoleon during the wars which Prussia fought with
Denmark and Austria gave further blows to his prestige in France, and
the opposition to his policy of personal government grew so strong that
he felt himself obliged to submit his policy to a vote of the people.
He was sustained by a large majority, and then loosened somewhat the
reins of personal government, in spite of the fact that the yielding of
increased liberty to the people would diminish his own control.
Finally, finding himself failing in health, confidence and reputation,
he yielded to advisers who convinced him that the only hope for his
dynasty lay in a successful war. As a result he undertook the war of
1870 against Prussia. The story of this war will be given in a
subsequent chapter. All that need be said here is that it proved the
utter incompetence of Napoleon III in military matters, he being
completely deceived in the condition of the French army and
unwarrantably ignorant of that of the Germans. The conditions were such
that victory for France was impossible, France losing its second empire
and Napoleon his throne. He died two years later, an exile in England,
that place of shelter for the royal refugees of France.



Chapter IX.
GARIBALDI AND ITALIAN UNITY


Power of Austria Broken

The Carbonari—Mazzini and Garibaldi—Cavour, the Statesman—The Invasion
of Sicily—Occupation of Naples—Victor Emmanuel Takes Command—Watchword
of the Patriots—Garibaldi Marches Against Rome—Battle of
Ironclads—Final Act of Italian Unity

From the time of the fall of the Roman Empire until late in the
nineteenth century, a period of some fourteen hundred years, Italy
remained disunited, divided up among a series of states, small and
large, hostile and peaceful, while its territory was made the
battle-field of the surrounding Powers, the helpless prey of Germany,
France and Spain. Even the strong hand of Napoleon failed to bring it
unity, and after his fall its condition was worse than before, for
Austria held most of the north and exerted a controlling power over the
remainder of the peninsula, so that the fair form of liberty fled in
dismay from its shores.

But the work of Napoleon had inspired the patriots of Italy with a new
sentiment, that of union. Before the Napoleonic era the thought of a
united Italy scarcely existed, and patriotism meant adherence to
Sardinia, Naples, or some other of the many kingdoms and duchies. After
that era union became the watchword of the revolutionists, who felt
that the only hope of giving Italy a position of dignity and honor
among the nations lay in making it one country under one ruler. The
history of the nineteenth century in Italy is the record of the attempt
to reach this end, and its successful accomplishment. And on that
record the names of two men most prominently appear, Mazzini, the
indefatigable conspirator, and Garibaldi, the valorous fighter; to
whose names should be added that of the eminent statesman, Count
Cavour, and that of the man who shared their statecraft and labors,
Victor Emmanuel, the first king of united Italy.

THE CARBONARI

The basis of the revolutionary movements in Italy was the secret
political association known as the Carbonari, formed early in the
nineteenth century and including members of all classes in its ranks.
In 1814 this powerful society projected a revolution in Naples, and in
1820 it was strong enough to invade Naples with an army and force from
the king an oath to observe the new constitution which it had prepared.
The revolution was put down in the following year by the Austrians,
acting as the agents of the “Holy Alliance”—the compact of Austria,
Prussia and Russia.

An ordinance was passed condemning any one who should attend a meeting
of the Carbonari to capital punishment. But the society continued to
exist, despite this severe enactment, and was at the basis of many of
the outbreaks that took place in Italy from 1820 onward. Mazzini,
Garibaldi, and all the leading patriots were members of this powerful
organization, which was daring enough to condemn Napoleon III to death,
and almost to succeed in his assassination, for his failure to live up
to his obligations as an alleged member of the society.

MAZZINI AND GARIBALDI

Giuseppe Mazzini, a native of Genoa, became a member of the Carbonari
in 1830. His activity in revolutionary movements caused him soon after
to be proscribed, and in 1831 he sought Marseilles, where he organized
a new political society called “Young Italy,” whose watchword was “God
and the People,” and whose basic principle was the union of the several
states and kingdoms into one nation, as the only true foundation of
Italian liberty. This purpose he avowed in his writings and pursued
through exile and adversity with inflexible constancy, and it is
largely due to the work of this earnest patriot that Italy today is a
single kingdom instead of a medley of separate states. Only in one
particular did he fail. His persistent purpose was to establish a
republic, not a monarchy.

While Mazzini was thus working with his pen, his compatriot, Giuseppe
Garibaldi, was working as earnestly with his sword. This daring
soldier, a native of Nice and reared to a life on the sea, was banished
as a revolutionist in 1834, and the succeeding fourteen years of his
life were largely spent in South America, in whose wars he played a
leading part.

The revolution of 1848 opened Italy to these two patriots, and they
hastened to return; Garibaldi to offer his services to Charles Albert
of Sardinia, by whom, however, he was treated with coldness and
distrust. Mazzini, after founding the Roman republic in 1849, called
upon Garibaldi to come to its defense, and the latter displayed the
greatest heroism in the contest against the Neapolitan and French
invaders. He escaped from Rome on its capture by the French, and, after
many desperate conflicts and adventures with the Austrians, was again
driven into exile, and in 1850 became a resident of New York. For some
time he worked in a manufactory of candles on Staten Island, and
afterwards made several voyages on the Pacific.

The war in 1859 of Napoleon III and Victor Emmanuel against the
Austrians in Lombardy opened a new and promising channel for the
devotion of Garibaldi to his native land. Being appointed major-general
and commissioned to raise a volunteer corps, he organized the hardy
body of mountaineers called the “Hunters of the Alps,” and with them
performed prodigies or valor on the plains of Lombardy, winning
victories over the Austrians at Varese, Como and other places. In his
ranks was his fellow-patriot Mazzini.

The success of the French and Sardinians in Lombardy during this war
stirred Italy to its center. The grand duke of Tuscany fled to Austria.
The duchess or Parma sought refuge in Switzerland. The duke of Modena
found shelter in the Austrian camp. Everywhere the brood of tyrants
took to flight. Bologna threw off its allegiance to the pope, and
proclaimed the king of Sardinia dictator. Several other towns in the
States of the Church, did the same. In the terms of the truce between
Louis Napoleon and Francis Joseph the rulers of these realms were to
resume their power if the people would permit. But the people would not
permit, and these minor states were all annexed to Sardinia, which
country was greatly expanded as a result of the war.

CAVOUR THE STATESMAN

It will not suffice to give all the credit for these revolutionary
movements to Mazzini, the organizer, Garibaldi, the soldier, and the
ambitious monarchs of France and Sardinia. More important than king and
emperor was the eminent statesman, Count Cavour, prime minister of
Sardinia from 1852. It is to this able man that the honor of the
unification of Italy most fully belongs, though he did not live to see
it. He sent a Sardinian army to the assistance of France and England in
the Crimea in 1855, and by this act gave his state a standing among the
Powers of Europe. He secured liberty of the press and favored
toleration in religion and freedom of trade. He rebelled against the
dominion of the papacy, and devoted his abilities to the liberation and
unity of Italy, undismayed by the angry fulminations from the Vatican.
The war of 1859 was his work, and he had the satisfaction of seeing
Sardinia increased by the addition of Lombardy, Tuscany, Parma and
Modena. A great step had been taken in the work to which he had devoted
his life.

THE INVASION OF SICILY

The next step in the great work was taken by Garibaldi, who now struck
at the powerful kingdom of Naples and Sicily in the south. It seemed a
difficult task. Francis II, the son and successor of the infamous “King
Bomba,” had a well-organized army of 150,000 men. But his father’s
tyranny had filled the land with secret societies, and fortunately at
this time the Swiss mercenaries were recalled home, leaving to Francis
only his native troops, many of them disloyal at heart to his cause.
This was the critical interval which Mazzini and Garibaldi chose for
their work.

At the beginning of April, 1860, the signal was given by separate
insurrections in Messina and Palermo. These were easily suppressed by
the troops in garrison; but though both cities were declared in a state
of siege, demonstrations took place by which the revolutionary chiefs
excited the public mind. On the 6th of May, Garibaldi started with two
steamers from Genoa with about a thousand Italian volunteers, and on
the 11th landed near Marsala, on the west coast of Sicily. He proceeded
to the mountains, and near Salemi gathered round him the scattered
bands of the free corps. By the 14th his army had increased to 4,000
men. He now issued a proclamation, in which he took upon himself the
dictatorship of Sicily, in the name of Victor Emmanuel, “king of
Italy.”

After waging various successful combats under the most difficult
circumstances, Garibaldi advanced upon the capital, announcing his
arrival by beacon-fires kindled at night. On the 27th he was in front
of the Porta Termina of Palermo, and at once gave the signal for the
attack. The people rose in mass, and assisted the operations of the
besiegers by barricade-fighting in the streets. In a few hours half the
town was in Garibaldi’s hands. But now General Lanza, whom the young
king had dispatched with strong reinforcements to Sicily, furiously
bombarded the insurgent city, so that Palermo was reduced almost to a
heap of ruins.

At this juncture, by the intervention of an English admiral, an
armistice was concluded, which led to the departure of the Neapolitan
troops and war vessels and the surrender of the town to Garibaldi, who
thus, with a band of 5,000 badly armed followers, had gained a signal
advantage over a regular army of 25,000 men. This event had tremendous
consequences, for it showed the utter hollowness of the Neapolitan
government, while Garibaldi’s fame was everywhere spread abroad. The
glowing fancy of the Italians beheld in him the national hero before
whom every enemy would bite the dust. This idea seemed to extend even
to the Neapolitan court itself, where all was doubt, confusion and
dismay. The king hastily summoned a liberal ministry, and offered to
restore the constitution of 1848, but the general verdict was, “too
late,” and his proclamation fell flat on a people who had no trust in
Bourbon faith.

The arrival of Garibaldi in Naples was enough to set in blaze all the
combustible materials in that state. His appearance there was not long
delayed. Six weeks after the surrender of Palermo he marched against
Messina. On the 21st of July the fortress of Melazzo was evacuated, and
a week afterwards all Messina except the citadel was given up.

OCCUPATION OF NAPLES

Europe was astounded at the remarkable success of Garibaldi’s handful
of men. On the mainland his good fortune was still more astonishing. He
had hardly landed—which he did almost in the face of the Neapolitan
fleet—when Reggio was surrendered and its garrison withdrew. His
progress through the south of the kingdom was like a triumphal
procession. At the end of August he was at Cosenza; on the 5th of
September at Eboli, near Salerno. No resistance appeared. His very name
seemed to work like magic on the population. The capital had been
declared in a state of siege, and on September 6th the king took to
flight, retiring, with the 4,000 men still faithful to him, behind the
Volturno. The next day Garibaldi with a few followers, entered Naples,
whose populace received him with frantic shouts of welcome.

The remarkable achievements of Garibaldi filled all Italy with
overmastering excitement. He had declared that he would proclaim the
kingdom of Italy from the heart of its capital city, and nothing less
than this would content the people. The position of the pope had become
serious. He refused to grant the reforms suggested by the French
emperor, and threatened with excommunication any one who should meddle
with the domain of the Church. Money was collected from faithful
Catholics throughout the world, a summons was issued calling for
recruits to the holy army of the pope, and the exiled French General
Lamoriciere was given the chief command of the troops, composed of men
who had flocked to Rome from many nations. It was hoped that the name
of the celebrated French leader would have a favorable influence on the
troops of the French garrison of Rome.

The settlement of the perilous situation seemed to rest with Louis
Napoleon. If he had let Garibaldi have his way the latter would, no
doubt, have quickly ended the temporal sovereignty of the pope and made
Rome the capital of Italy. But Napoleon seems to have arranged with
Cavour to leave the king of Sardinia free to take possession of Naples,
Umbria and the other provinces provided that Rome and the “patrimony of
St. Peter” were left intact.

VICTOR EMMANUEL TAKES COMMAND

At the beginning of September two Sardinian army corps, under Fanti and
Cialdini, marched to the borders of the states of the Church.
Lamoriciere advanced against Cialdini with his motley troops, but was
quickly defeated, and on the following day was besieged in the fortress
of Ancona. On the 29th he and the garrison surrendered as prisoners of
war. On the 9th of October Victor Emmanuel arrived and took command.
There was no longer a papal army to oppose him, and the march southward
proceeded without a check.

The object of the king in assuming the chief command was to complete
the conquest of the kingdom of Naples, in conjunction with Garibaldi.
For though Garibaldi had entered the capital in triumph, the progress
on the line of the Volturno had been slow; and the expectation that the
Neapolitan army would go over to the invaders in a mass had not been
realized. The great majority of the troops remained faithful to the
flag, so that Garibaldi, although his irregular bands amounted to more
than 25,000 men, could not hope to drive away King Francis, or to take
the fortresses of Capua and Gaeta, without the help of Sardinia.
Against the diplomatic statesman Cavour, who fostered no illusions, and
saw the conditions of affairs in its true light, the simple, honest
Garibaldi cherished a deep aversion. He could never forgive Cavour for
having given up Nice, Garibaldi’s native town, to the French. On the
other hand, he felt attracted toward the king, who, in his opinion,
seemed to be the man raised up by Providence for the liberation of
Italy.

Accordingly, when Victor Emmanuel entered Sessa, at the head of his
army, Garibaldi was easily induced to place his dictatorial power in
the hands of the king, to whom he left the completion of the work of
the union of Italy. After greeting Victor Emmanuel with the title of
King of Italy, and giving the required resignation of his power, with
the words, “Sire, I obey,” he entered Naples, riding beside the king;
and then, after recommending his companions in arms to his majesty’s
special favor, he retired to his home on the island of Caprera,
refusing to receive a reward, in any shape or form, for his services to
the state and its head.

The progress of the Sardinian army compelled Francis to give up the
line of the Volturno, and he eventually took refuge, with his best
troops, in the fortress of Gaeta. On the maintenance of this fortress
hung the fate of the kingdom of Naples. Its defense is the only bright
point in the career of the feeble Francis, whose courage was aroused by
the heroic resolution of his young wife, the Bavarian Princess Mary.
For three months the defense continued. But no European Power came to
the aid of the king, disease appeared with scarcity of food and of
munitions of war, and the garrison was at length forced to capitulate.
The fall of Gaeta was practically the completion of the great work of
the unification of Italy. Only Rome and Venice remained to be added to
the united kingdom. On February 18, 1861, Victor Emmanuel assembled at
Turin the deputies of all the states that acknowledged his supremacy,
and in their presence assumed the title of King of Italy, which he was
the first to bear. In four months afterwards Count Cavour, to whom this
great work was largely due, died. He had lived long enough to see the
purpose of his life practically accomplished.

WATCHWORD OF THE PATRIOTS

Great as had been the change which two years had made, the patriots of
Italy were not satisfied. “Free from the Alps to the Adriatic!” was
their cry; “Rome and Venice!” became the watchword of the
revolutionists. Mazzini, who had sought to found a republic, was far
from content, and the agitation went on. Garibaldi was drawn into it,
and made bitter complaint of the treatment his followers had received.
In 1862, disheartened at the inaction of the king, he determined to
undertake against Rome an expedition like that which he had led against
Naples two years before.

In June he sailed from Genoa and landed at Palermo, where he was
quickly joined by an enthusiastic party of volunteers. They supposed
that the government secretly favored their design, but the king had no
idea of fighting against the French troops in Rome and arousing
international complications, and he energetically warned all Italians
against taking part in revolutionary enterprises.

GARIBALDI MARCHES AGAINST ROME

But Garibaldi persisted in his design. When his way was barred by the
garrison of Messina he tuned aside to Catania, where he embarked with
2,000 volunteers, declaring he would enter Rome as a victor, or perish
beneath its walls. He landed at Melito on the 24th of August, and threw
himself at once, with his followers, into the Calabrian mountains. But
his enterprise was quickly and disastrously ended. General Cialdini
despatched a division of the regular army, under Colonel Pallavicino,
against the volunteer bands. At Aspromonte, on the 28th of August, the
two forces came into collision. A chance shot was followed by several
volleys from the regulars. Garibaldi forbade his men to return the fire
of their fellow-subjects of the Italian kingdom. He was wounded, and
taken prisoner with his followers, a few of whom had been slain in the
short combat. A government steamer carried the wounded chief to
Varignano, where he was held in a sort of honorable imprisonment, and
was compelled to undergo a tedious and painful operation for the
healing of his wound. He had at least the consolation that all Europe
looked with sympathy and interest upon the unfortunate hero; and a
general sense of relief was felt when, restored to health, he was set
free, and allowed to return to his rocky island of Caprera.

Victor Emmanuel was seeking to accomplish his end by safer means. The
French garrison of Rome was the obstacle in his way, and this was
finally removed through a treaty with Louis Napoleon in September,
1864, the emperor agreeing to withdraw his troops during the succeeding
two years, in which the pope was to raise an army large enough to
defend his dominions. Florence was to replace Turin as the capital of
Italy. This arrangement created such disturbances in Turin that the
king was forced to leave that city hastily for his new capital. In
December, 1866, the last of the French troops departed from Rome, in
spite of the efforts of the pope to retain them. By their withdrawal
Italy was freed from the presence of foreign soldiers for the first
time probably in a thousand years.

In 1866 came an event which reacted favorably for Italy, though her
part in it was the reverse of triumphant. This was the war between
Prussia and Austria. Italy was in alliance with Prussia, and Victor
Emmanuel hastened to lead an army across the Mincio to the invasion of
Venetia, the last Austrian province in Italy. Garibaldi at the same
time was to invade the Tyrol with his volunteers. The enterprise ended
in disaster. The Austrian troops, under the Archduke Albert,
encountered the Italians at Custozza and gained a brilliant victory,
despite the much greater numbers of the Italians.

Fortunately for Italy, the Austrians had been unsuccessful in the
north, and the emperor, with the hope of gaining the alliance of France
and breaking the compact between Italy and Prussia, decided to cede
Venetia to Louis Napoleon. His purpose failed. All Napoleon did in
response was to act as a peacemaker, while the Italian king refused to
recede from his alliance. Though the Austrians were retreating from a
country which no longer belonged to them, the invasion of Venetia by
the Italians continued, and several conflicts with the Austrian army
took place.

BATTLE OF IRONCLADS

But the most memorable event of this brief war occurred on the sea—the
greatest battle of ironclad ships in the period between the American
Civil War and the Japan-China contest. Both countries concerned had
fleets on the Adriatic. Italy was the strongest in navel vessels,
possessing ten ironclads and a considerable number of wooden ships.
Austria’s ironclad fleet was seven in number, plated with thin iron and
with no very heavy guns. In addition there was a number of wooden
vessels and gunboats. But in command of this fleet was an admiral in
whose blood was the iron which was lacking on his ships, Tegetthoff,
the Nelson of the Adriatic. Inferior as his ships were, his men were
thoroughly drilled in the use of the guns and the evolutions of the
ships, and when he sailed it was with the one thought of victory.

Persano, the Italian admiral, as if despising his adversary, engaged in
siege of the fortified island of Lissa, near the Dalmatian coast,
leaving the Austrians to do what they pleased. What they pleased was to
attack him with a fury such as has been rarely seen. Early on July 20,
1866, when the Italians were preparing for a combined assault of the
island by land and sea, their movement was checked by the signal
displayed on a scouting frigate: “Suspicious-looking ships are in
sight.” Soon afterwards the Austrian fleet appeared, the ironclads
leading, the wooden ships in the rear.

The battle that followed has had no parallel before or since. The whole
Austrian fleet was converted into rams. Tegetthoff gave one final order
to his captains: “Close with the enemy and ram everything grey.” Grey
was the color of the Italian ships. The Austrian were painted black, so
as to prevent any danger of error.

Fire was opened at two miles distance, the balls being wasted in the
waters between the fleets. “Full steam ahead,” signaled Tegetthoff. On
came the fleets, firing steadily, the balls now beginning to tell.
“Ironclads will ram and sink the enemy,” signaled Tegetthoff. It was
the last order he gave until the battle was won.

Soon the two lines of ironclads closed amid thick clouds of smoke.
Tegetthoff, in his flagship, the Ferdinand Max, twice rammed a grey
ironclad without effect. Then, out of the smoke, loomed up the tall
masts of the Re d’Italia, Persano’s flagship in the beginning of the
fray. Against this vessel the Ferdinand Max rushed at full speed, and
struck her fairly amidships. Her sides of iron were crushed in by the
powerful blow, her tall masts toppled over, and down beneath the waves
sank the great ship with her crew of 600 men. The next minute another
Italian ship came rushing upon the Austrian, and was only avoided by a
quick turn of the helm.

One other great disaster occurred to the Italians. The Palestro was set
on fire, and the pumps were put actively to work to drown the magazine.
The crew thought the work had been successfully performed, and that
they were getting the fire under control, when there suddenly came a
terrible burst of flame attended by a roar that drowned all the din of
the battle. It was the death knell of 400 men, for the Palestro had
blown up with all on board. The great ironclad turret ship and ram of
the Italian fleet, the Affondatore, to which Admiral Persano had
shifted his flag, far the most powerful vessel in the Adriatic, kept
outside of the battle line, and was of little service in the fray. It
was apparently afraid to encounter Tegetthoff’s terrible rams. The
battle ended with the Austrian fleet, wooden vessels and all, passing
practically unharmed through the Italian lines into the harbor of
Lissa, leaving death and destruction in their rear. Tegetthoff was the
one Austrian who came out of that war with fame. Persano on his return
home was put on trial for cowardice and incompetence. He was convicted
of the latter and dismissed from the navy in disgrace.

FINAL ACT OF ITALIAN UNITY

But Italy, though defeated by land and sea, gained a valuable prize
from the war, for Napoleon ceded Venetia to the Italian king, and soon
afterwards Victor Emmanuel entered Venice in triumph. Thus was
completed the second act in the unification of Italy.

The national party, with Garibaldi at its head, still aimed at the
possession of Rome, as the historic capital of the peninsula. In 1867
he made a second attempt to capture Rome, but the papal army,
strengthened with a new French auxiliary force, defeated his badly
armed volunteers, and he was taken prisoner and held captive for a
time, after which he was sent back to Caprera. This led to the French
army of occupation being returned to Civita Vecchia, where it was kept
for several years.

The final act came as a consequence of the Franco-German war of 1870,
which rendered necessary the withdrawal of the French troops from
Italy. The pope was requested to make a peaceful abdication. As he
refused this, the States of the Church were occupied up to the walls of
the capital, and a three-hours’ cannonade of the city sufficed to bring
the long strife to an end. Rome became the capital of Italy, and the
whole peninsula, for the first time since the fall of the ancient Roman
empire, was concentrated into a single nation, under one king.



Chapter X.
THE EXPANSION OF GERMANY


Beginnings of Modern World Power

William I of Prussia—Bismarck’s Early Career—The Schleswig-Holstein
Question—Conquest of the Duchies—Bismarck’s Wider Views—War Forced on
Austria—The War in Italy—Austria’s Signal Defeat at Sadowa—The Treaty
of Prague—Germany after 1866

The effort made in 1848 to unify Germany had failed for two
reasons—first, because its promoters had not sufficiently clear and
precise ideas, and, secondly, because they lacked material strength.
Until 1859 reaction against novelties and their advocates dominated in
Germany and even Prussia as well as in Austria. The Italian war, as was
readily foreseen, and as wary counselors had told Napoleon III, revived
the agitation in favor of unity beyond the Rhine. After September 16,
1859, it had its center in the national circle of Frankfort and its
manifesto in the proclamation which was issued on September 4, 1860, a
proclamation whose terms, though in moderate form, clearly announced
the design of excluding Austria from Germany. It was the object of
those favoring unity, but with more decision than in 1848, to place the
group of German states under Prussia’s imperial direction. The
accession of a new king, William I, who was already in advance called
William the Conqueror, was likely to bring this project to a successful
issue. The future German emperor’s predecessor, Frederick William IV,
with the same ambition as his brother, had too many prejudices and too
much confusion in his mind to be capable of realizing it. Becoming
insane towards the close of 1857, he had to leave the government to
William, who, officially regent after October 7, 1858, became king on
January 2, 1861.

WILLIAM I OF PRUSSIA

The new sovereign was almost sixty-four years old. The son of Frederick
William III and Queen Louisa, while yet a child he had witnessed the
disasters of his country and his home, and then as a young man had had
his first experience of arms towards the close of the Napoleonic wars.
Obliged to flee during the revolt of 1848, he had afterwards, by his
pro-English attitude at the time of the Crimean war, won the sympathies
of the Liberals, who joyfully acclaimed his accession. To lower him to
the rank of a party leader was to judge him erroneously. William I was
above all a Prussian prince, serious, industrious, and penetrated with
a sense of his duties to the state, the first of which, according to
the men of his house, has ever been to aggrandize it; and he was also
imbued with the idea that the state was essentially incarnate in him.

“I am the first king,” he said at his coronation, “to assume power
since the throne has been surrounded with modern institutions, BUT I do
not forget that the crown comes from God.”

He had none of the higher talents that mark great men, but he possessed
the two essential qualities of the head of a state—firmness and
judgment. He showed this by the way in which he chose and supported
those who built up his greatness, and this merit is rarer than is
generally supposed. A soldier above all, he saw that Prussia’s
ambitions could be realized only with a powerful army.

Advised by Von Moltke, the army’s chief of staff after 1858, and Von
Roon, the great administrator, who filled the office of minister of
war, he changed the organization of 1814, which had become
insufficient. Instead of brigades formed in war time, half of men in
active service and half of reserves, regiments were now recruited by a
three (instead of a two) years’ service and reinforced in case of need
by the classes of reserves. The Landwehr, divided into two classes
(twenty-five to thirty-two years and thirty-two to thirty-nine), was
grouped separately. This system gave seven hundred thousand trained
soldiers, Prussia having then seventeen million inhabitants. This was
more than either France or Austria had. The armament was also superior.
Frederick William I had already said that the first result to be
obtained in this direction was celerity in firing. This was assured by
the invention of the needle gun.

BISMARCK’S EARLY CAREER

Such a transformation entailed heavy expenses. The Prussian Chamber,
made up for the most part of Liberals, did not appreciate its utility.
Moreover, it was not in favor of increasing the number of officers,
because they were recruited from the nobility. After having yielded
with bad grace in 1860, the deputies refused the grants in 1861 and
1862. It was at this time that Bismarck was called to the ministry
(September 24, 1862). Otto von Bismarck-Schonhausen, born April 1,
1815, belonged by birth to that minor Prussian nobility, rough and
realistic, but faithful and disciplined, which has ever been one of the
Prussian state’s sources of strength. After irregular studies at the
university of Gottingen, he had entered the administration, but had not
been able to stay in it, and had lived on his rather moderate estates
until 1847. The diet of that year, to which he had been elected,
brought him into prominence. There he distinguished himself in the
Junker (poor country squires’) party by his marked contempt for the
Liberalism then in vogue and his insolence to the Liberals. Frederick
William IV entrusted him with representing Prussia at Frankfort, where
he assumed the same attitude towards the Austrians (1851–59).

He was afterward ambassador at St. Petersburg, and had just been sent
to Paris in the same capacity when he became prime minister.

His character was a marked one. In it was evident a taste for sarcastic
raillery and a sort of frankness, apparently brutal, but really more
refined than cruel. His qualities were those of all great politicians,
embracing energy, decision and realism; that is, talent for
appreciating all things at their effective value and for not letting
himself be duped either by appearances, by current theories, or by
words. Very unfavorably received by the parliament, he paid little heed
to the furious opposition of the deputies, causing to be promulgated by
ordinance the budget which they refused him, suppressing hostile
newspapers, treating his adversaries with studied insolence, and
declaring to them that, if the Chamber had its rights, the king also
had his, and that force must settle the matter in such a case. To get
rid of these barren struggles, he took advantage of the first incident
of foreign politics. The Schleswig-Holstein question furnished him with
the desired opportunity.

THE SCHLESWIG-HOLSTEIN QUESTION

This was the first of the various important questions of international
policy in which Bismarck became concerned. The united provinces of
Schleswig-Holstein, lying on the northern border of Denmark had long
been notable as a source of continual strife between Germany and
Denmark. The majority of the inhabitants of Schleswig were Danes, but
those of Holstein were very largely Germans, and the question of their
true national affiliation lay open from the time of their original
union in 1386. It became insistent after the middle of the nineteenth
century.

The Treaty of London in 1852 had maintained the union of Holstein with
Denmark, but did not put a definite end to the demands of the Germans,
who held that it was a constituent part of Germany. The quarrel was
renewed in 1855 over a common constitution given by King Frederick VII
to all his states. This was abolished in 1858, and afterwards the Danes
sought to grant complete autonomy to the duchies of Schleswig and
Lauenburg, this movement being with the purpose of making more complete
the union of Schleswig with their country. This step, taken in 1863,
led to a protest from the German diet.

In all this there was food for an indefinite contest, for, on the one
hand, Schleswig did not form a part of the Confederation, but, on the
other, certain historical bonds attached it to Holstein, and its
population was mixed. The death of Frederick VII (November 15, 1863),
who was succeeded by a distant relative, Christian IX, further
complicated the quarrel. The duke of Augustenburg claimed the three
duchies, though he had previously renounced them. The German diet, on
its part, wanted the Danish constitution abolished in Schleswig.

The dream of the petty German states hostile to Prussia, and especially
of the Saxon minister, Von Beust, was to strengthen their party by the
creating of a new duchy. Bismarck admirably outplayed everybody. He
knew that the great Powers were at odds with one another over Poland.
He, on the contrary, could count on Russia’s friendship and the
personal aid of Queen Victoria, whom Prince Albert had completely won
over to pro-German ideas. He used England to make Christian IX consent
to the occupation of Holstein, which, he said, was in reality an
acknowledgment of that king’s rights. At this stage, had the Danes
yielded to the necessities of the situation and withdrawn from
Schleswig under protest, the European Powers would probably have
intervened and a congress would have restored Schleswig to the Danish
realm. Bismarck prevented this by a cunning stratagem, making the
Copenhagen government believe that Great Britain had taken a step
hostile to that government. There was no truth in this, but it
succeeded in inducing Denmark to remain defiant. As a consequence, on
the 1st of February 1864, the combined forces of Prussia and Austria
crossed the Eider and invaded the province.

It was a movement to regain to Germany a section held to be non-Danish
in population and retained by Denmark against the traditions and will
of its people. Austria, which did not wish to appear less German than
Prussia, though the matter did not directly appeal to that country,
joined in the movement, being drawn into it by Bismarck’s shrewd
policy.

It was not the original intention to go beyond the borders of the
duchies and invade Denmark, but when Christian IX tried to resist the
invasion this was done. The Danewerk and the Schlei were forced, and
the Danish army was defeated at Flensburg and driven back into Dueppel,
which was taken by assault. A conference of the great Powers, opened at
London (April 25th to June 25th), brought about no result. Napoleon III
did not refuse to act, but he wanted as a condition that England would
promise him something more than its moral support, which it refused to
do. Finally Jutland was invaded and conquered, and Van Moltke was
already preparing for a landing in Fuenen when Christian IX gave up all
the duchies by the Vienna preliminaries (August 1st), confirmed by
treaty on October 30th following.

CONQUEST OF THE DUCHIES

The fate of the conquest remained to be decided upon. Bismarck settled
it, after a pretence of investigation, by concluding that the rights of
King Christian over the duchies were far superior to those of the duke
of Augstenburg, who had a hereditary claim, and that as Prussia and
Austria had won them from the king by conquest, they had become the
lawful owners. An agreement was made in which Holstein was assigned to
Austria and Schleswig to Prussia, and for the time the question seemed
settled.

BISMARCK’S WIDER VIEWS

This was far from being the case. Bismarck held views of far more
expanded scope. He wanted to exclude Austria from the German
confederation, and to do so desired war with that country as the only
practical means of gaining his ends. In 1865 he made the significant
remark that a single battle in Bohemia would decide everything and that
Prussia would win that battle. A remark like this was indicative of the
purpose entertained and the events soon to follow.

In such a war, however, it was important to secure the neutrality of
France. The alert Prussian statesman had already assured himself of
that of Russia. To gain France to his side he held an interview with
Napoleon III at Biarritz in October, 1865. The cunning diplomat offered
the emperor an alliance with a view to the extension of Prussia and
Italy, by means of which France would take Belgium. Napoleon saw very
clearly that the offer was chimerical, but he believed that Prussia if
fighting alone would be rapidly crushed, and that the alliance of Italy
would aid him in protracting the war, thus enabling him to intervene as
a peacemaker and to impose a vast rearrangement of territory, the most
essential provision of which would be the exchange of Venetia for
Silesia. Whatever Napoleon’s views, Bismarck saw that he was safe from
any interference on the part of France, and returned with the fixed
design of driving Austria to the wall.

WAR FORCED ON AUSTRIA

He found the desired pretext in the Holstein question and the far more
serious one of reforming the federal government. On January 24, 1866,
he reproached the Austrian government with favoring in Holstein the
pretensions of the Duke of Augustenburg. The grievance soon became
envenomed by complaints and ulterior measures. In April Bismarck
denounced the so-called offensive measures which Austria was taking in
Bohemia and which, in short, were only precautionary. Yet at the same
time he himself was signing with Italy a treaty, concluded for three
months, by virtue of which Victor Emmanuel was to declare war against
Austria as soon as Prussia itself had done so.

Bismarck, now invited to lay the Austrian-Prussian dispute before the
diet, answered by asking that an assembly elected by universal suffrage
be called to discuss the question of federal reform. And when Austria
offered to disarm in Bohemia if Prussia would do so on its part,
Bismarck demanded, in addition, disarmament in Venetia, a condition he
knew to be unacceptable. On May 7, 1866, he declared he would not
accept the diet’s intervention in the duchies question, and on the 8th
ordered the mobilization of the Prussian army.

Napoleon III at this juncture proposed the holding of a congress for
settling the duchies question and that of federal reform. Thiers had
warned him in vain, in an admirable speech delivered on May 3d, that
France had everything to lose by aiding in bringing about the unity of
Germany. The emperor obstinately persisted, proposing to tear up those
treaties of 1815 which, two years before, he had childishly declared to
be no longer in existence. His proposition of a congress, however,
failed through the refusal of Austria and the petty states to take part
in it. He next signed with Austria a secret treaty by which the latter
promised to cede Venetia after its first victory and on condition of
being indemnified at Prussia’s expense. By a strange inconsistency the
French emperor proposed at the same time to make Prussia more
homogeneous in the north.

Bismarck acted in a far clearer manner than the French emperor. On June
5th, General von Gablenz, the Austrian governor of Holstein, convened
the states of that country, Austria declaring that the object of this
measure was to enable the federal diet to settle the question. A German
force under General Manteuffel at once invaded the duchy and, having
far superior forces at his disposal, took possession of it. On the
10th, Prussia asked the different German States to accept a new
constitution based on the exclusion of Austria, the election of a
parliament by universal suffrage, the creation of a strong federal
power and a common army. The diet answered by voting the federal
execution against Prussia. Thereupon the Prussian envoy, Savigny,
withdrew, declaring that his sovereign ceased to recognize the
Confederation.

Events proved how correctly Bismarck had judged in his confidence in
Prussia’s military strength. The Prussian forces amounted to 330,000
men, who were to be aided in the south by 240,000 Italians. Austria had
335,000 troops and its German allies 146,000. Generally the last named
had little zeal.

The Austrian government acted slowly, while its adversary vigorously
assumed the offensive. On June 16th, after an unavailing notice, the
Prussian troops invaded Saxony and occupied it without resistance, the
Saxon army withdrawing to Bohemia. The same was the case in Hesse,
whose grand duke was taken prisoner, while his army joined the
Bavarians. Still less fortunate was the king of Hanover, who did not
even save his army, which also retreating towards the south, was
surrounded and obliged to capitulate at Langensalza (June 29th).

In the south the Prussian General Vogel von Falkenstein, who had but
57,000 men against over 100,000, took advantage of the fact that his
adversaries had separated into two masses, the one at Frankfort, and
the other at Meiningen, to beat them separately, the Bavarians at
Kissingen (July 10th) and the Prince of Hesse, commanding the other
army, at Aschaffenurg (July 14th). On the 16th the Prussians entered
Frankfort, which they overwhelmed with requisitions and contributions.
General Manteuffel, Falkenstein’s successor, then drove the federal
armies from the line of the Tauber, where they had united, back to
Wurzburg. On the 28th an armistice was concluded.

THE WAR IN ITALY

The Italians had been less successful. Archduke Albert, who commanded
in Venetia, had only 70,000 men, but they were Croatian Slavs, that is,
Austria’s best troops. Confronting him, Victor Emmanuel commanded
124,000 men on the Chiese and Cialdini 80,000 in the neighborhood of
Ferrara. They proved unable to act together. Cialdini let himself be
kept in check by a mere handful of troops, while the Austrian archduke
attacked the Italian royal army at Custozza. Serious errors in tactics
and panic in an Italian brigade, which fled before three platoons of
lancers that had the audacity to charge it, gave victory to the
Austrians. Cialdini had remained behind the Po. Garibaldi, who had
undertaken with 36,000 men, to conquer the Trent region, defended by
only 13,000 regulars and 4,000 militia under General von Kuhn, found
himself not only repulsed in every attack, but, had it not been for the
evacuation of Venetia, his adversary would have pursued him on Italian
territory. The important events which took place at sea have been
described in the preceding chapter.

AUSTRIA’S SIGNAL DEFEAT OF SADOWA

It was not on these events that the outcome of the war was to depend,
but on the victory or defeat of the chief Austrian army. The forces of
the two Powers on the Silesian and Saxon frontier were almost equal;
but the Austrian commander-in-chief, Benedek, brave and brilliant as a
division leader, proved unequal to his present task. He dallied in
Moravia until June 16th, while the Prussians entered Bohemia in two
separate masses, one on each side of the Riesen Gebirge. Benedek
wavered and blundered. He sent only 60,000 men against 150,000 under
Prince Frederick Charles, and they suffered four defeats in as many
days (June 26–29th). At the same time he had made the same mistake in
regard to the Prince Royal, who won in over half a dozen skirmishes.
During the following night, June 29–30th, the second Prussian army
reached the Elbe.

Benedek’s incapacity was now completely demonstrated. He telegraphed to
the emperor to make peace at any cost, and retreated on Olmutz. Then he
changed his mind and decided to fight, seeking to throw the blame for
his own errors on his subordinates. The battle-field chosen by him was
near the village of Sadowa, and here his army, though sadly
demoralized, fought with much bravery. The Austrians, whom their
general had notified of the imminent battle only in the middle of the
night, had fortified the slopes and villages as best they could. At
eight in the morning Frederick Charles began the attack by crossing the
Bistritz. Benedek’s center resisted, but the right and left wings lost
ground. At half past eleven the Prussians were losing ground and seemed
ready to retreat. At this critical moment the army of the Prince Royal
appeared, coming from the north.

The second and sixth Austrian corps, obliged to confront the new troops
with a flank march under the fire of the Prussian artillery, could not
hold out long, and about three o’clock the strongest Austrian position
was lost. It was necessary at any cost to regain it, but all efforts
failed against their own intrenchments, defended by the captors with
desperate energy. At half past four retreat became necessary. Half of
the Austrian army escaped without much difficulty; but the rest, three
army corps, driven towards the Elbe by the entire victorious army,
would have been annihilated but for the devotedness of the cavalry and
the artillerymen. These formed successive fire lines, and continuing to
shoot until the muzzles of their guns were reached, saving the infantry
from destruction through dint of dying at their posts. Despite this
diversion it was a frightful rout, which cost the vanquished 40,000 men
and 187 pieces of artillery. The Prussians lost only 10,000 dead and
wounded.

THE TREATY OF PRAGUE

The Austrians tried to fall back on Vienna, but only three corps out of
eight reached there, as the Prussian army by a rapid march had forced
the others to seek refuge at Presburg. On July 18th the Prussian armies
were concentrated on the Russbach. Archduke Albert, recalled from
Italy, had taken command of the troops covering Vienna, but the
internal condition of the empire, where Hungary was in agitation, was
too disquieting for it to be possible, without aid, to continue the
war. This aid Napoleon III could and should have furnished. The French
army had suffered from the expedition to Mexico. Yet it would have been
possible to put a hundred thousand men on foot immediately, and later
on, Bismarck acknowledged that this would have sufficed to change the
result. But Napoleon III was ill and swayed between opposing
influences. Prince Napoleon, whom he heeded very much, was decidedly in
favor of Prussia. Accordingly, no step was taken but an offer of
mediation. Then he had the weakness, in spite of his minister, Drouyn
de Lhuys, to consent to the annexations which Prussia wished to bring
about in northern Germany. He asked, however, that Austria lose only
Venetia, but it was precisely Bismarck’s will that had, and not without
difficulty, persuaded King William that he must not, by territorial
demands, compromise the alliance which he afterwards realized.

On July 26th the peace preliminaries of Nikolsburg were signed. Austria
paid a considerable indemnity, abandoned its former position in
Germany, acknowledged the extension of Prussian authority to the line
of the Main and the annexations which Prussia would deem it to its
purpose to make. The three Danish duchies were likewise abandoned. It
was stipulated only that the inhabitants of northern Schleswig should
be consulted as to their wish to be restored or not to Denmark, which
was never done. The definitive treaty was signed on August 25th at
Prague. As for Italy, Francis Joseph had ceded Venetia to Napoleon III,
who was to transmit it to Victor Emmanuel, but the Italians protested
loudly against the idea of being satisfied with so little. They wanted
in addition at least the Trent country. “Have you, then,” Bismarck said
to them, “lost another battle to claim a province more?” On August 10th
the preliminaries of peace were signed on that side. The final treaty,
that of Vienna, was concluded on October 3, 1866.

GERMANY AFTER 1866

Prussia, now master of Germany, annexed Hanover, Hesse-Cassel, Nassau
and the city of Frankfort, which increased its population by four and a
half millions. The rest of the northern states as far as the Main were
to form under its direction the Confederation of Northern Germany
(proclaimed July 1, 1867), with a constitution exactly the same as that
of the German empire of today. As for the southern states, they
remained independent, but signed military agreements which connected
them with Prussia. Napoleon III tried in vain to obtain a compensation
for that enormous increase of power. To the first overtures which he
made to this end (he wanted the Palatinate) Bismarck answered with a
flat refusal and a threat of war. He added, however, that he would
consent to an enlargement of France from Belgium, a project which he
was afterwards careful to mention as coming from the Paris cabinet.

Bismarck had succeeded in humbling Austria and reducing its importance
among the great Powers of Europe, and had expanded Prussia alike on the
north and south and made it decisively the ruling nation in Central
Europe. As we have seen, it had concluded military agreements with the
states of southern Germany. It held them also in another manner,
namely, by means of the Zollverein, signed anew on June 4, 1867. But it
was as yet far from having brought about a peaceful realization of
unity. The southern states, not merely the sovereigns only, but the
peoples as well, had always shown little taste for Prussian leadership,
and after 1866 this feeling was very visible. It was for that reason
that Bismarck had need of a war against France to strengthen his
position. Union against the foreigner was the cement with which he
hoped to complete political unity. Such a war came near breaking out in
1867 in relation to Luxembourg. Napoleon III keenly desired to have at
least that country as compensation for Prussia’s aggrandizements, and
the king of Holland was disposed to cede his rights for a
consideration. But Bismarck, after having secretly approved of the
bargain, officially declared his opposition to it. Napoleon, hampered
at one and the same time by the Paris Exposition of that year and by
the bad condition of his army, was too happy to escape from
embarrassment, since it was evident that the Prussians were not willing
to evacuate the fortress of Luxembourg, by obtaining with the aid of
the other Powers that the little duchy be declared neutral and the
walls of its capital destroyed.

In spite of this arrangement, it remained certain to everybody that a
conflict would break out in a short time between France and Prussia. We
have seen what reasons Bismarck had for the methods pursued by him and
those projected. Napoleon III’s government, justly censured by opinion
for the weakness which it had shown in 1866 and constantly losing its
authority, was destined to fall into the first trap its adversary would
set for it. What this trap was and the momentous events to which it led
will be described in the next chapter.



Chapter XI.
THE FRANCO-PRUSSIAN WAR


Birth of the German Empire and the French Republic

Causes of Hostile Relations—Discontent in France—War with Prussia
Declared—Self deception of the French—First Meeting of the Armies—The
Stronghold of Metz—Mars-la-Tour and Gravelotte—Napoleon III at
Sedan—The Emperor a Captive; France a Republic—Bismarck Refuses
Intervention—Fall of the Fortresses—Paris is Besieged—Defiant Spirit of
the French—The Struggle Continued—Operations Before Paris—Fighting in
the South—The War at an End

In 1866 the war between the two great powers of Germany, in which most
of the smaller powers were concerned, led to more decided measures, in
the absorption by Prussia of the weaker states, the formation of a
North German League among the remaining states of the north, and the
offensive and defensive alliance with Prussia of the south German
states. By the treaty of peace with Austria, that power was excluded
from the German League, and Prussia remained the dominant power in
Germany. A constitution for the League was adopted in 1867, providing
for a Diet, or legislative council of the League, elected by the direct
votes of the people, and an army, which was to be under the command of
the Prussian king and subject to the military laws of Prussia. Each
state in the League bound itself to supply a specified sum for the
support of the army.

Here was a union with a backbone—an army and a budget—and Bismarck had
done more in the five years of his ministry in forming a united Germany
than his predecessors had done in fifty years. But the idea of union
and alliance between kindred states was then widely in the air. Such a
union had been practically completed in Italy, and Hungary in 1867
regained her ancient rights, which had been taken from her in 1849,
being given a separate government, with Francis Joseph, the emperor of
Austria,

as its king. It was natural that the common blood of the Germans should
lead them to a political confederation, and equally natural that
Prussia, which so overshadowed the smaller states in strength, should
be the leading element in the alliance.

Yet, though Prussia had concluded military agreements with the states
of southern Germany and held them also by means of the Zollverein, this
was far from bringing about a peaceful realization of unity. The
southern states, not merely the sovereigns only, but the peoples, have
always had little taste for Prussian leadership, and after 1866 this
feeling was very visible. For this reason Bismarck felt it important to
instigate a war against France. Union against the foreigner was to
complete political unity. This subject has been dealt with in the
preceding chapter, and we need here merely to repeat that warlike
sentiments were in the air in 1867, in regard to the desire of Napoleon
III to add to his empire the little duchy of Luxembourg and Bismarck’s
opposition to this desire. France was not then in a favorable condition
for war, and the matter was finally settled by declaring Luxembourg a
neutral state and ordering the walls around its capital to be
destroyed.

CAUSES OF HOSTILE RELATIONS

In spite of this settlement, it remained certain to everybody that a
conflict would break out in a short time between France and Prussia. We
have seen what reasons Bismarck had for such a war. Napoleon III’s
government, justly censured by opinion for the weakness which it had
shown in 1866, was eager to retrieve the fault it had then committed.
Yet the weakness of the administration continued and prevented it from
adopting the indispensable military measures that it should have done.
The enemies of power were declaiming against standing armies, which
they declared useless. The government deputies were afraid to
dissatisfy their constituents by aggravating the burdens of the
service. Marshal Niel, minister of war, tried indeed to adopt measures
with a view to the seemingly inevitable conflict. He caused to be
elaborated a plan of campaign, a system of transportation by railway,
an arrangement for the chief places of the east to be armed with rifled
cannon. But the Chamber grudged him the appropriations for the increase
of the army, asking him if “he wished to make France a vast barracks.”
“Take care,” he answered the opposition, “lest you make it a vast
cemetery.” Accordingly, when the mobile national guard had been
created, made up of all the young men who had not been drawn by lot,
organization was given to it only on paper, and it was never drilled.
Leboeuf, who succeeded Niel in August, 1869, abandoned, moreover, most
of his predecessor’s plans. He even neglected to do anything towards
carrying out on the eastern frontier any of the works of defense
already recommended as urgent by the generals of the restoration.

And thus time passed on until the eventful year 1870. By that year
Prussia had completed its work among the north German states and was
ready for the issue of hostilities, if this should be necessary. On the
other hand, Napoleon, who had found his prestige in France from various
causes decreasing, felt obliged in 1870 to depart from his policy of
personal rule and give that country a constitutional government. This
proposal was submitted to a vote of the people and was sustained by an
immense majority. He also took occasion to state that “peace was never
more assured than at the present time.” This assurance gave
satisfaction to the world, yet it was a false one, for war was probably
at that moment assured.

DISCONTENT IN FRANCE

There were alarming signs in France. The opposition to Napoleonism was
steadily gaining power. A bad harvest was threatened—a serious source
of discontent. The parliament was discussing the reversal of the
sentence of banishment against the Orleans family. These indications of
a change in public sentiment appeared to call for some act that would
aid in restoring the popularity of the emperor. And of all the acts
that could be devised a national war seemed the most promising. If the
Rhine frontier, which every Frenchman regarded as the natural boundary
of the empire, could be regained by the arms of the nation, discontent
and opposition would vanish, the name of Napoleon would win back its
old prestige, and the reign of Bonapartism would be firmly established.

Acts speak louder than words, and the acts of Napoleon were not in
accord with his assurances of peace. Extensive military preparations
began, and the forces of the empire were strengthened by land and sea,
while great trust was placed in a new weapon, of murderous powers,
called the Mitrailleuse, the predecessor of the machine gun, and
capable of discharging twenty-five balls at once.

CAUSES OF HOSTILE RELATIONS

On the other hand, there were abundant indications of discontent in
Germany, where a variety of parties inveighed against the rapacious
policy of Prussia, and where Bismarck had sown a deep crop of hate. It
was believed in France that the minor states would not support Prussia
in a war. In Austria the defeat of 1866 rankled, and hostilities
against Prussia on the part of France seemed certain to win sympathy
and support in that composite empire. Colonel Stoffel, the French
military envoy at Berlin, declared that Prussia would be found
abundantly prepared for a struggle; but his warnings went unheeded in
the French Cabinet, and the warlike preparations continued.

Napoleon did not have to go far for an excuse for the war upon which he
was resolved. One was prepared for him in that potent source of
trouble, the succession to the throne of Spain. In that country there
had for years been no end of trouble, revolts, Carlist risings, wars
and rumors of wars. The government of Queen Isabella, with its endless
intrigues, plots and alternation of despotism and anarchy, and the
pronounced immorality of the queen, had become so distasteful to the
people that finally, after several years of revolts and armed risings,
she was driven from her throne by a revolution, and for a time Spain
was without a monarch and was ruled on the republican principles.

But this arrangement did not prove satisfactory. The party in
opposition looked around for a king, and negotiations began with a
distant relative of the Prussian royal family, Leopold of Hohenzollern.
Prince Leopold accepted the offer, and informed the king of Prussia of
his decision.

The news of this event caused great excitement in Paris, and the
Prussian government was advised of the painful feeling to which the
incident had given rise. The answer from Berlin that the Prussian
government had no concern in the matter, and that Prince Leopold was
free to act on his own account, did not allay the excitement. The
demand for war grew violent and clamorous, the voices of the feeble
opposition in the Chambers were drowned, and the journalists and war
partisans were confident of a short and glorious campaign and a
triumphant march to Berlin.

The hostile feeling was reduced when King William of Prussia, though he
declined to prohibit Prince Leopold from accepting the crown, expressed
his concurrence with the decision of the prince when he withdrew his
acceptance of the dangerous offer. This decision was regarded as
sufficient, even in Paris; but it did not seem to be so in the palace,
where an excuse for a declaration of war was ardently desired. The
emperor’s purpose was enhanced by the influence of the empress, and it
was finally declared that the Prussian king had aggrieved France in
permitting the prince to become a candidate for the throne without
consulting the French Cabinet.

WAR WITH PRUSSIA DECLARED

Satisfaction for this shadowy source of offense was demanded, but King
William firmly refused to say any more on the subject and declined to
stand in the way of Prince Leopold if he should again accept the offer
of the Spanish throne. This refusal was declared to be an offense to
the honor and a threat to the safety of France. The war party was so
strongly in the ascendant that all opposition was now looked upon as
lack of patriotism, and on the 15th of July the Prime Minister Ollivier
announced that the reserves were to be called out and the necessary
measures taken to secure the honor and security of France. When the
declaration of war was hurled against Prussia the whole nation seemed
in harmony with it and public opinion appeared for once to have become
a unit throughout France.

Rarely in the history of the world has so trivial a cause given rise to
such stupendous military and political events as took place in France
in a brief interval following this blind leap into hostilities. Instead
of a triumphant march to Berlin and the dictation of peace from its
palace, France was to find itself in two months’ time without an
emperor or an army, and in a few months more completely subdued and
occupied by foreign troops, while Paris had been made the scene of a
terrible siege and a frightful communistic riot, and a republic had
succeeded the empire. It was such a series of events as have seldom
been compressed within the short interval of half a year.

In truth Napoleon and his advisers were blinded by their hopes to the
true state of affairs. The army on which they depended, and which they
assumed to be in a high state of efficiency and discipline, was lacking
in almost every requisite of an efficient force. The first Napoleon had
been his own minister of war. The third Napoleon, when told by his war
minister that “not a single button was wanted on a single gaiter,” took
the words for the fact, and hurled an army without supplies and
organization against the most thoroughly organized army the world had
ever known. That the French were as brave as the Germans goes without
saying; they fought desperately, but from the first confusion reigned
in their movements, while military science of the highest kind
dominated those of the Germans.

Napoleon was equally mistaken as to the state of affairs in Germany.
The disunion upon which he counted vanished at the first threat of war.
All Germany felt itself threatened and joined hands in defense. The
declaration of war was received there with as deep an enthusiasm as in
France and excited a fervent eagerness for the struggle. The new
popular song, DIE WACHT AM RHEIN (“The Watch on the Rhine”), spread
rapidly from end to end of the country, and indicated the resolution of
the German people to defend to the death the frontier stream of their
country.

SELF-DECEPTION OF THE FRENCH

The French looked for a parade march to Berlin, even fixing the day of
their entrance into that city—August 15th, the emperor’s birthday. On
the contrary, they failed to set their foot on German territory, and
soon found themselves engaged in a death struggle with the invaders of
their own land. In truth, while the Prussian diplomacy was conducted by
Bismarck, the ablest statesman Prussia had ever known, the movements of
the army were directed by far the best tactician Europe then possessed,
the famous Von Moltke, to whose strategy the rapid success of the war
against Austria had been due. In the war with France Von Moltke, though
too old to lead the armies in person, was virtually commander-in-chief,
and arranged those masterly combinations which overthrew all the power
of France in so remarkably brief a period. Under his directions, from
the moment war was declared everything worked with clock-like
precision. It was said that Von Moltke had only to touch a bell and all
went forward. As it was, the Crown Prince Frederick fell upon the
French while still unprepared, won the first battle, and steadily held
the advantage to the end, the French being beaten by the strategy that
kept the Germans in superior strength at all decisive points.

But to return to the events of war. On July 23, 1870, the Emperor
Napoleon, after making his wife, Eugenie regent of France, set out with
his son at the head of the army, full of high hopes of victory and
triumph. By the end of July King William had also set out from Berlin
to join the armies that were then in rapid motion, towards the
frontier.

The emperor made his way to Metz, where was stationed his main army,
about 200,000 strong, under Marshals Bazaine and Canrobert and General
Bourgaki. Further east, under Marshal MacMahon, the hero of Magenta,
was the southern army, of about 100,000 men. A third army occupied the
camp at Chalons, while a well-manned fleet set sail for the Baltic, to
blockade the harbors and assail the coast of Germany. The German army
was likewise in three divisions, the first, of 61,000 men, under
General Steinmetz; the second, of 206,000 men, under Prince Frederick
Charles; and the third, of 180,000 men, under the crown prince and
General Blumenthal. The king, commander-in-chief of the whole, was in
the center, and with him the general staff under the guidance of the
alert von Moltke. Bismarck and the minister of war Von Roon were also
present, and so rapid was the movement of these great forces that in
two weeks after the order to march was given 300,000 armed Germans
stood in rank along the Rhine.

FIRST MEETING OF THE ARMIES

The two armies first came together on August 2d, near Saarbruck, on the
frontier line of the hostile kingdoms. It was the one success of the
French, for the Prussians, after a fight in which both sides lost
equally, retired in good order. This was proclaimed by the French
papers as a brilliant victory, and filled the people with undue hopes
of glory. It was the last favorable report, for they were quickly
overwhelmed with tidings of defeat and disaster.

Weissenburg, on the borders of Rhenish Bavaria, had been invested by a
division of MacMahon’s army. On August 4th the right wing of the army
of the Crown Prince Frederick attacked and repulsed this investing
force after a hot engagement, in which its leader, General Douay, was
killed, and the loss on both sides was heavy. Two days later occurred a
battle which decided the fate of the whole war, that of
Worth-Reideshofen, where the army of the crown prince met that of
MacMahon, and after a desperate struggle, which continued for fifteen
hours, completely defeated him, with very heavy losses on both sides.
MacMahon retreated in haste towards the army at Chalons, while the
crown prince took possession of Alsace, and prepared for the reduction
of the fortresses on the Rhine, from Strasburg to Belfort. On the same
day as that of the battle of Worth, General Steinmetz stormed the
heights of Spicheren, and, though at great loss of life, drove Frossard
from those heights and back upon Metz.

The occupation of Alsace was followed by that of Lorraine, by the
Prussian army under King William, who took possession of Nancy and the
country surrounding on August 11th. These two provinces had at one time
belonged to Germany, and it was the aim of the Prussians to retain them
as the chief anticipated prize of the war. Meanwhile the world looked
on in amazement at the extraordinary rapidity of the German success,
which, in two weeks after Napoleon left Paris, had brought his power to
the verge of overthrow.

THE STRONGHOLD OF METZ

Towards the Moselle River and the strongly fortified town of Metz, 180
miles northeast of Paris, around which was concentrated the main French
force, all the divisions of the German army now advanced, and on the
14th of August they gained a victory at Colombey-Nouilly which drove
their opponents back from the open field towards the fortified city.

It was Moltke’s opinion that the French proposed to make their stand
before this impregnable fortress, and fight there desperately for
victory. But, finding less resistance than he expected, he concluded,
on the 15th, that Bazaine, in fear of being cooped up within the
fortress, meant to march towards Verdun, there to join his forces with
those of MacMahon and give battle to the Germans in the plain.

The astute tactician at once determined to make every effort to prevent
such a concentration of his opponents, and by the evening of the 15th a
cavalry division had crossed the Moselle and reached the village of
Mars-la-Tour, where it bivouacked for the night. It had seen troops in
motion towards Metz, hut did not know whether these formed the
rear-guard of the French army or its vanguard in its march towards
Verdun.

In fact, Bazaine had not yet got away with his army. All the roads from
Metz were blocked with heavy baggage, and it was impossible to move so
large an army with expedition. The time thus lost by Bazaine was
diligently improved by Frederick Charles, and on the morning of the
16th the Brandenburg army corps, one of the best and bravest in the
German army, had followed the cavalry and come within sight of the
Verdun road. It was quickly perceived that a French force was before
them, and some preliminary skirmishing developed the enemy in such
strength as to convince the leader of the corps that he had in his
front the whole or the greater part of Bazaine’s army, and that its
escape from Metz had not been achieved.

They were desperate odds with which the brave Brandenburgers had to
contend, but they had been sent to hold the French until reinforcements
could arrive, and they were determined to resist to the death. For
nearly six hours they resisted, with unsurpassed courage, the fierce
onslaughts of the French, though at a cost of life that perilously
depleted the gallant corps. Then, about four o’clock in the afternoon,
Prince Frederick Charles came up with reinforcements to their support
and the desperate contest became more even.

MARS-LA-TOUR AND GRAVELOTTE

Gradually fortune decided in favor of the Germans, and by the time
night had come they were practically victorious, the field of
Mars-la-Tour, after the day’s struggle, remaining in their hands. But
they were utterly exhausted, their horses were worn out, and most of
their ammunition was spent, and though their impetuous commander forced
them to a new attack, it led to a useless loss of life, for their
powers of fighting were gone. They had achieved a fearful loss,
amounting to about 16,000 men on each side. “The battle of Vionville
(Mars-la-Tour) is without a parallel in military history,” said Emperor
William, “seeing that a single army corps, about 20,000 men strong,
hung on to and repulsed an enemy more than five times as numerous and
well equipped. Such was the glorious deed done by the Brandenburgers,
and the Hohenzollerns will never forget the debt they owe to their
devotion.”

Two days afterwards (August 16th) at Gravelotte, a village somewhat
nearer to Metz, the armies, somewhat recovered from the terrible
struggle of the 14th, met again, the whole German army being now
brought up, so that over 100,000 men faced the 140,000 of the French.
It was the great battle of the war. For four hours the two armies stood
fighting face to face, without any special result, neither being able
to drive back the other. The French held their ground and died. The
Prussians dashed upon them and died. Only late in the evening was the
right wing of the French army broken, and the victory, which at five
o’clock remained uncertain, was decided in favor of the Germans. More
than 40,000 men lay dead and wounded upon the field, the terrible
harvest of those nine hours of conflict. That night Bazaine withdrew
his army behind the fortifications at Metz. His effort to join MacMahon
had ended in failure.

It was the fixed purpose of the Prussians to detain him in that
stronghold, and thus render practically useless to France its largest
army. A siege was to be prosecuted, and an army of 150,000 men was
extended around the town. The fortifications were far too strong to be
taken by assault, and all depended on a close blockade. On August 31st
Bazaine made an effort to break through the German lines, but was
repulsed. It became now a question of how long the provisions of the
French would hold out.

NAPOLEON III AT SEDAN

The French emperor, who had been with Bazaine, had left his army before
the battle of Mars-la-Tour, and was now with MacMahon at Chalons. Here
lay an army of 125,000 infantry and 12,000 cavalry. On it the Germans
were advancing, in doubt as to what movement it would make, whether
back towards Paris or towards Metz for the relief of Bazaine. They
sought to place themselves in a position to check either. The latter
movement was determined on by the French, but was carried out in a
dubious and uncertain manner, the time lost giving abundant opportunity
to the Germans to learn what was afoot and to prepare to prevent it. As
soon as they were aware of MacMahon’s intention of proceeding to Metz
they made speedy preparations to prevent his relieving Bazaine. By the
last days of August the army of the crown prince had reached the right
bank of the Aisne, and the fourth division gained possession of the
line of the Meuse. On August 30th the French under General de Failly
were attacked by the Germans at Beaumont and put to flight with heavy
loss. It was evident that the hope of reaching Metz was at an end, and
MacMahon, abandoning the attempt, concentrated his army around the
frontier fortress of Sedan.

This old town stands on the right bank of the Meuse, in an angle of
territory between Luxembourg and Belgium, and is surrounded by meadows,
gardens, ravines, ditches and cultivated fields; the castle rising on a
cliff-like eminence to the southwest of the place. MacMahon had stopped
here to give his weary men a rest, not to fight, but von Moltke
decided, on observing the situation, that Sedan should be the
grave-yard of the French army. “The trap is now closed, and the mouse
in it,” he said, with a chuckle of satisfaction.

Such proved to be the case. On September 1st the Bavarians won the
village of Bazeille, after hours of bloody and desperate struggle.
During this severe fight Marshal MacMahon was so seriously wounded that
he was obliged to surrender the chief command, first to Duerot, and
then to General Wimpffen, a man of recognized bravery and cold
calculation.

Fortune soon showed itself in favor of the Germans. To the northwest of
the town, the North German troops invested the exits from St. Meuges
and Fleigneux, and directed a fearful fire of artillery against the
French forces, which, before noon, were so hemmed in the valley that
only two insufficient outlets to the south and north remained open. But
General Wimpffen hesitated to seize either of these routes, the open
way to Illy was soon closed by the Prussian guard corps, and a
murderous fire was now directed from all sides upon the French, so
that, after a last energetic struggle, they gave up all attempts to
force a passage, and in the afternoon beat a retreat towards Sedan. In
this small town the whole army of MacMahon was collected by evening,
and there prevailed in the streets and houses an unprecedented disorder
and confusion, which was still further increased when the German troops
from the surrounding heights began to shoot down upon the fortress, and
the town took fire in several places.

SURRENDER OF NAPOLEON’S ARMY

That an end might be put to the prevailing misery, Napoleon now
commanded General Wimpffen to capitulate. The flag of truce already
waved on the gates of Sedan when Colonel Bronsart appeared, and in the
name of the king of Prussia demanded the surrender of the army and
fortress. He soon returned to headquarters, accompanied by the French
General Reille, who presented to the king a written message from
Napoleon: “As I may not die in the midst of my army, I lay my sword in
the hands of your majesty.” King William accepted it with an expression
of sympathy for the hard fate of the emperor and of the French army
which had fought so bravely under his own eyes. The conclusion of the
treaty of capitulation was placed in the hands of Wimpffen, who,
accompanied by General Castelnau, set out for Donchery to negotiate
with Moltke and Bismarck. No attempts, however, availed to move Moltke
from his stipulation for the surrender of the whole army at discretion;
he granted a short respite, but if this expired without surrender, the
bombardment of the town was to begin anew.

At six o’clock in the morning the capitulation was signed and was
ratified by the king at his headquarters at Vendresse (2d September).
Thus the world beheld the incredible spectacle of an army of 83,000 men
surrendering themselves and their weapons to the victor, and being
carried off as prisoners of war to Germany. Only the officers who gave
their written word of honor to take no further part in the present war
with Germany were permitted to retain their arms and personal property.
Probably the assurance of Napoleon, the he had sought death on the
battle-field but had not found it, was literally true; at any rate, the
fate of the unhappy man, bowed down as he was both by physical and
mental suffering, was so solemn and tragic that there was no room for
hypocrisy, and that he had exposed himself to personal danger was
admitted on all sides. Accompanied by Count Bismarck, he stopped at a
small and mean-looking laborer’s inn on the road to Donchery, where,
sitting down on a stone seat before the door, with Count Bismarck, he
declared that he had not desired the war, but had been driven to it
through the force of public opinion; and afterwards the two proceeded
to the little castle of Bellevue, near Frenois, to join King William
and the crown prince. A telegram to Queen Augusta thus describes the
interview: “What an impressive moment was the meeting with Napoleon! He
was cast down, but dignified in his bearing. I have granted him
Wilhelmshohe, near Cassel, as his residence. Our meeting took place in
a little castle before the western glacis of Sedan.

THE EMPEROR A CAPTIVE; FRANCE A REPUBLIC

The locking up of Bazaine in Metz and the capture of MacMahon’s army at
Sedan were events fatal to France. The struggle continued for months,
but it was a fight against hope. The subsequent events of the war
consisted of a double siege, that of Metz and that of Paris, with
various minor sieges, and a desperate but hopeless effort of France in
the field. As for the empire of Napoleon III, it was at an end. The
tidings of the terrible catastrophe at Sedan filled the people with a
fury that soon became revolutionary. While Jules Favre, the republican
deputy, was offering a motion in the Assembly that the emperor had
forfeited the crown, and that a provisional government should be
established, the people were thronging the streets of Paris with cries
of “Deposition! Republic!” On the 4th of September the Assembly had its
final meeting. Two of its prominent members, Jules Favre and Gambetta,
sustained the motion for deposition of the emperor, and it was carried
after a stormy session. They then made their way to the senate-chamber,
where, before a thronging audience, they proclaimed a republic and
named a government for the national defense. At its head was General
Trochu, military commandant at Paris. Favre was made minister of
foreign affairs; Gambetta, minister of the interior; and other
prominent members of te Assembly filled the remaining cabinet posts.
The legislature was dissolved, the Palais de Bourbon was closed, and
the Empress Eugenie quitted the Tuileries and made her escape with a
few attendants to Belgium, whence she sought a refuge in England.
Prince Louis Napoleon made his way to Italy, and the swarm of courtiers
scattered in all directions; some faithful followers of the deposed
monarch seeking the castle of Wilhelmshohe, where the unhappy Louis
Napoleon occupied as a prison the same beautiful palace and park in
which his uncle Jerome Bonaparte had once passed six years in a life of
pleasure. The second French Empire was at an end; the third French
Republic had begun—one that had to pass through many changes and escape
many dangers before it would be firmly established.

“Not a foot’s breadth of our country nor a stone of our fortresses
shall be surrendered,” was Jules Favre’s defiant proclamation to the
invaders, and the remainder of the soldiers in the field were collected
in Paris, and strengthened with all available reinforcements. Every
person capable of bearing arms was enrolled in the national army, which
soon numbered 400,000 men. There was need of haste, for the victors at
Sedan were already marching upon the capital, inspired with high hopes
from their previous astonishing success. They knew that Paris was
strongly fortified, being encircled by powerful lines of defense, but
they trusted that hunger would soon bring its garrison to terms. The
same result was looked for at Metz, and at Strasbourg, which was also
besieged.

Thus began at three main points and several minor ones a military siege
the difficulties, dangers, and hardships of which surpassed even those
of the winter campaign in the Crimea. Exposed at the fore-posts to the
enemy’s balls, chained to arduous labor in the trenches and redoubts,
and suffering from the effects of bad weather, and insufficient food
and clothing, the German soldiers were compelled to undergo great
privations and sufferings before the fortifications; while many fell in
the frequent skirmishes and sallies, many succumbed to typhus and
epidemic disease.

No less painful and distressing was the condition of the besieged.
While the garrison soldiers on guard were constantly compelled to face
death in nocturnal sallies, or led a pitiable existence in damp huts,
having inevitable surrender constantly before their eyes, and
disarmament and imprisonment as the reward of all their struggles and
exertions, the citizens in the towns, the women and children, were in
constant danger of being shivered to atoms by the fearful shells, or of
being buried under falling walls and roofs; and the poorer part of the
population saw with dismay the gradual diminution of the necessaries of
life, and were often compelled to pacify their hunger with the flesh of
horses, and disgusting and unwholesome food.

BISMARCK REFUSES INTERVENTION

The republican government possessed only a usurped power, and none but
a freely elected national assembly could decide as to the fate of the
French nation. Such an assembly was therefore summoned for the 16th of
October. Three members of the government—Cremieux, Fourichon, and
Glais-Bizoin—were despatched before the entire blockade of the city had
been effected, to Tours, to maintain communication with the provinces.
An attempt was also made at the same time to induce the great Powers
which had not taken part in the war to organize an intervention, as
hitherto only America, Switzerland and Spain had sent official
recognition. For this important and delicate mission the old statesman
and historian Thiers was selected, and, in spite of his
three-and-seventy years, immediately set out on the journey to London,
St. Petersburg, Vienna and Florence. Count Bismarck, however, in the
name of Prussia, refused any intervention in internal affairs. In two
despatches to the ambassadors of foreign courts, the chancellor
declared that the war, begun by the Emperor Napoleon, had been approved
by the representatives of the nation, and that thus all France was
answerable for the result. Germany was obliged, therefore, to demand
guarantees which should secure her in future against attack, or, at any
rate, render attack more difficult. Thus a cession of territory on the
part of France was laid down as the basis of a treaty of peace. The
neutral powers were also led to the belief that if they fostered in the
French any hope of intervention, peace would only be delayed. The
mission of Thiers, therefore, yielded no useful result, while the
direct negotiation which Jules Favre conducted with Bismarck proved
equally unavailing.

FALL OF THE FORTRESSES

Soon the beleaguered fortresses began to fall. On the 23d of September
the ancient town of Toul, in Lorraine, was forced to capitulate, after
a fearful bombardment; and on the 27th Strasbourg, in danger of the
terrible results of a storming, after the havoc of a dreadful artillery
fire, hoisted the white flag, and surrendered on the following day. The
supposed impregnable fortress of Metz held out little longer. Hunger
did what cannon were incapable of doing. The successive sallies made by
Bazaine proved unavailing, though, on October 7th his soldiers fought
with desperate energy, and for hours the air was full of the roar of
cannon and mitrailleuse and the rattle of musketry. But the Germans
withstood the attack unmoved, and the French were forced to withdraw
into the town.

Bazaine then sought to negotiate with the German leaders at Versailles,
offering to take no part in the war for three months if permitted to
withdraw. But Bismarck and Moltke would listen to no terms other than
unconditional surrender, and these terms were finally accepted, the
besieged army having reached the brink of starvation. It was with
horror and despair that France learned on the 30th of October, that the
citadel of Metz, with its fortifications and arms of defense, had been
yielded to the Germans, and its army of more than 150,000 men had
surrendered as prisoners of war.

This hasty surrender at Metz, a still greater disaster to France than
that of Sedan, was not emulated at Paris, which for four months held
out against all the efforts of the Germans. On the investment of the
great city, King William removed his headquarters to the historic
palace of Versailles, setting up his homely camp-bed in the same
apartments from which Lois XIV had once issued his despotic edicts and
commands. Here Count Bismarck conducted his diplomatic labors and
Moltke issued his directions for the siege, which, protracted from week
to week and month to month, gradually transformed the beautiful
neighborhood, with its prosperous villages, superb country houses, and
enchanting parks and gardens, into a scene of sadness and desolation.

PARIS IS BESIEGED

In spite of the vigorous efforts made by the commander-in-chief Trochu,
both by continuous firing from the forts and by repeated sallies, to
prevent Paris from being surrounded, and to force a way through the
trenches, his enterprises were rendered fruitless by the watchfulness
and strength of the Germans. The blockade was completely accomplished;
Paris was surrounded and cut off from the outer world; even the
underground telegraphs, through which communication was for a time
secretly maintained with the provinces, were by degrees discovered and
destroyed. But to the great astonishment of Europe, which looked on
with keenly pitched excitement at the mighty struggle, the siege
continued for months without any special progress being observable from
without or any lessening of resistance from within. On account of the
extension of the forts, the Germans were compelled to remain at such a
distance that a bombardment of the town at first appeared impossible; a
storming of the outer works would, moreover, be attended with such
sacrifices that the humane temper of the king revolted from such a
proceeding. The guns of greater force and carrying power which were
needed from Germany, could only be procured after long delay on account
of the broken lines of railway. Probably also there was some hesitation
on the German side to expose the beautiful city, regarded by so many as
the “metropolis of civilization,” to the risk of a bombardment, in
which works of art, science, and a historical past would meet
destruction. Nevertheless, the declamations of the French at the
vandalism of the northern barbarians met with assent and sympathy from
most of the foreign Powers.

Determination and courage falsified the calculations at Versailles of a
quick cessation of the resistance. The republic offered a far more
energetic and determined opposition to the Prussian arms than the
empire had done. The government of the national defense still declaimed
with stern reiteration: “Not a foot’s breadth of our country; not a
stone of our fortresses!” and positively rejected all proposals of
treaty based on territorial concessions. Faith in the invincibility of
the republic was rooted as an indisputable dogma in the hearts of the
French people. The victories and the commanding position of France from
1792 to 1799 were regarded as so entirely the necessary result of the
Revolution, that a conviction prevailed that the formation of a
republic, with a national army for its defense, would have an especial
effect on the rest of Europe. Therefore, instead of summoning a
constituent Assembly, which, in the opinion of Prussia and the other
foreign Powers, would alone be capable of offering security for a
lasting peace, it was decided to continue the revolutionary movements,
and to follow the same course which, in the years 1792 and 1793, had
saved France from the coalition of the European Powers. It was held
that a revolutionary dictatorship such as had once been exercised by
the Convention and the members of the Committee of Public Safety, must
again be revived, and a youthful and hot-blooded leader was alone
needed to stir up popular feeling and set it in motion.

To fill such a part no one was better adapted than the advocate
Gambetta, who emulated the career of the leaders of the Revolution, and
whose soul glowed with a passionate ardor of patriotism. In order to
create for himself a free sphere of action, and to initiate some
vigorous measure in place of the well-rounded phrases and eloquent
proclamations of his colleagues Trochu and Jules Favre, he quitted the
capital in an air-balloon and entered into communication with the
government delegation at Tours, which through him soon obtained a fresh
impetus. His next most important task was the liberation of the capital
from the besieging German army, and the expulsion of the enemy from the
“sacred” soil of France. For this purpose he summoned, with the
authority of a minister of war, all persons capable of bearing arms up
to forty years of age to take active service, and despatched them into
the field; he imposed war-taxes, and terrified the tardy and refractory
with threats of punishment. Every force was put in motion; all France
was transformed into a great camp.

A popular war was now to take the place of a soldier’s war, and what
the soldiers had failed to effect must be accomplished by the people;
France must be saved, and the world freed from despotism. To promote
this object, the whole of France, with the exception of Paris, was
divided into four general governments, the headquarters of the
different governors being Lille, Le Mans, Bourges, and Besancon. Two
armies, from the Loire and from the Somme, were to march simultaneously
towards Paris, and aided by the sallies of Trochu and his troops, were
to drive the enemy from the country. Energetic attacks were now
attempted from time to time, in the hope that when the armies of relief
arrived from the provinces, it might be possible to effect a coalition;
but all these efforts were constantly repulsed after a hot struggle by
the besieging German troops. At the same time, during the month of
October, the territory between the Oise and the Lower Seine was scoured
by reconnoitering troops, under Prince Albrecht, the southeast district
was protected by a Wurtemberg detachment through the successful battle
near Nogent on the Seine, while a division of the third army advanced
towards the south accompanied by two cavalry divisions. A more
unfortunate circumstance, however, for the Parisians was the cutting
off of all communication with the outer world, for the Germans had
destroyed the telegraphs. But even this obstacle was overcome by the
inventive genius of the French. By means of pigeon letter-carriers and
air-balloons, they were always able to maintain a partial though
one-sided and imperfect communication with the provinces, and the
aerostatic art was developed and brought to perfection on this occasion
in a manner which had never before been considered possible.

DEFIANT SPIRIT OF THE FRENCH

The whole of France, and especially the capital, was already in a state
of intense excitement when the news of the capitulation of Metz came to
add fresh fuel to the flame. Outside the walls Gambetta was using
heroic efforts to increase his forces, bringing Bedouin horsemen from
Africa and inducing the stern old revolutionist Garibaldi to come to
his aid; and Thiers was opening fresh negotiations for a truce. Inside
the walls the Red Republic raised the banners of insurrection and
attempted to drive the government of national defense from power.

This effort of the dregs of revolution to inaugurate a reign of terror
failed, and the provisional government felt so elated with its victory
that it determined to continue at the head of affairs and to oppose the
calling of a chamber of national representatives. The members
proclaimed oblivion for what had passed, broke off the negotiations for
a truce begun by Thiers, and demanded a vote of confidence. The
indomitable spirit shown by the French people did not, on the other
hand, inspire the Germans with a very lenient or conciliatory temper.
Bismarck declared in a despatch the reasons why the negotiations had
failed: “The incredible demand that we should surrender the fruits of
all our efforts during the last two months, and should go back to the
conditions which existed at the beginning of the blockade of Paris,
only affords fresh proof that in Paris pretexts are sought for refusing
the nation the right of election.” Thiers mournfully declared the
failure of his undertaking, but in Paris the popular voting resulted in
a ten-fold majority in favor of the government and the policy of
postponement.

After the breaking off of the negotiations, the world anticipated some
energetic action towards the besieged city. The efforts of the enemy
were, however, principally directed to drawing the iron girdle still
tighter, enclosing the giant city more and more closely, and cutting
off every means of communication, so that at last a surrender might be
brought about by the stern necessity of starvation. That this object
would not be accomplished as speedily as at Metz, that the city of
pleasure, enjoyment, and luxury would withstand a siege of four months,
had never been contemplated for a moment. It is true that, as time went
on, all fresh meat disappeared from the market, with the exception of
horse-flesh; that white bread, on which Parisians place such value, was
replaced by a baked compound of meal and bran; that the stores of dried
and salted food began to decline, until at last rats, dogs, cats, and
even animals from the zoological gardens were prepared for consumption
at restaurants.

Yet, to the amazement of the world, all these miseries, hardships, and
sufferings were courageously borne, nocturnal watch was kept, sallies
were undertaken, and cold, hunger, and wretchedness of all kinds were
endured with an indomitable steadfastness and heroism. The courage of
the besieged Parisians was also animated by the hope that the military
forces in the provinces would hasten to the aid of the hard-pressed
capital, and that therefore an energetic resistance would afford the
rest of France sufficient time for rallying all its forces, and at the
same time exhibit an elevating example. In the carrying out of this
plan, neither Trochu nor Gambetta was wanting in the requisite energy
and circumspection. The former organized sallies from time to time, in
order to reconnoiter and discover whether the army of relief was on its
way from the provinces; the latter exerted all his powers to bring the
Loire army up to the Seine. But both erred in undervaluing the German
war forces; they did not believe that the hostile army would be able to
keep Paris in a state of blockade, and at the same time engage the
armies on the south and north, east and west. They had no conception of
the hidden, inexhaustible strength of the Prussian army organization—of
a nation in arms which could send forth constant reinforcements of
battalions and recruits, and fresh bodies of disciplined troops to fill
the gaps left in the ranks by the wounded and fallen. There could be no
doubt as to the termination of this terrible war, or the final victory
of German energy and discipline.

THE STRUGGLE CONTINUED

Throughout the last months of the eventful year 1870, the northern part
of France, from the Jura to the Channel, from the Belgian frontier to
the Loire, presented the aspect of a wide battlefield. Of the troops
that had been set free by the capitulation of Metz, a part remained
behind in garrison, another division marched northwards in order to
invest the provinces of Picardy and Normandy, to restore communication
with the sea, and to bar the road to Paris, and a third division joined
the second army whose commander-in-chief, Prince Frederick Charles, set
up his headquarters at Troyes. Different detachments were despatched
against the northern fortresses, and by degrees Soissons, Verdun,
Thionville, Ham, where Napoleon had once been a prisoner, Pfalzburg and
Montmedy, all fell into the hands of the Prussians, thus opening to
them a free road for the supplies of provisions. The garrison troops
were all carried off as prisoners to Germany; the towns—most of them in
a miserable condition—fell into the enemy’s hands; many houses were
mere heaps of ruins and ashes, and the larger part of the inhabitants
were suffering severely from poverty, hunger and disease.

The greatest obstacles were encountered in the northern part of Alsace
and the mountainous districts of the Vosges and the Jura, where
irregular warfare, under Garibaldi and other leaders, developed to a
dangerous extent, while the fortress of Langres afforded a safe retreat
to the guerilla bands. Lyons and the neighboring town of St. Etienne
became hotbeds of excitement, the red flag being raised and a despotism
of terror and violence established. Although many divergent elements
made up this army of the east, all were united in hatred of the
Germans.

Thus, during the cold days of November and December, when General Von
Treskow began the siege of the important fortress of Belfort, there
burst forth a war around Gray and Dijon marked by the greatest
hardships, perils and privations to the invaders. Here the Germans had
to contend with an enemy much superior in number, and to defend
themselves against continuous firing from houses, cellars, woods and
thickets, while the impoverished soil yielded a miserable subsistence,
and the broken railroads cut off freedom of communication and of
reinforcement.

The whole of the Jura district, intersected by hilly roads as far as
the plateau of Langres, where, in the days of Caesar, the Romans and
Gauls were wont to measure their strength with each other, formed
during November and December the scene of action of numerous encounters
which, in conjunction with sallies from the garrison at Belfort,
inflicted severe injury on Werder’s troops. Dijon had repeatedly to be
evacuated; and the nocturnal attack at Chattillon, 20th November, by
Garibaldians, when one hundred seventy horses were lost, affording a
striking proof of the dangers to which the German army was exposed in
this hostile country; although the revolutionary excesses of the
turbulent population of the south diverted to a certain extent the
attention of the National Guard, who were compelled to turn their
weapons against an internal enemy.

By means of the revolutionary dictatorship of Gambetta the whole French
nation was drawn into the struggle, the annihilation of the enemy being
represented as a national duty, and the war assuming a steadily more
violent character. The indefatigable patriot continued his exertions to
increase the army and unite the whole south and west against the enemy,
hoping to bring the army of the Loire to such dimensions that it would
be able to expel the invaders from the soil of France. But these raw
recruits were poorly fitted to cope with the highly disciplined
Germans, and their early successes were soon followed by defeat and
discouragement, while the hopes entertained by the Paris garrison of
succor from the south vanished as news of the steady progress of the
Germans was received.

OPERATIONS BEFORE PARIS

During these events the war operations before Paris continued
uninterruptedly. Moltke had succeeded, in spite of the difficulties of
transport, in procuring an immense quantity of ammunition, and the
long-delayed bombardment of Paris was ready to begin. Having stationed
with all secrecy twelve batteries with seventy-six guns around Mont
Avron, on Christmas-day the firing was directed with such success
against the fortified eminences, that even in the second night the
French, after great losses, evacuated the important position, the “key
of Paris,” which was immediately taken possession of by the Saxons.
Terror and dismay spread through the distracted city when the eastern
forts, Rosny, Nogent and Noisy, were stormed amid a tremendous volley
of firing. Vainly did Trochu endeavor to rouse the failing courage of
the National Guard; vainly did he assert that the government of the
national defense would never consent to the humiliation of a
capitulation; his own authority had already waned; the newspapers
already accused him of incapacity and treachery, and began to cast
every aspersion on the men who had presumptuously seized the
government, and yet were not in a position to effect the defense of the
capital and the country. After the new year the bombardment of the
southern forts began, and the terror in the city daily increased though
the violence of the radical journals kept in check any hint of
surrender or negotiation. Yet in spite of fog and snow storms the
bombardment was systematically continued, and with every day the
destructive effect of the terrible missiles grew more pronounced.

Trochu was blamed for having undertaken only small sallies, which could
have no result. The commander-in-chief ventured no opposition to the
party of action. With the consent of the mayors of the twenty
ARRONDISSEMENTS of Paris a council of war was held. The threatening
famine, the firing of the enemy, and the excitement prevailing among
the adherents of the red republic rendered a decisive step necessary.
Consequently, on the 19th of January, a great sally was decided on, and
the entire armed forces of the capital were summoned to arms. Early in
the morning a body of 100,000 men marched in the direction of Meudon,
Sevres and St. Cloud for the decisive conflict. The left wing was
commanded by General Vinoy, the right by Ducrot, while Trochu from the
watch-tower directed the entire struggle. With great courage Vinoy
dashed forward with his column of attack towards the fifth army corps
of General Kirchbach, and succeeded in capturing the Montretout
entrenchment, through the superior number of his troops, and in holding
it for a time. But when Ducrot, delayed by the barricades in the
streets, failed to come to his assistance at the appointed time, the
attack was driven back after seven hours’ fierce fighting by the
besieging troops. Having lost 7,000 dead and wounded, the French in the
evening beat a retreat, which almost resembled a flight. On the
following day Trochu demanded a truce, that the fallen National Guards,
whose bodies strewed the battlefield, might be interred. The victors,
too, had to render the last rites to many a brave soldier. Thirty-nine
officers and six hundred and sixteen soldiers were given in the list of
the slain.

Entire confidence had been placed by the Parisians in the great sally.
When the defeat, therefore, became known in its full significance, when
the number of the fallen was found to be far greater even than had been
stated in the first accounts, a dull despair took possession of the
famished city, which next broke forth into violent abuse against
Trochu, “the traitor.” Capitulation now seemed imminent; but as the
commander-in-chief had declared that he would never countenance such a
disgrace, he resigned his post to Vinoy. Threatened by bombardment from
without, terrified within by the pale specter of famine, paralyzed and
distracted by the violent dissensions among the people, and without
prospect of effective aid from the provinces, what remained to the
proud capital but to desist from a conflict the continuation of which
only increased the unspeakable misery, without the smallest hope of
deliverance? Gradually, therefore, there grew up a resolution to enter
into negotiations with the enemy; and it was the minister, Jules Favre,
who had been foremost with the cry of “no surrender” four months
before, who was now compelled to take the first step to deliver his
country from complete ruin. It was probably the bitterest hour in the
life of the brave man, who loved France and liberty with such a sincere
affection, when he was conducted through the German outposts to his
interview with Bismarck at Versailles. He brought the proposal for a
convention, on the strength of which the garrison was to be permitted
to retire with military honors to a part of France not hitherto
invested, on promising to abstain for several months from taking part
in the struggle. But such conditions were positively refused at the
Prussian headquarters, and a surrender was demanded as at Sedan and
Metz. Completely defeated, the minister returned to Paris. At a second
meeting on the following day, it was agreed that from the 27th, at
twelve o’clock at night, the firing on both sides should be
discontinued. This was the preliminary to the conclusion of a three
weeks’ truce, to await the summons of a National Assembly, with which
peace might be negotiated.

FIGHTING IN THE SOUTH

The war was at an end so far as Paris was concerned. But it continued
in the south, where frequent defeat failed to depress Gambetta’s
indomitable energy, and where new troops constantly replaced those put
to rout. Garibaldi, at Dijon, succeeded in doing what the French had
not done during the war, in capturing a Prussian banner. But the
progress of the Germans soon rendered his position untenable, and,
finding his exertions unavailing, he resigned his command and retired
to his island of Caprera. Two disasters completed the overthrow of
France. Bourbaki’s army, 85,000 strong, became shut in, with scanty
food and ammunition, among the snow-covered valleys of the Jura, and to
save the disgrace of capitulation it took refuge on the neutral soil of
Switzerland; and the strong fortress of Belfort, which had been
defended with the utmost courage against its besiegers, finally
yielded, with the stipulation that the brave garrison should march out
with the honors of war. Nothing now stood in the way of an extension of
the truce. On the suggestion of Jules Favre, the National Assembly
elected a commission of fifteen members, which was to aid the chief of
the executive and his ministers, Picard and Favre, in the negotiations
for peace. That cessions of territory and indemnity of war expenses
would have to be conceded had long been acknowledged in principle; but
protracted and excited discussions took place as to the extent of the
former and the amount of the latter, while the demanded entry of the
German troops into Paris met with vehement opposition. But Count
Bismarck resolutely insisted on the cession of Alsace and German
Lorraine, including Metz and Diedenhofen. Only with difficulty were the
Germans persuaded to separate Belfort from the rest of Loraine, and
leave it still in the possession of the French. In respect to the
expenses of the war, the sum of five milliards of francs
($1,000,000,000) was agreed upon, of which the first milliard was to be
paid in the year 1871, and the rest in a stated period. The stipulated
entry into Paris also—so bitter to the French national pride—was only
partially carried out; the western side only of the city was to be
traversed in the march of the Prussian troops, and again evacuated in
two days. On the basis of these conditions, the preliminaries of the
Peace of Versailles were concluded on the 26th of February between the
Imperial Chancellor and Jules Favre. Intense excitement prevailed when
the terms of the treaty became known; they were dark days in the annals
of French history. But in spite of the opposition of the extreme
Republican party, led by Quinet and Victor Hugo, the Assembly
recognized by an overpowering majority the necessity for the Peace, and
the preliminaries were accepted by 546 to 107 votes. Thus ended the
mighty war between France and Germany—a war which has had few equals in
the history of the world.

THE WAR AT AN END

Had King William received no indemnity in cash or territory from
France, he must still have felt himself amply repaid for the cost of
the brief but sanguinary war, for it brought him a power and prestige
with which the astute diplomatist Bismarck had long been seeking to
invest his name. Political changes move slowly in times of peace,
rapidly in times of war. The whole of Germany, with the exception of
Austria, had sent troops to the conquest of France, and every state,
north and south alike, shared in the pride and glory of the result.
South and North Germany had marched side by side to the battle-field,
every difference of race or creed forgotten, and the honor of the
German fatherland the sole watchword. The time seemed to have arrived
to close the breach between north and south, and obliterate the line of
the Main, which had divided the two sections. North Germany was united
under the leadership of Prussia, and the honor in which all alike
shared now brought South Germany into line for a similar union.

The first appeal in this direction came from Baden. Later in the year
plenipotentiaries sought Versailles from the kingdoms of Bavaria and
Wurtemberg and the grand duchies of Baden and Hesse, their purpose
being to arrange for and define the conditions of union between the
South and the North German states. For weeks, this momentous question
filled all Germany with excitement and public opinion was in a state of
high tension. The scheme of union was by no means universally approved,
there being a large party in opposition, but the majority in its favor
in Chambers proved sufficient to enable Bismarck to carry out his plan.



Chapter XII.
BISMARCK AND THE NEW GERMAN EMPIRE


Building the Bulwarks of the Twentieth Century Nation

Bismarck as a Statesman—Uniting the German States—William I Crowned at
Versailles—A Significant Decade—The Problem of Church Power—Progress of
Socialism—William II and the Resignation of Bismarck—Old Age
Insurance—Political and Industrial Conditions in Germany

Throughout the various events narrated in the two preceding chapters
the hand of Bismarck was everywhere visible. He had proved himself a
statesman of the highest powers, and these powers were devoted without
stint to the aggrandizement of Prussia. As for the surrounding nations
and their rights and immunities, these did not count as against his
policies. Conscience did not trouble him. The slaughter of thousands of
men on the battle-field did not disturb his equanimity. He was
unalterably fixed in his purposes, unscrupulous in the means employed,
shrewd, keen and far-sighted in his measures, Europe being to him but a
great chess-board, on which his hand moved kings, knights, and pawns
with mechanical inflexibility. To him the end justified the means,
however lacking in justice or mercy these means might prove.

Denmark was despoiled to extend the territory of Prussia to the north.
Austria, Bismarck’s unwary accomplice in this act of spoliation, was
robbed of its share of the spoils, and drawn into a war in which it met
with disastrous defeat, the prestige of Prussia being vastly increased
on the field of Sadowa. Subsequently came the great struggle with
France, fomented by his wiles and ending in triumph for his policies So
far all had gone well for him, the final outcome of his schemes
resulting in the unification of the minor German states into one
powerful empire.

BISMARCK AS A STATESMAN

It was in the formation of the modern German Empire that the
far-sighted plans of Bismarck culminated. King William was a willing
partner for this purpose, moving as he suggested and doing as he
wished. The states of Germany, aside from Austria, had actively
participated in the recent war, the steps towards unification which had
been taken during the few preceding years having now reached the point
in which a complete amalgamation might be effected.

The Holy Roman Empire, which had lasted throughout the medieval period
in some phase of strength and power, at times predominant, at times
little more than a title, had received its death-blow from the hands of
Napoleon and vanished from the historic stage. It was Bismarck’s design
to restore the German Empire—not the old, moth-eaten fiction of the
past, but an entirely new one—and give Prussia the position it had
earned, that of the great center of German racial unity. In this
project Austria, long at the head of the old empire, was to have no
part, the imperial dignity being conferred upon the venerable King
William of Prussia, a monarch whose birth dated back to the eighteenth
century, and who had lived throughout the Napoleonic wars.

UNITING THE GERMAN STATES

Near the close of 1870 Bismarck concluded treaties with the ambassadors
of the South German States, in which they agreed to accept the
constitution of the North German Union. These treaties were ratified,
after some opposition from members of the lower house, by the
legislatures of the four states involved. The next step in the
proceeding was a suggestion from the king of Bavaria to the other
princes that the imperial crown of Germany should be offered to King
William of Prussia.

When the North German diet at Berlin had given its consent to the new
constitution, a congratulatory address was despatched to the Prussian
monarch at Versailles. It announced to the aged hero-king the nation’s
wish that he should accept the new dignity. He replied to the
deputation in solemn audience that he accepted the imperial dignity
which the German nation and its princes had offered him. On the 1st of
January, 1871, the new constitution was to come into operation.

WILLIAM I CROWNED AT VERSAILLES

The solemn assumption of the imperial office did not take place,
however, until the 18th of January, the day on which, one hundred and
seventy years before, the new emperor’s ancestor, Frederick I, had
placed the Prussian crown on his head at Konigsberg, and thus laid the
basis of the growing greatness of his house. It was an ever-memorable
coincidence that, in the superb-mirrored hall of the Versailles palace,
where since the days of Richelieu so many plans had been concocted for
the humiliation of Germany, King William should now proclaim himself
German emperor. After the reading of the imperial proclamation to the
German people by Count Bismarck, the Grand Duke led a cheer, in which
the whole assembly joined amid the singing of national hymns. Thus the
important event had taken place which again summoned the German Empire
to life, and made over the imperial crown with renewed splendor to
another royal house. Barbarossa’s old legend, that the dominion of the
empire was, after long tribulation, to pass from the Hohenstaufen to
the Hohenzollern, was now fulfilled; the dream long aspired after by
German youth had now become a reality and a living fact.

The tidings of the conclusion of peace with France, whose preliminaries
were completed at Frankfort on the 10th of May, 1871, filled all
Germany with joy, and peace festivals on the most splendid scale
extended from end to end of the new empire, in all parts of which an
earnest spirit of patriotism was shown, while Germans from all regions
of the world sent home expressions of warm sympathy with the new
national organization of their fatherland.

A SIGNIFICANT DECADE

The decade just completed had been one of remarkable political changes
in Europe, unsurpassed in significance during any other period of equal
length. The temporal dominion of the pope had vanished and all Italy
had been united under the rule of a single king. The empire of France
had been overthrown and a republic established in its place, while that
country had sunk greatly in prominence among the European states.
Austria had been utterly defeated in war, had lost its last hold on
Italy and its position of influence among the German states. And all
the remaining German lands had united into a great and powerful empire,
promising to gain such extraordinary military strength that the
surrounding nations looked on in doubt, full of vague fears of trouble
from this new and potent power introduced into their midst.

Bismarck, however, showed an earnest desire to maintain international
peace and good relations, seeking to win the confidence of foreign
governments, while at the same time improving and increasing that
military force which had been proved to be so mighty an engine of war.

In the constitution of the new empire two legislative bodies, already
possessed by the Confederation of North German States were provided
for—the BUNDESRATH or Federal Council, whose members are annually
appointed by the respective state governments and the REICHSTAG or
representative body. whose members are elected by universal suffrage
for a period of three years, an annual session being required. Germany,
therefore, in its present organization, is practically a federal union
of states, each with its own powers of internal government, and with a
common legislature approximating to our Senate and House of
Representatives. But this did not make the German emperor a
parliamentary monarch. From the fact that the consent of both
assemblies was necessary to change the law, he governed as he pleased
and had no other ministerial representative than the high chancellor of
the empire, depending solely on the sovereign. After 1870 he was in the
empire what he had been previously in Prussia, the essential
representative of the country and the supreme head of the military
forces.

The remaining incidents of Bismarck’s remarkable career may be briefly
given. It consisted largely in a struggle with the Catholic Church
organization, which had attained to great power in Germany, and was
aggressive to an extent that roused the vigorous opposition of the
chancellor of the empire, who was not willing to acknowledge any power
in Germany other than that of the emperor.

King Frederick William IV, the predecessor of the reigning monarch, had
made active efforts to strengthen the Catholic Church in Prussia, its
clergy gaining greater privileges in that Protestant state than they
possessed in any of the Catholic states. They had established
everywhere in North Germany their congregations and monasteries, and by
their control of public education seemed in a fair way eventually to
make Catholicism supreme in the empire.

THE PROBLEM OF CHURCH POWER

This state of affairs Bismark set himself energetically to reform. The
minister of religious affairs was forced to resign, and his place was
taken by Falk, an energetic statesman, who introduced a new school law,
bringing the whole educational system under state control, and
carefully regulating the power of the clergy over religious and moral
education. This law met with such violent opposition that all the
personal influence of Bismarck and Falk was needed to carry it, and it
gave such deep offense to the pope that he refused to receive the
German ambassador. He declared the Falk law invalid, and the German
bishops united in a declaration against the chancellor. Bismarck
retorted by a law expelling the Jesuits from the empire.

In 1873 the state of affairs became so embittered that the rights and
liberties of the citizens seemed to need protection against a
priesthood armed with extensive powers of discipline and
excommunication. In consequence Bismarck introduced, and by his
eloquence and influence carried, what were known as the May Laws. These
required the scientific education of the Catholic clergy, the
confirmation of clerical appointments by the state, and the formation
of a tribunal to consider and revise the conduct of the bishops.

These enactments precipitated a bitter contest between Church and
State, while the pope declared the May Laws null and void and
threatened with excommunication all priests who should submit to them.
The State retorted by withdrawing its financial support from the
Catholic church and abolishing those clauses of the constitution under
which the Church claimed independence of the State. Pope Pius IX died
in 1878, and on the election of Leo XIII attempts were made to
reconcile the existing differences. The reconciliation was a victory
for the Church, since the May Laws ceased to be operative, the church
revenues were restored and the control of the clergy over education in
considerable measure was regained. New concessions were granted in 1886
and 1887, and Bismarck felt himself beaten in his long conflict with
his clerical opponents, who had proved too strong and deeply entrenched
for him.

PROGRESS OF SOCIALISM

Economic questions became also prominent, the revenues of the empire
requiring some change in the system of free trade and the adoption of
protective duties, while the railroads were acquired as public property
by the various states of the empire. Meanwhile the rapid growth of
socialism excited apprehension, which was added to when two attempts
were made on the life of the emperor. These were attributed to the
socialists, and severe laws for the suppression of socialism were
enacted. Bismark also sought to cut the ground from under the feet of
the socialists by an endeavor to improve the condition of the working
classes. In 1881 laws were passed compelling employers to insure their
workmen in case of sickness or accident, and in 1888 a system of
compulsory insurance against death and old age was introduced. None of
these measures, however, checked the growth of socialism, which very
actively continued.

In 1882 a meeting was arranged by the chancellor between the emperors
of Germany, Russia, and Austria, which was looked upon in Europe as a
political alliance. In 1878 Russia drifted somewhat apart from Germany,
but in the following year an alliance of defense and offense was
concluded with Austria, and a similar alliance at a later date with
Italy. This, which continued to 1914, was known as the Triple Alliance.
In 1877 Bismarck announced his intention to retire, being worn out with
the great labors of his position. To this the emperor, who felt that
his state rested on the shoulders of the “Iron Chancellor,” would not
listen, though he gave him indefinite leave of absence.

On March 9, 1888, Emperor William died. He was ninety years of age,
having been born in 1797. He was succeeded by his son Frederick, then
incurably ill from a cancerous affection of the throat, which carried
him to the grave after a reign of ninety-nine days. His oldest son,
William, succeeded on June 15, 1888, as William II.

WILLIAM II AND THE RESIGNATION OF BISMARCK

The liberal era which was looked for under Frederick was checked by his
untimely death, his son at once returning to the policy of William I
and Bismarck. He proved to be far more positive and dictatorial in
disposition than his grandfather, with decided and vigorous views of
his own, which soon brought him into conflict with the equally positive
chancellor. The result was a rupture with Bismarck, and his resignation
(a virtual dismissal) from the premiership in 1890. The young emperor
proposed to be his own minister and subsequently devoted himself in a
large measure to the increase of the army and navy, a policy which
brought him into frequent conflicts with the Reichstag, whose rapidly
growing socialistic membership was in strong opposition to this
development of militarism.

The old statesman, to whom Germany owed so much, was deeply aggrieved
by this lack of gratitude on the part of the self-opinionated young
emperor, in view of his great services to the state. The wound rankled
deeply, though a seeming reconciliation took place. But the political
career of the great Bismarck was at an end, and he died on July 30,
1898. It is an interesting coincidence that almost at the same time
died the distinguished but markedly different statesman of England,
William Edward Gladstone. Count Cavour, another great European
statesman of the latter half of the nineteenth century, had completed
his work and passed away nearly forty years before.

The career of William II soon became one of much interest and some
alarm to the other nations of Europe. His eagerness for the development
of the army and navy, and the energy with which he pushed forward its
organization and sought to add to its strength, seemed significant of
warlike intentions, and there was dread that this energetic young
monarch might break the peace of Europe, if only to prove the
irresistible strength of the military machine he had formed. But as
years went on the apprehensions to which his early career and
expressions gave rise were quieted, and the fear that he would plunge
Europe into war lessened. The army and navy appeared to some as rather
a costly plaything of the active young man than an engine of
destruction, while it tended in considerable measure to the
preservation of peace by rendering Germany a power dangerous to go to
war with.

The speeches with which the emperor began his reign showed an
exaggerated sense of the imperial dignity, though his later career
indicated far more judgment and good sense than the early display of
overweening self-importance promised, and the views of William II
eventually came to command far more respect than they did at first. He
showed himself a man of exuberant energy. Despite a permanent weakness
of his left arm and a serious affection of the ear, he early became a
skilful horseman and an untiring hunter, as well as an enthusiastic
yachtsman, and there were few men in the empire more active and
enterprising than the Kaiser.

OLD AGE INSURANCE

A principal cause of the break between William and Bismarck was the
imperial interference with the laws for the suppression of socialism.
As already stated, the old chancellor had established a system of
compulsory old age insurance, through which workmen and their
employers—aided by the state—were obliged to provide for the support of
artisans after a certain age. The system seems to have worked
satisfactorily, but socialism of a more radical kind grew in the empire
far more rapidly than the emperor approved of, and he vigorously,
though unsuccessfully endeavored to prevent its increase. Another of
his favorite measures, a religious education bill, he was obliged to
withdraw on account of the opposition it excited. On more than one
occasion he came into sharp conflict with the Reichstag concerning
increased taxation for the army and navy, and a strong party against
his autocratic methods sprang up, and forced him more than once to
recede from warmly-cherished measures.

POLITICAL AND INDUSTRIAL CONDITIONS IN GERMANY

It may be of interest here to say something concerning the organization
of the German empire. The constitution of this empire, as adopted April
16, 1871, proposes to “form an eternal union for the protection of the
realm and the care of the welfare of the German people,” and places the
supreme direction of military and political affairs in the King of
Prussia, under the title of Deutscher Kaiser (German emperor). The
war-making powers of the emperor, however, are restricted, since he is
required to obtain the consent of the Bundesrath (the Federal Council)
before he can declare war otherwise than for the defense of the realm.
His authority as emperor, in fact, is much less than that which he
exercises as King of Prussia, since the imperial legislature is
independent of him, he having no power of veto over the laws passed by
it. His actual military power, however, is practically supreme, as
demonstrated in the opening events of the war of 1914.

The legislature, as stated, consists of two bodies, the Bundesrath,
representing the states of the union, whose members, 58 in number, are
chosen for each session by the several state governments; and the
Reichstag, representing the people, whose members, 397 in number, are
elected by universal suffrage for periods of five years. The German
union, as constituted in 1914, comprised four kingdoms, six grand
duchies, five duchies, seven principalities, three sovereign cities,
and the Reichsland of Alsace-Lorraine; twenty-six separate states in
all. It included all the German peoples of Europe with the exception of
those in Austria.

The progress of Germany within the modern period has been very great.
The population of the states of the empire, 24,831,000 at the end of
the Napoleonic wars, had become, a century later, over 64,000,000,
having added 40,000,000 to the roll of inhabitants. The country, once
divided into an unwieldy multitude of states, often of minute
proportions, has become consolidated into the number above named, each
of these possessing some degree of importance. These, as combined into
a federal union, or empire, have an area of 208,830 square miles, of
which Prussia holds the lion’s share, its area being 134,605 square
miles.

The presidency of the empire belongs to the king of Prussia and is
hereditary in his family. Besides the Imperial Parliament, each state
has its own special legislature and laws, but railroads regarded as
necessary for the defense of Germany or the facilitating of general
communications may come under a law of the empire, even against the
opposition of the members of the confederation whose territory is
traversed. The states have their respective armies, but it is the
emperor who disposes of them; he appoints the heads of the contingents,
approves the generals, and has the right to establish fortresses over
the whole territory of the empire.

The wealth of the German empire has grown in a far greater area than
its population, it having developed into the most active manufacturing
country in Europe. Agriculture has similarly advanced, and one of its
chief products, that of the sugar beet, has enormously increased,
beet-root sugar being among its chief industrial yields. In addition,
Germany has grown to be one of the most active commercial nations of
the earth. Thus it has taken a place among the most active productive
and commercial countries, its wealth and importance being
correspondingly augmented. These particulars are of interest as showing
the standing of Germany at the outbreak of the war of 1914 and
indicating its degree of ability to bear the fearful strain of so great
a war.



Chapter XIII.
GLADSTONE AS AN APOSTLE OF REFORM


Great Britain Becomes a World Power

Gladstone and Disraeli—Gladstone’s Famous Budget—A Suffrage Reform
Bill—Disraeli’s Reform Measure—Irish Church Disestablishment—An Irish
Land Bill—Desperate State of Ireland—The Coercion Bill—War in
Africa—Home Rule for Ireland

It is a fact of much interest, as showing the growth of the human mind,
that William Ewart Gladstone, the great advocate of English Liberalism,
made his first political speech in vigorous opposition to the Reform
Bill of 1831. He was then a student at Oxford University, but this
boyish address had such an effect upon his hearers, that Bishop
Wordsworth felt sure the speaker would “one day rise to be Prime
Minister of England.” This prophetic utterance may be mated with
another one, by Archdeacon Denison, who said: “I have just heard the
best speech I ever heard in my life, by Gladstone, against the Reform
Bill. But, mark my words, that man will one day be a Liberal, for he
argued against the Bill on liberal grounds.”

Both these far-seeing men hit the mark. Gladstone became Prime Minister
and the leader of the Liberal Party in England. Yet he had been reared
as a Conservative, and for many years he marched under the banner of
conservatism. His political career began in the first Reform
Parliament, in January, 1833. Two years afterward he was made an
under-secretary in Sir Robert Peel’s Cabinet. It was under the same
premier that he first became a full member of the cabinet, in 1845, as
Secretary of State for the Colonies. He was still a Tory in home
politics, but had become a Liberal in his commercial ideas, and was
Peel’s right-hand man in carrying out his great commercial policy.

The repeal of the Corn-Laws was the work for which his cabinet had been
formed, and Gladstone, as the leading free-trader in the Tory ranks,
was called to it. As for Cobden, the apostle of free-trade, Gladstone
admired him immensely. “I do not know,” he said in later years, “that
there is in any period a man whose public career and life were nobler
or more admirable. Of course, I except Washington. Washington, to my
mind, is the purest figure in history.” As an advocate of free trade
Gladstone first came into connection with another noble figure, that of
John Bright, who was to remain associated with him during most of his
career. In 1857 he first took rank as one of the great moral forces of
modern times. In that year he visited Naples, where he saw the
barbarous treatment of political prisoners under the government of the
infamous King Bomba, and described them in letters whose indignation
was breathed in such tremendous tones that England was stirred to its
depths and all Europe awakened. These thrilling epistles gave the cause
of Italian freedom an impetus that had much to do with its subsequent
success, and gained for Gladstone the warmest veneration of patriotic
Italians.

GLADSTONE AND DISRAELI

In 1852 he first came into opposition with the man against whom he was
to be pitted during the remainder of his career, Benjamin Disraeli, who
had made himself a power in Parliament, and in that year became
Chancellor of the Exchequer in Lord Derby’s Cabinet and leader of the
House of Commons. The revenue budget introduced by him showed a sad
lack of financial ability, and called forth sharp criticisms, to which
he replied in a speech made up of scoffs, gibes and biting sarcasms, so
daring and audacious in character as almost to intimidate the House. As
he sat down, Mr. Gladstone rose and launched forth into an oration
which became historic. He gave voice to that indignation which lay
suppressed beneath the cowed feeling which for the moment the
Chancellor of the Exchequer’s performance had left among his hearers.
In a few minutes the House was wildly cheering the intrepid champion
who had rushed into the breach, and when Mr. Gladstone concluded,
having torn to shreds the proposals of the budget, a majority followed
him into the division lobby, and Mr. Disraeli found his government
beaten by nineteen votes. Such was the first great encounter between
the two rivals.

GLADSTONE’S FAMOUS BUDGET

In the cabinet that followed, headed by Lord Aberdeen, Gladstone
succeeded Disraeli as Chancellor of the Exchequer, a position in which
he was to make a great mark. In April, 1853, he introduced his first
budget, a marvel of ingenious statesmanship, in its highly successful
effort to equalize taxation. It remitted various taxes which had
pressed hard upon the poor and restricted business, and replaced them
by applying the succession duty to real estate, increasing the duty on
spirits, and extending the income tax.

Taken altogether, and especially in its expedients to equalize
taxation, this first budget of Mr. Gladstone may be justly called the
greatest of the century. The speech in which it was introduced and
expounded created an extraordinary impression on the House and the
country. For the first time in Parliament figures were made as
interesting as a fairy tale; the dry bones of statistics were invested
with a new and potent life, and it was shown how the yearly balancing
of the national accounts might be directed by and made to promote the
profoundest and most fruitful principles of statesmanship. With such
lucidity and picturesqueness was this financial oratory rolled forth
that the dullest intellect could follow with pleasure the complicated
scheme; and for five hours the House of commons sat as if it were under
the sway of a magician’s wand. When Mr. Gladstone resumed his seat, it
was felt that the career of the coalition ministry was assured by the
genius that was discovered in its Chancellor of the Exchequer.

It was, indeed, to Gladstone’s remarkable oratorical powers that much
of his success as a statesman was due. No man of his period was his
equal in swaying and convincing his hearers. His rich and musical
voice, his varied and animated gestures, his impressive and vigorous
delivery, great fluency, and wonderful precision of statement, gave him
a power over an audience which few men of the century have enjoyed. His
sentences, indeed, were long and involved, growing more so as his years
advanced, but their fine choice of words, rich rhetoric, and eloquent
delivery carried away all that heard him, as did his deep earnestness
and intense conviction of the truth of his utterances.

Meanwhile his Liberalism had been steadily growing reaching its
culmination in 1865, when the Tory University of Oxford, which he had
long represented, rejected him as its member, unable longer to swallow
his ultra views. The rejection was greeted by him as a compliment. He
at once offered himself as a candidate for South Lancashire and in the
opening of his speech at Manchester said: “At last, my friends, I am
come among you; to use an expression which has become very famous and
is not likely to be forgotten, ‘I am come among you unmuzzled.’”

Unmuzzled he indeed was, free at last to give the fullest expression to
his Liberal faith. In 1866 he became, for the first time in his career,
leader of the House of Commons—Lord Russell, the Prime Minister, being
in the House of Lords. Many of his friends feared for him in this
difficult position; but the event proved that they had no occasion for
alarm, he showing himself one of the most successful leaders the House
had ever had.

A SUFFRAGE REFORM BILL

His first important duty in this position was to introduce the new
Suffrage Reform Bill, a measure to extend the franchise in counties and
boroughs that would have added about 400,000 voters to the electorate.
In the debate that followed, Gladstone and Disraeli were again pitted
against each other in a grand oratorical contest. Disraeli taunted him
with his youthful speech at Oxford against the Reform Bill of 1831.
Gladstone retorted by scoring his opponent for clinging to a
conservatism which he gloried in having been strong enough to reject.
He ended with this stirring prediction:

“You cannot fight against the future. Time is on our side. The great
social forces which move onwards in their might and majesty, and which
the tumult of our debates does not for a moment impede or disturb,
those great social forces are against you; they are marshaled on our
side; and the banner which we now carry into this fight, though perhaps
at some moment it may droop over our sinking heads, yet it soon again
will float in the eye of Heaven, and it will be borne by the firm hands
of the united people of the three kingdoms, perhaps not to an easy, but
to a certain, and to a not far distant, victory.”

He was right in saying that it would not be a distant victory. Disraeli
and his party defeated the bill, but the people rose in a vigorous
demand for it, ten thousand of them marching past Gladstone’s house,
singing odes in honor of “the People’s William.” John Bright, an
eloquent orator and strenuous advocate of oral reform and political
progress, joined Gladstone in his campaign. Through the force of their
eloquence the tide of public opinion rose to such a height that the new
Derby-Disraeli ministry was obliged to bring in a bill similar in
purpose to that which it had overthrown.

DISRAELI’S REFORM MEASURE

This Tory bill proved satisfactory to Gladstone in its general
features. He had won a great victory in forcing its introduction. But
he proposed so many changes in its details—all of them yielded in
committee—that a satirical lord remarked that nothing of the original
bill remained but its opening word “Whereas.” As thus modified, it was
more liberal than the measure that had been defeated, and the people
gave full credit for it to Gladstone, whom they credited with giving
them their right to vote.

The two potent political champions, Gladstone and Disraeli, soon after
attained the summit height of British political ambition. In February,
1868, the failing health of Lord Derby forced him to resign the
ministry, and Disraeli succeeded him as Prime Minister, thus the “Asian
Mystery,” as he had been entitled, gained the highest office in the
British government. He did not hold this office long. His party was
defeated on the question of the disestablishment of the Irish church,
and on December 4th of the same year Gladstone took his place. Thus,
after thirty-five years of public life, Gladstone had attained the post
in which he was to spend most of his later life.

Bishop Wilberforce, who met him in this hour of triumph, wrote thus of
him in his journal: “Gladstone as ever great, earnest and honest; as
unlike the tricky Disraeli as possible. He is so delightfully true and
the same; just as full of interest in every good thing of every kind.”

The period which followed the election of 1868—the period of the
Gladstone Administration of 1868–74—has been called “the Golden age of
Liberalism.” It was certainly a period of great reforms. The first, the
most heroic, and probably—taking all the results into account—the most
completely successful of these, was the disestablishment of the Irish
Church.

IRISH CHURCH DISESTABLISHMENT

Any interference with the prerogatives or absoluteness of an
established church institution is sure to arouse vigorous opposition.
The disestablishment Bill, introduced on the 1st of March, 1869, was
greeted in Ireland with the wildest protests from those interested in
the Establishment. One synod, with a large assumption of inspired
knowledge, denounced it as “highly offensive to the Almighty God.” A
martial clergyman offered to “kick the queen’s crown into the Boyne,”
if she assented to any such measure. Another proposed to fight with the
Bible in one hand the and sword in the other.

These wild outbreaks of theological partisanship had no effect on
Gladstone, whose speech was one of the greatest marvels amongst his
oratorical achievements. His chief opponent declared that though it
lasted three hours, it did not contain a redundant word. The scheme
which it unfolded — a scheme which withdrew the temporal establishment
of a Church in such a manner that the church was benefited, not
injured, and which lifted from the backs of an oppressed people an
intolerable burden—was a triumph of creative genius.

Disraeli’s speech in opposition to this measure was referred bo by the
LONDON TIMES as flimsiness relieved by spangles.” After a debate in
which Mr. Bright made one of his most famous speeches, the bill was
carried by a majority of 118. Before this strong manifestation of the
popular will the House of Lords, which deeply disliked the bill, felt
obliged to give way, and passed it by a majority of seven.

AN IRISH LAND BILL

In 1870 Mr. Gladstone introduced his Irish Land Bill, a measure of
reform which Parliament had for years refused to grant. By it the
tenant was given the right to hold his farm as long as he paid his
rent, and received a claim upon the improvement made by himself and his
predecessors—a tenant-right which he could sell. This bill was
triumphantly carried; and another important Liberal measure, Mr.
Forster’s Education bill, became law.

Other liberal measures were passed, but the tide which had set so long
in this direction turned at last, the government was defeated in 1873
on a bill for University Education, and in a subsequent election the
Liberal party met with defeat. Gladstone at once resigned and was
succeeded by Disraeli. Two years later the latter was raised to the
peerage by the Queen under the title of the Earl of Beaconsfield.
Gladstone was not in the field for honors of this type. He much
preferred to inherit the title of a distinguished predecessor, that of
“The Great Commoner.” During his recess from office he occupied himself
in literary labors and as a critical commentator upon the foreign
policy of Disraeli, which plunged the country into a Zulu war which
Gladstone denounced as “one of the most monstrous and indefensible in
our history,” and an Afghan war which he described as a national crime.

These and other acts of Tory policy in time brought liberalism again
into the forefront, an election held in 1880 resulted in a great
Liberal victory, Disraeli (then Lord Beaconsfield) resigned and
Gladstone was once again called to the head of the ministry. In the new
administration the foreign policy, the meddling in the concerns of the
East, which had held precedence over domestic affairs under the
preceding administration, vanished from sight, and the Irish question
again became prominent. Ireland had now gained an able leader, Charles
Stewart Parnell, founder of the Irish Land League, a trade union of
Irish farmers, and its affairs could no longer be consigned to the
background.

Gladstone, in assuming control of the new government, was quite unaware
of the task before him. When he had completed his work with the Church
and the Land bills ten years before, he fondly fancied that the Irish
question was definitely settled. The Home Rule movement, which was
started in 1870, seemed to him a wild delusion which would die away of
itself. In 1884 he said: “I frankly admit that I had had much upon my
hands connected with the doings of the Beaconsfield Government in every
quarter of the world, and I did not know—no one knew—the severity of
the crisis that was already swelling upon the horizon, and that shortly
after rushed upon us like a flood.”

DESPERATE STATE OF IRELAND

He was not long is discovering the gravity of the situation, of which
the House had been warned by Mr. Parnell. The famine had brought its
crop of misery, and, while the charitable were seeking to relieve the
distress, many of the landlords were turning adrift their tenants for
non-payment of rents. The Irish party brought in a Bill for the
Suspension of Evictions, which the government replaced by a similar one
for Compensation for Disturbance. This was passed with a large majority
by the Commons, but was rejected by the Lords, and Ireland was left to
face its misery without relief.

The state of Ireland at that moment was too critical to be dealt with
in this manner. The rejection of the Compensation for Disturbance Bill
was, to the peasantry whom it had been intended to protect, a message
of despair, and it was followed by the usual symptom of despair in
Ireland, an outbreak of agrarian crime. On the one hand over 17,000
persons were evicted; on the other there was a dreadful crop of murders
and outrages. The Land League sought to do what Parliament did not; but
in doing so it came in contact with the law. Moreover, the
revolution—for revolution it seemed to be—grew too formidable for its
control; the utmost it succeeded in doing was in some sense to ride
without directing the storm. The first decisive step of Mr. Forster,
the chief secretary for Ireland, was to strike a blow at the Land
League. In November he ordered the prosecution of Mr. Parnell, Mr.
Biggar, and several of the officials of the organization, and before
the year was out he announced his intention of introducing a Coercion
Bill. This step threw the Irish members under Mr. Parnell and the
Liberal Government into relations of definitive antagonism.

THE COERCION BILL

Mr. Forster introduced his Coercion Bill on January 24, 1881. It was a
formidable measure, which enabled the chief secretary, by signing a
warrant, to arrest any man on suspicion of having committed a given
offense, and to imprison him without trial at the pleasure of the
government. It practically suspended the liberties of Ireland. The
Irish members exhausted every resource of parliamentary action in
resisting it, and their tactics resulted in several scenes
unprecedented in parliamentary history. In order to pass the bill it
was necessary to suspend them in a body several times. Mr. Gladstone,
with manifest pain, found himself, as leader of the House, the agent by
whom this extreme resolve had to be executed.

The Coercion Bill passed, Mr. Gladstone introduced his Land Bill of
1881, which was the measure of conciliation intended to balance the
measure of repression. This was really a great and sweeping reform,
whose dominant feature was the introduction of the novel and
far-reaching principle of the state stepping in between landlord and
tenant and fixing the rents. The bill had some defects, as a series of
amending acts, which were subsequently passed by both Liberal and Tory
governments, proved; but, apart from these, it was on the whole the
greatest measure of land reform ever passed for Ireland by the Imperial
Parliament.

But Ireland was not yet satisfied. Parnell had no confidence in the
good intentions of the government, and took steps to test its honesty,
which so angered Mr. Forster that he arrested Mr. Parnell and several
other leaders and pronounced the Land League an illegal body. Forster
was well-meaning but mistaken. He fancied that by locking up the
ring-leaders he could bring quiet to the country. On the contrary,
affairs were soon far worse than ever, crime and outrage spreading
widely. In despair, Mr. Forster released Parnell and resigned. All now
seemed hopeful; coercion had proved a failure; peace and quiet were
looked for; when, four days afterward, the whole country was horrified
by a terrible crime. The new Secretary for Ireland, Lord Cavendish, and
the under-secretary, Mr. Burke, were attacked and hacked to death with
knives in Phoenix Park. Everywhere panic and indignation arose. A new
Coercion Act was passed without delay. It was vigorously put into
effect, and a state of virtual war between England and Ireland again
came into existence.

WARS IN AFRICA

Meanwhile Great Britain had been brought back into the tide of foreign
affairs. Events were taking place abroad which must here be dealt with
briefly. The ambitious Briton, who loves to carry the world on his
shoulders, had made the control of the Suez Canal an excuse for
meddling with the government of Egypt. The immediate results were a
revolution that drove Ismail Pasha from this throne, and a revolt of
the people under an ambitious leader named Arabi Pasha, who seized
Alexandria and drove out the British, many of whom were killed.

Gladstone, who deprecated war, now found himself with a conflict thrust
upon his hands. The British fleet bombarded Alexandria, and the British
army occupied it after it had been half reduced to ashes. Soon after
General Wolseley defeated Arabi and his army and the insurrection
ended. A sequel to this affair was a formidable outbreak in the Soudan,
under El Mahdi, a Mohammedan fanatic, who captured the city of Khartoum
and killed the famous General Gordon. Years passed before Upper Egypt
was reconquered, it being recovered only at the close of the century.
Since then Egypt has remained under British control.

There were serious troubles also in South Africa. The British of Cape
Colony had pushed their way into the Boer settlement of the Transvaal,
claiming jurisdiction over it. The valiant Dutch settlers broke into
war, and dealt the invaders a signal defeat at Majuba Hill. This was
the opening step in a series of occurrences which led to the later Boer
war, in which the British, with great loss, conquered the Boers,
followed in later years by a practical reconquest of the country by its
Boer inhabitants in peaceful ways.

Such were the wars of the Gladstone administration, events of which he
did not approve, but into which he was irresistibly drawn. At home the
Irish question continued in the forefront. The African wars having
weakened the administration, a vigorous assault was made on it by the
Irish party in 1885, and it fell. But its demise was a very brief one.
After a short experience of a Tory ministry under Lord Salisbury,
Parnell’s party rallied to Gladstone’s side, the new government was
defeated, and on February 1, 1886, Gladstone became Prime Minister for
the third time.

HOME RULE FOR IRELAND

During the brief interval his opinions had suffered a great revolution.
He no longer thought that Ireland had all it could justly demand. He
returned to power as an advocate of a most radical measure, that of
Home Rule for Ireland, a restoration of that separate Parliament which
it had lost in 1800. He also had a scheme to buy out the Irish
landlords and establish a peasant proprietary by state aid. His new
views were revolutionary in character, but he did not hesitate—he never
hesitated to do what his conscience told him was right. On April 8,
1886, he introduced to Parliament his Home Rule Bill.

The scene that afternoon was one of the most remarkable in
Parliamentary history. Never before was such interest manifested in a
debate by either the public or the members of the House. In order to
secure their places, members arrived at St. Stephen’s at six o’clock in
the morning, and spent the day on the premises; and, a thing quite
unprecedented, members who could not find places on the benches filled
up the floor of the House with rows of chairs. The strangers’,
diplomats’, peers’, and ladies’ galleries were filled to overflowing.
Men begged even to be admitted to the ventilating passages beneath the
floor of the chamber that they might in some sense be witnesses of the
greatest feat in the lifetime of an illustrious old man of eighty.
Around Palace Yard an enormous crowd surged, waiting to give the
veteran a welcome as he drove up from Downing Street.

Mr. Gladstone arrived in the House, pale and still panting from the
excitement of his reception in the streets. As he sat there the entire
Liberal party—with the exception of Lord Hartington, Sir Henry James,
Mr. Chamberlain and Sir George Trevelyan—and the Nationalist members,
by a spontaneous impulse, sprang to their feet and cheered him again
and again. The speech which he delivered was in every way worthy of the
occasion. It expounded, with marvelous lucidity and a noble eloquence,
a tremendous scheme of constructive legislation—the re-establishment of
a legislature in Ireland, but one subordinate to the Imperial
Parliament, and hedged round with every safeguard which could protect
the unity of the Empire. It took three hours in delivery, and was
listened to throughout with the utmost attention on every side of the
House. At its close all parties united in a tribute of admiration for
the genius which had astonished them with such an exhibition of its
powers.

Yet it is one thing to cheer an orator, another thing to vote for a
revolution. The bill was defeated—as it was almost sure to be. Mr.
Gladstone at once dissolved Parliament and appealed to the country in a
new election, with the result that he was decisively defeated. His bold
declaration that the contest was one between the classes and the masses
turned the aristocracy against him, while he had again roused the
bitter hatred of his opponents.

Gladstone, the “Grand Old Man,” a title which he had nobly won,
returned to power in 1892, after a period of wholesale coercion in
Ireland. He was not to remain there long. He brought in a new Home Rule
Bill, supported it with much of his old vigor, and had the intense
satisfaction of having it passed, with a majority of thirty-four. It
was defeated in the House of Lords, and Home Rule, still remains the
prominent issue in Ireland, which it has divided into two camps,
Protestant Ulster being in revolt against the Catholic provinces.

With this great event the public career of the Grand Old Man came to an
end. The burden had grown too heavy for his reduced strength. In March,
1894, to the consternation of his party, he announced his intention of
retiring from public life. The Queen offered, as she had done once
before, to raise him to the peerage as an earl, but he declined the
proffer. His own plain name was a title higher than that of any earldom
in the kingdom.

On May 19, 1898, William Ewart Gladstone laid down the burden of his
life as he had already done that of labor. The noblest figure in
legislative life of the nineteenth century had passed away from earth.



Chapter XIV.
THE FRENCH REPUBLIC


Struggles of a New Nation

The Republic Organized—The Commune of Paris—Instability of the
Government—Thiers Proclaimed President—Punishment of the Unsuccessful
Generals—MacMahon a Royalist President—Bazaine’s Sentence and
Escape—Grevy, Gambetta and Boulanger—The Panama Canal Scandal—Despotism
of the Army Leaders—The Dreyfus Case—Church and State—The Moroccan
Controversy

It has been already told how the capitulation of the French army at
Sedan and the captivity of Louis Napoleon were followed in Paris by the
overthrow of the empire and the formation of a republic, the third in
the history of French political changes. A provisional government was
formed, the legislative assembly was dissolved, and all the court
paraphernalia of the imperial establishment disappeared. The new
government was called in Paris the “Government of Lawyers,” most of its
members and officials belonging to that profession. At its head was
General Trochu, in command of the army in Paris; among its chief
members were Jules Favre and Gambetta. While upright in its membership
and honorable in its purposes, it was an arbitrary body, formed by a
coup d’état like that by which Napoleon had seized the reins of power,
and not destined for a long existence.

THE REPUBLIC ORGANIZED

The news of the fall of Metz and the surrender of Bazaine and his army
served as a fresh spark to the inflammable public feeling of France. In
Paris the Red Republic raised the banner of insurrection against the
government of the national defense and endeavored to revive the spirit
of the Commmune of 1793. The insurgents marched to the senate-house,
demanded the election of a municipal council which should share power
with the government, and proceeded to imprison Trochu, Jules Favre, and
their associates. This, however, was but a temporary success of the
Commune, and the provisional government continued in existence until
the end of the war, when a national assembly was elected by the people
and the temporary government was set aside. Gambetta, the dictator,
“the organizer of defeats,” as he was sarcastically entitled, lost his
power, and the aged statesman and historian, Louis Thiers, was chosen
as chief of the executive department of the new government.

The treaty of peace with Germany, including, as it did, the loss of
Alsace and Lorraine and the payment of an indemnity of $1,000,000,000,
roused once more the fierce passions of the radicals and the masses of
the great cities, who passionately denounced the treaty as due to
cowardice and treason. The dethroned emperor added to the excitement by
a manifesto, in which he protested against his deposition by the
assembly and called for a fresh election. The final incitement to
insurrection came when the Assembly decided to hold its sessions at
Versailles instead of in Paris, whose unruly populace it feared.

THE COMMUNE OF PARIS

In a moment all the revolutionary elements of the great city were in a
blaze. The social democratic “Commune,” elected from the central
committee of the National Guard, renounced obedience to the government
and the National Assembly, and broke into open revolt. An attempt to
repress the movement merely added to its violence, and all the riotous
populace of Paris sprang to arms. A new war was about to be inaugurated
in that city which had just suffered so severely from the guns of the
Germans, and around which German troops were still encamped.

The government had neglected to take possession of the cannon
Montmartre; and now, when the troops of the line, instead of firing on
the insurrectionists, went over in crowds to their side, the supremacy
over Paris fell into the hands of the wildest demagogues. A fearful
civil war commenced, and in the same forts which the Germans had
shortly before evacuated firing once more resounded; the houses,
gardens, and villages around Paris were again surrendered to
destruction; the creations of art, industry, and civilization were
endangered, and the abodes of wealth and pleasure were transformed into
dreary wildernesses.

The wild outbreaks of fanaticism on the part of the Commune recalled
the scenes of the revolution of 1789, and in these spring days of 1871
Paris added another leaf to its long history of crime and violence. The
insurgents, roused to fury by the efforts of the government to suppress
them, murdered two generals, Lecomte and Thomas, and fired on the
unarmed citizens who, as the “friends of order,” desired a
reconciliation with the authorities at Versailles. They formed a
government of their own, extorted loans from wealthy citizens,
confiscated the property of religious societies, and seized and held as
hostages Archbishop Darboy and many other distinguished clergymen and
citizens.

Meanwhile the investing French troops, led by Marshal MacMahon,
gradually fought their way through the defenses and into the suburbs of
the city, and the speedy surrender of the anarchists in the capital
became inevitable. This necessity excited their passions to the most
violent extent, and, with the wild fury of savages, they set themselves
to do all the damage they could to the historical monuments of Paris.
The noble Vendome column, the symbol of the warlike renown of France,
was torn down from its pedestal and hurled prostrate into the street.
The most historic buildings in the city were set on fire, and either
partially or entirely destroyed. Among these were the Tuileries, a
portion of the Louvre, the Luxembourg, the Palais Royal, the Elysee,
etc.; while several of the imprisoned hostages, foremost among them
Darboy, Archbishop of Paris, and the universally respected minister
Daguerry, were shot by the infuriated mob. Such crimes excited the
Versailles troops to terrible vengeance, when they at last succeeded in
repressing the rebellion. They made their way along a bloody course;
human life was counted as nothing; the streets were stained with blood
and strewn with corpses, and the Seine once more ran red between its
banks. When at last the Commune surrendered, the judicial courts at
Versailles began their work of retribution. The leaders and
participators in the rebellion who could not save themselves by flight
were shot by hundreds, confined in fortresses, or transported to the
colonies. For more than a year the imprisonments, trials, and
executions continued, military courts being established which excited
the world for months by their wholesale condemnations to exile and to
death. The carnival of anarchy was followed by one of pitiless revenge.

INSTABILITY OF THE GOVERNMENT

The Republican government of France, which had been accepted in an
emergency, was far from carrying with it the support of the whole of
the Assembly or of the people, and the aged, but active and keen-witted
Thiers had to steer through a medley of opposing interests and
sentiments. His government was considered, alike by the Monarchists and
the Jacobins, as only provisional, and the Bourbons and Napoleonists on
the one hand and the advocates of “liberty, equality and fraternity” on
the other, intrigued for its overthrow. But the German armies still
remained on French soil, pending the payment of the costs of the war;
and the astute chief of the executive power possessed moderation enough
to pacify the passions of the people, to restrain their hatred of the
Germans, which was so boldly exhibited in the streets and in the courts
of justice, and to quiet the clamor for a war of revenge.

The position of parties at home was confused and distracted, and a
disturbance of the existing order could only lead to anarchy and civil
war. Thiers was thus the indispensable man of the moment, and so much
was he himself impressed by the consciousness of this fact, that many
times, by the threat of resignation, he brought the opposing elements
in the Assembly to harmony and compliance.

This occurred even during the siege of Paris, when the forces of the
government were in conflict with the Commune. In the Assembly there was
shown an inclination to moderate or break through the sharp
centralization of the government, and to procure some autonomy for the
provinces and towns. When, therefore, a new scheme was discussed, a
large part of the Assembly demanded that the mayors should not, as
formerly, be appointed by the government, but be elected by the town
councils. Only with difficulty was Thiers able to effect a compromise,
on the strength of which the government was permitted the right of
appointment for all towns numbering over twenty thousand.

In the elections for the councils the moderate Republicans proved
triumphant. With a supple dexterity, Thiers knew how to steer between
the Democratic-Republican party and the Monarchists. When Gambetta
endeavored to establish a “league of Republican towns,” the attempt was
forbidden as illegal; and when the decree of banishment against the
Bourbon and Orleans princes was set aside, and the latter returned to
France, Thiers knew how to postpone the entrance of the Duc d’Aumale
and Prince de Joinville, who had been elected deputies, into the
Assembly at least until the end of the year.

THIERS PROCLAIMED PRESIDENT

The brilliant success of the national loan went far to strengthen the
position of Thiers. The high offers for a share in this loan, which
indicated the inexhaustible wealth of the nation and the solid credit
of France abroad, promised a rapid payment of the war indemnity, the
consequent evacuation of the country by the German army of occupation,
and a restoration of the disturbed finances of the state. The foolish
manifesto of the Count de Chambord, who declared that he had only to
return with the white banner to be made sovereign of France, brought
all practical men to the side of Thiers, and he had, during the last
days of August, 1871, the triumph of being proclaimed “President of the
French Republic.”

The new president aimed, next to the liberation of the garrisoned
provinces from the German troops of occupation, at the reorganization
of the French army. Yet he could not bring himself to the decision of
enforcing in its entirety the principle of general armed service, such
as had raised Prussia from a state of depression to one of military
regeneration. Universal military service in France was, it is true,
adopted in name, and the army was increased to an immense extent, but
under such conditions and limitations that the richer and more educated
classes could exempt themselves from service in the army; and thus the
active forces, as before, consisted of professional soldiers. And when
the minister for education, Jules Simon, introduced an educational law
based on liberal principles, he experienced on the part of the clergy
such violent opposition that the government dropped the measure.

In order to place the army in the condition which Thiers desired, an
increase in the military budget was necessary, and consequently an
enhancement of the general revenues of the state. For this purpose a
return to the tariff system, which had been abolished under the empire,
was proposed, but excited so great an opposition in the Assembly that
six months passed before it could be carried. The new organization of
the army, undertaken with a view of placing France on a level in
military strength with her late conqueror, was now eagerly undertaken
by the president. An active army, with five year’s service, was to be
added to a “territorial army,” a kind of militia. And so great was the
demand on the portion of the nation capable of bearing arms that the
new French army exceeded in numbers that of any other nation.

But all the statesmanship of Thiers could not overcome the anarchy in
the Assembly, where the forces for monarchy and republicanism were
bitterly opposed to each other. Gambetta, in order to rouse public
opinion in favor of democracy, made several tours through the country,
his extravagance of language giving deep offense to the Monarchists,
while the opposed sections of the Assembly grew wider and more violent
in their breach.

PUNISHMENT OF THE UNSUCCESSFUL GENERALS

Indisputable as were the valuable services which Thiers had rendered to
France, by the foundation of public order and authority, the creation
of a regular army, and the restoration of a solid financial system, yet
all these services met with no recognition in the face of the party
jealousy and political passions prevailing among the people’s
representatives at Versailles. More and more did the Royalist reaction
gain ground, and, aided by the priests and by various national
discontents, endeavor to bring about the destruction of its opponents.
Against the Radicals and Liberals, among whom even the Voltairean
Thiers was included, superstition and fanaticism were let loose, and
against the Bonapartists was directed the terrorism of courts-martial.

The French could not rest with the thought that their military
supremacy had been broken by the superiority of the Prusso-German arms;
their defeats could have proceeded only from the treachery or
incapacity of their leaders. To this national prejudice the Government
decided to bow, and to offer a sacrifice to the popular passion. And
thus the world beheld the lamentable spectacle of the commanders who
had surrendered the French fortresses to the enemy being subjected to a
trial by court-martial under the presidency of Marshal Baraguay
d’Hilliers, and the majority of them, on account of their proved
incapacity or weakness, deprived of their military honors, at a moment
when all had cause to reproach themselves and endeavor to raise up a
new structure on the ruins of the past. Even Ulrich, the once
celebrated commander of Strasbourg, whose name had been given to a
street in Paris, was brought under the censure of the court-martial.
But the chief blow fell upon the commander-in-chief of Metz, Marshal
Bazaine, to whose “treachery” the whole misfortune of France was
attributed. For months he was retained a prisoner at Versailles, while
preparations were made for the great court-martial spectacle, which, in
the following year, took place under the presidency of the Duc
d’Aumale.

MACMAHON A ROYALIST PRESIDENT

The result of the party division in the Assembly was, in May 1873, a
vote of censure on the ministry, which induced them to resign. Their
resignation was followed by an offer of resignation on the part of
Thiers, who experienced the unexpected slight of having it accepted by
the majority of the Assembly, the monarchist MacMahon, Marshal of
France and Duke of Magenta, being elected President in his place.
Thiers had just performed one of his greatest services to France, by
paying off the last instalment of the war indemnity and relieving the
soil of his country of the hated German troops.

The party now in power at once began to lay plans to carry out their
cherished purpose of placing a Legitimist king upon the throne, this
honor being offered to the Count de Chambord, grandson of Charles X.
He, an old man, unfitted for the thorny seat offered him, and out of
all accord with the spirit of the times, put a sudden end to the hopes
of his partisans by his medieval conservatism. Their purpose was to
establish a constitutional government, under the tri-colored flag of
revolutionary France; but the old Bourbon gave them to understand that
he would not consent to reign under the Tricolor, but must remain
steadfast to the white banner of his ancestors; he had no desire to be
“the legitimate king of revolution.”

This letter shattered the plans of his supporters. No man with idea
like these would be tolerated on the French throne. There was never to
be in France a King Henry V. The Monarchists, in disgust at the failure
of their schemes, elected MacMahon president of the republic for a term
of seven years, and for the time being the reign of republicanism in
France was made secure.

While MacMahon was thus being raised to the pinnacle of honor, his
former comrade Bazaine was imprisoned in another part of the palace at
Versailles, awaiting trial on the charge of treason for the surrender
of Metz. In the trial, in which the whole world took a deep interest,
the efforts of the prosecution were directed to prove that the conquest
of France was solely due to the treachery of the Bonapartist marshal.
Despite all that could be said in his defense, he was found guilty by
the court martial, sentenced to degradation from his rank in the army,
and to death.

BAZAINE’S SENTENCE AND ESCAPE

A letter which Prince Frederick Charles wrote in his favor only added
to the wrath of the people, who cried aloud for his execution. But, as
though the judges themselves felt a twinge of conscience at the
sentence, they at the same time signed a petition for pardon to the
president of the republic. MacMahon thereupon commuted the punishment
of death into a twenty years’ imprisonment, remitted the disgrace of
the formalities of a military degradation, without canceling its
operation, and appointed as the prisoner’s place of confinement the
fortress on the island of St. Marguerite, opposite Cannes, known in
connection with the “iron mask.” Bazaine’s wealthy Mexican wife
obtained permission to reside near him, with her family and servants,
in a pavilion of the sea-fortress. This afforded her an opportunity of
bringing about the freedom of her husband in the following year with
the aid of her brother. After an adventurous escape, by letting himself
down with a rope to a Genoese vessel, Bazaine fled to Holland, and then
offered his services to the republican government of Spain.

In 1875 the constitution under which France is now governed was adopted
by the republicans. It provides for a legislature of two chambers; one
a chamber of deputies elected by the people, the other a senate of 300
members, 75 of whom are elected by the National Assembly and the others
by electoral colleges in the departments of France. The two chambers
unite to elect a president, who has a term of seven years. He is
commander-in-chief of the army, appoints all officers, receives all
ambassadors, executes the laws, and appoints the cabinet, which is
responsible to the Senate and House of Deputies—thus resembling the
cabinet of Great Britain instead of that of the United States.

This constitution was soon ignored by the arbitrary president, who
forced the resignation of a cabinet which he could not control, and
replaced it by another responsible to himself instead of to the
Assembly. His act of autocracy roused a violent opposition. Gambetta
moved that the representatives of the people had no confidence in a
cabinet which was not free in its actions and not republican in its
principles. The sudden death of Thiers, whose last writing was a
defense of the republic, stirred the heart of the nation and added to
the excitement, which soon reached fever heat. In the election that
followed the republicans were in so great a majority over the
conservatives that the president was compelled either to resign or to
govern according to the constitution. He accepted the latter and
appointed a cabinet composed of republicans. But the acts of the
legislature, which passed laws to prevent arbitrary action by the
executive and to secularize education, so exasperated the old soldier
that he finally resigned from his high office.

GREVY, GAMBETTA AND BOULANGER

Jules Grevy was elected president in his place, and Gambetta was made
president of the House of Deputies. Subsequently he was chosen
presiding minister in a cabinet composed wholly of his own creatures.
His career in this high office was a brief one. The chambers refused to
support him in his arbitrary measures and he resigned in disgust. Soon
after the self-appointed dictator, who had played so prominent a part
in the war with Germany, died from a wound whose origin remained a
mystery.

The constitution was revised in 1884, the republic now declared
permanent and final, and Grevy again elected president. General
Boulanger, the minister of war in the new government, succeeded in
making himself highly popular, many looking upon him as a coming
Napoleon, by whose genius the republic would be overthrown.

In 1887 Grevy resigned, in consequence of a scandal in high circles,
and was succeeded by Sadi-Carnot, grandson of a famous general of the
first republic. Under the new president two striking events took place.
General Boulanger managed to lift himself into great prominence, and
gain a powerful following in France. Carried away by self-esteem, he
defied his superiors, and when tried and found guilty of the offense,
was strong enough in France to overthrow the ministry, to gain
re-election to the Chamber of Deputies, and to defeat a second
ministry.

But his reputation was declining. It received a serious blow through a
duel he fought with a lawyer, in which the soldier was wounded and the
lawyer escaped unhurt. The next cabinet was hostile to his intrigues,
and he fled to Brussels to escape arrest. Tried by the Senate, sitting
as a High Court of Justice, he was found guilty of plotting against the
state and sentenced to imprisonment for life. His career soon after
ended in suicide and his party disappeared.

THE PANAMA CANAL SCANDAL

The second event spoken of was the Panama Canal affair. De Lesseps, the
maker of the Suez Canal, had undertaken to excavate a similar one
across the Isthmus of Panama, but the work was managed with such wild
extravagance that vast sums were spent and the poor investors widely
ruined, while the canal remained a half-dug ditch. At a later date this
affair became a great scandal, dishonest bargains in connection with it
were abundantly unearthed, bribery was shown to have been common in
high places, and France was shaken to its center by the startling
exposure. De Lesseps, fortunately for him, escaped imprisonment by
death, but others of the leaders in the enterprise were condemned and
punished.

In the succeeding years perils manifold threatened the existence of the
French Republic. A moral decline seemed to have sapped the foundations
of public virtue, and the new military organization rose to a dangerous
height of power, becoming a possible instrument of ambition which
overshadowed and portended evil to the state. The spirit of anarchy,
which had been so strikingly displayed in the excesses of the Parisian
Commune, was shown later in various instances of death and destruction
by the use of dynamite bombs, exploded in Paris and elsewhere. But its
most striking example was in the murder of President Carnot, who was
stabbed by an anarchist in the streets of Lyons. This assassination,
and the disheartening exposures of dishonesty in the Panama Canal case
trials, stirred the moral sentiment of France to its depths, and made
many of the best citizens despair of the permanency of the republic.

DESPOTISM OF THE ARMY LEADERS

But the most alarming threat came from the army, which had grown in
power and prominence until it fairly overtopped the state, while its
leaders felt competent to set at defiance the civil authorities. This
despotic army was an outgrowth of the Franco-Prussian war. The terrible
punishment which the French had received in that war and in particular
the loss of Alsace and Lorraine, filled them with bitter hatred of
Germany and a burning desire for revenge. Yet it was evident that their
military organization was so imperfect as to leave them helpless before
the army of Germany, and the first thing to be done was to place
themselves on a level in military strength with their foe. To this
President Thiers had earnestly devoted himself, and the work of army
organization went on until all France was virtually converted into a
great camp, defended by powerful fortresses, and the whole male
population of the country were practically made part of the army.

The final result of this was the development of one of the most
complete and well-appointed military establishments in Europe. The
immediate cause of the reorganization of the army gradually passed
away. As time went on the intense feeling against Germany softened and
the danger of war decreased. But the army became more and more dominant
in France, and, as the century neared its end, the autocratic position
of its leaders was revealed by a startling event, which was claimed to
prove the moral decadence of France and the controlling influence and
dominating power of the members of the General Staff. This was the
celebrated Dreyfus Case, the CAUSE CELEBRE of the period. At the time
concerned it excited the utmost interest, stirring France to its
center, and attracting the earnest attention of the world. It aroused
indignation as well as interest, and years passed before it lost its
hold on public attention. It can be dealt with here only with great
brevity.

THE DREYFUS CASE

Albert Dreyfus, an Alsatian Jew and a captain in the Fourteenth
Regiment of Artillery of the French army, detailed for service at the
Information Bureau of the Minister of War, was arrested October 15,
1894, on charge of having sold military secrets to a foreign power. The
following letter was said to have been found at the German embassy by a
French detective, in what was declared to be the handwriting of
Dreyfus:

“Having no news from you I do not know what to do. I send you in the
meantime the condition of the forts. I also hand you the principal
instructions as to firing. If you desire the rest I shall have them
copied. The document is precious. The instructions have been given only
to the officers of the General Staff. I leave for the maneuvers.”

Previous to the arrest of Dreyfus, the editor of the LIBRE PAROLE, had
been carrying on a violent anti-Semitic agitation in his paper. He now
raved about the Jews in general, declared Dreyfus guilty of selling
army secrets to the Germans, and by his crusade turned public opinion
in Paris strongly against the accused.

As a result of this assault and the statement that the letter was in
the handwriting of the accused, he was tried before a military court,
which sat behind closed doors, kept parts of the indictment from the
knowledge of the prisoner and his lawyer, and in other ways manifested
a lack of fairness.

As a result of this secret trial the accused was found guilty and
condemned to be degraded from his military rank, and by a special act
of the Chamber of Deputies was ordered to be imprisoned for life in a
penal settlement on Devil’s Island, off the coast of French Guiana, a
tropical region, desolate and malarious in character. The sentence was
executed with the most cruel harshness. During part of his detention
Dreyfus was locked in a hut, surrounded by an iron cage, on the island.
This was done on the plea of possible attempts at rescue. He was
allowed to send and receive only such letters as had been transcribed
by one of his guardians.

He denied, and never ceased to deny, his guilt. The letters he wrote to
his counsel after the trial and after his disgrace are most pathetic
assertions of his innocence, and of the hope that ultimately justice
would be done him. His wife and family continued to deny his guilt, and
used every influence to get his case reopened.

The whole affair in time excited a strong suspicion that Dreyfus had
been used as a scapegoat for some one higher up and had been unjustly
condemned, the fact of his being a Jew being used to excite prejudice
against him. Many eminent literary men of France advocated the revision
of a sentence which did not appeal to the sense of justice of the best
element of France.

It was declared that military secrets continued to leak out after
Dreyfus’s arrest, and that the handwriting of the letter found was
closely similar to that of Count Ferdinand Esterhazy, an officer in the
French army, of noble Hungarian descent. This matter was so ventilated
that some action became necessary and Esterhazy was tried secretly by
court-martial, the trial ending in acquittal.

At this juncture, Emile Zola, the celebrated novelist, stepped into the
fray as a defender of Dreyfus, writing a notable letter to President
Favre, in which he accused the members of the court-martial of
acquitting Esterhazy under order of their chiefs, who would not admit
that a military court of France could possibly make a mistake.

This letter led to the arrest and trial of Zola and of the editor who
published it. Their trials were conducted in a secret manner and they
were found guilty and sentenced to a heavy fine and a year’s
imprisonment. Zola escaped imprisonment by absenting himself from
France.

By this time the interest of the whole world was enlisted in the case,
the action of the French courts was everywhere condemned, and in the
end it was deemed advisable to bring Dreyfus back to France and accord
him a new trial. This trial, which lasted from August 7 to September 7,
1899, indicated that he had been convicted on the most flimsy and
uncertain evidence, largely conjectural in character, while there was
strong evidence in his favor. Yet the judges of the court-martial
seemed biased against him, and by a vote of three judges to two, he was
again found guilty—“of treason, with extenuating circumstances,” as if
treason could be extenuated.

The whole affair was a transparent travesty upon justice, and the
method by which it was conducted threw into a strong light the faulty
character of the French method of trial. The result, indeed, was so
flagrantly unsatisfactory that no further punishment was inflicted upon
the accused, and in July, 1906, his case was brought before the Court
of Appeals, with the result that he was acquitted and restored to his
rank in the army.

CHURCH AND STATE

Later events of interest in French history had to do with the status of
the Catholic Church in France and with the relations of France, Germany
and Spain to Morocco, the latter more than once threatening war. The
union of Church and State in France, which had only before been broken
during the turbulent period of the Revolution, was definitely abrogated
by a law of December 19, 1905, proclaiming the separation of Church and
State in that country. By this, and a supplementary act in 1907, the
Catholic church was put on the same footing in the republic as the
Protestant and Jewish congregations. The use of church buildings, which
had been the property of the state since the Revolution, was granted
only under conditions which the Pope refused to accept, and religious
liberty made a radical advance in France.

THE MOROCCO CONTROVERSY

Meanwhile troubles had arisen on the borders of Algeria between the
French army of occupation and the unruly Moroccan tribes beyond the
boundary. The efforts of France to abate these disturbances, which
found support in the British government, aroused opposition in Germany,
which objected to the claim of France to a predominant interest in
Morocco. The affair went so far that Emperor William II visited
Tangier, had a conference with the representatives of the Sultan, and
was reported to have agreed to enforce the integrity of Morocco. The
friction that resulted was allayed by a conference of the Powers held
at Algeciras, Spain, in 1905, and the trouble was temporarily settled
by a series of resolutions establishing a number of reforms in Morocco,
the privileged position of France along the Moroccan-Algerian frontier
being acknowledged.

Disturbances continued, however, and the murder of a French doctor by
the tribesmen in March, 1907, led to the occupation of a Moroccan town
by French troops. Later in the year a more serious affair took place at
the port of Casablanca, which was raided by insurgent tribesmen and
European laborers and others were massacred. A French force landed on
August 7th and a desperate fight took place, during which nearly every
inhabitant of the town was killed and wounded or had fled, the dead
alone numbering thousands.

In 1911 matters in Morocco grew serious, there being severe fighting by
Spanish troops in the Spanish concession around Alcazar, while tribal
outbreaks against Fez, the Sultan’s capital, brought a French military
expedition to that point. By this, communication between the capital
and the coast was established, the French government undertaking to
organize the Sultan’s army and carry out certain works of public
improvement.

These movements revived the suspicions of Germany and that country took
the decisive step of sending a war vessel to Agadir, a southern port of
Morocco, with the ostensible purpose of protecting the persons and
property of German subjects. This act led to the suspicion in France
that Germany meant more than she said and that her real purpose was to
gain a permanent hold on Moroccan territory. There was heated talk of
war, as there usually is in such cases, but the affair was, in the end,
amicably adjusted.

It became known that France wished to secure a free hand in Morocco,
outside of the coastal provinces held by Spain, and was willing in
return to concede to Germany a considerable amount of territory in
French Congo. The agreement finally reached, with the assent of the
other Powers, especially Spain, which had a vital interest in the
problem, was that France should be given a protectorate over Morocco,
and in return should cede to Germany a region in French Congo, in
equatorial Africa, of about 230,000 square kilometers, containing a
population of from 600,000 to 1,000,000, and adjoining the German
district of Kamerun, France retaining certain transit privileges in the
region.

Thus ended a source of dispute which had more than once threatened war
and would have so ended at this time but for the vigorous support of
France by Great Britain. It ended greatly to the advantage of France,
whose interests in Morocco far outweighed any advantages likely to
arise from her holdings in central Africa. Behind all this lay the
probability that her influence in and hold upon Morocco would increase
until eventually it would develop into a virtual, perhaps an actual,
sovereignty over that country.



Chapter XV.
RUSSIA IN THE FIELD OF WAR


The Outcome of Slavic Ambition

Siege of Sebastopol—Russia in Asia—The Russo-Japanese War—Port Arthur
Taken—The Russian Fleet Defeated

Among the most interesting phases of nineteenth-century history is that
of the conflict between Russia and Turkey, a struggle for dominion that
came down from the preceding centuries, and still seems only
temporarily laid aside for final settlement in the years to come. In
the eighteenth century the Turks proved quite able to hold their own
against all the power of Russia and all the armies of Catharine the
great, and they entered the nineteenth century with their ancient
dominion largely intact. But they were declining in strength while
Russia was growing, and long before 1900 the empire of the Sultan would
have become the prey of the Czar had not the other Powers of Europe
come to the rescue. The Czar Nicholas designated the Sultan as the
“sick man” of Europe, and such he and his empire had truly become.

Of the various wars which Russia waged against Turkey, the first of
modern historical importance was that of 1854–55, known as the “Crimean
War” and made notable by the fact that Britain, France and Sardinia
joined the Turks in their struggle against the Muscovite armies.

The Western powers had long been fearful of letting Constantinople fall
into the hands of Russia. They had interfered to prevent this after the
victory of Russia in 1829, when Adrianople was taken and Constantinople
threatened. War broke out again in 1853 and Russia seemed likely to
triumph. This led Britain and France to declare war in 1854. Armies
were sent by them to the Black Sea, and in September a strong force was
landed on the coast of the Crimean peninsula.

SIEGE OF SEBASTOPOL

Their purpose in this movement was the capture of the fortress of
Sebastopol and the destruction of the Russian fleet in its harbor. But
the Muscovite defense was vigorous and the stronghold proved difficult
to take. Battles took place on the banks of the Alma and at Balaclava,
in both of which the allies were successful, the latter being made
notable by the heroic British “Charge of the Light Brigade,” which has
since been famous in song and story.

But the fortress held out during the succeeding winter and until late
in 1855, despite the vigor of the siege. After the middle of August the
assault became almost incessant, cannon balls dropping like an
unceasing storm of hail in forts and streets. On the 5th of September
began a terrific bombardment, continuing day and night for three days,
and sweeping down more than 5,000 Russians on the ramparts. At length,
as the hour of noon struck on September 8th, the attack, of which this
play of artillery was the prelude, began, the French assailing the
Malakoff, the British the Redan, these being the most formidable of the
defensive works of the town. The French assault was successful and
Sebastopol became untenable. That night the Russians blew up their
remaining forts, sunk their ships of war, and marched out of the town,
leaving it as the prize of victory to the allies.

This success put an end to the war. Britain, Sardinia, which had joined
the coalition, and Turkey were eager to continue it, but Napoleon III
had reasons of his own for withdrawing his troops, and the other allies
found it desirable to consent to a treaty of peace. Russia was far from
being conquered, but its finances were in a deplorable state, and the
Czar proved ready to make terms with his enemies.

This did not end Russia’s efforts to win Constantinople. A new war
broke out in 1877, in which none of the Powers came to the aid of the
Turks, and their dominion in Europe would have been brought to an end
but for the jealousy or these Powers, which forced the conquering
Muscovites to withdraw from the hoped-for prize. The events of this war
are given in the following chapter, as part of the history of the
Balkan States.

RUSSIA IN ASIA

Russia, though so often checked in the effort to capture
Constantinople, and with it win an opening to the Mediterranean, was
long more successful in another field of ambition, that of Asiatic
conquest and the expansion of empire over the great Eastern continent.
Here it had gradually won a vast stretch of territory, including the
immense area of Siberia and the realms of the Caucasus and Turkestan.
The result of the Boxer outbreak in China in 1900 increased the Russian
dominion in Asia, giving the empire a hold upon Manchuria, with control
of the fine seaport of Port Arthur. It began to appear as if this whole
region would become Russian territory, possibly including Korea and
Japan.

THE RUSSO-JAPAN WAR

The danger of this roused Japan to action. When it became evident that
the Russians had no intention to respect the rights of China in
Manchuria, and showed signs of an aggressive movement against Korea,
the island empire lost no time in making war. In February, 1904, Japan
withdrew her minister from St. Petersburg and three days later, without
the formality of a declaration of war, attacked the Russian fleets at
Chemulpo and Port Arthur and landed troops in Korea.

The Japanese quickly proved themselves able warriors. On April 13th
admiral Togo drove back the Russian fleet, its flagship, the
PETROPAVLOVSK, striking a mine and sinking with its crew and admiral.
On land the Russians were defeated at the battle of the Yalu, Manchuria
was invaded and Port Arthur invested and bombarded. Battles followed in
rapid succession, with victory for the island warriors in every
instance. General Oka won a fierce battle on the heights of Nan-Shan
and captured the Russian port of Dalny. General Kuroki fought his way
northward to Liao-yang, where was fought one of the great battles of
the war, lasting seven days and ending in the retreat of the Russians.

The next field of action was at Mukden, the Manchurian capital, when
the armies met in September, and remained face to face until March of
the following year. It was not until then that a decisive action took
place, the armies numbering nearly 500,000 each. The struggle was long
continued, but finally ended in a second retreat of the Russians. There
were no further engagements of importance in this quarter, though the
armies remained face to face for months in a long line south of Harbin.

PORT ARTHUR TAKEN

Meanwhile Port Arthur had become closely invested. One by one the hills
surrounding the harbor were taken by the Japanese, after stubborn
resistance. Big siege guns were dragged up and began to batter the town
and the ships. On August 16th, General Stoessel, commander at Port
Arthur, having refused to surrender, a grand assault was ordered by
Nogi. It proved unsuccessful, while the assailants lost 14,000 men. The
bombardment continued, the buildings and ships suffering severely.
Finally tunnels were cut through the solid rock and on December 20th
the principal stronghold in the east was carried by storm. Other forts
were soon taken and on January 2, 1905, the place was surrendered, the
Japanese obtaining 40,000 prisoners, 59 forts, about 550 guns, and
other munitions. The fleet captured consisted of four damaged
battleships, two damaged cruisers and a considerable number of small
craft. These ships had been effectually blockaded in the harbor, lying
practically inactive during the siege.

THE RUSSIAN FLEET DEFEATED

Russia, finding its naval force in the Pacific put out of commission
through the activity of the doughty Togo, had meanwhile despatched
another fleet from the Baltic, comprising nearly forty vessels in all.
These made their way through the Suez Canal and the Indian Ocean and on
May 27, 1905, entered the Strait of Tsushuma, between Korea and Japan.
Hitherto not a hostile vessel had been seen. Togo had held his fleet in
ambush, while keeping scouts on the lookout for the coming Russians.

Suddenly the Russians found themselves surrounded by a long line of
enemies, which had suddenly appeared in their front. The attack was
furious and irresistible; the defense weak and ineffective. Night was
at hand, but before it came five Russian warships had gone to the
bottom. A torpedo attack was made during the night and the general
engagement resumed next morning. When a halt was called, Admiral Togo
had sunk, disabled or captured eight battleships, nine cruisers, three
coast-defense ships, and a large number of other craft, the great
Russian fleet being practically a total loss, while Togo had lost only
three torpedo boats and 650 men. The losses in men by the Russians was
4,000 killed, and 7,200 prisoners taken. It was a naval victory which
for completeness has rarely been equalled in history.

Russia, beaten on land and sea, was by this time ready to give up the
struggle, and readily accepted President Roosevelt’s suggestion to hold
a peace convention in the United States. The terms of the treaty were
very favorable to Russia, all things considered; but the power of Japan
had been strained to the utmost, and that Power felt little inclined to
put obstacles in the way. The island of Sakhalin was divided between
them, both armies evacuated Manchuria, leaving it to the Chinese, and
Port Arthur and Dalny were transferred to Japan.

Yet though Japan received no indemnity and little in the way of
material acquisitions of any kind, she came out of the war with a
prestige that no one was likely to question, and has since ranked among
the great Powers of the world. And she has added considerably to her
territory by the annexation of Korea, in which there was no one to
question her right.

Since the events here described Japan has entered the concert of the
nations by an alliance with Great Britain for mutual defense in case of
either Power being attacked in the East. And this treaty bore fruit in
1914 when Japan, as an ally of Great Britain, took part in the war
between the great Powers of Europe by attacking Kiaochou, a district
and fortress held by Germany on the northern coast of China.

This was in accordance with the Japanese theory of “the Orient for the
Orientals” and its dislike of European aggression upon the Asiatic
coast. Japan went farther than this, taking possession of all the
islands held by Germany in the North Pacific—afterwards handed over to
Australia for administration—those in the South Pacific being at the
same time occupied by expeditions from New Zealand and Australia. In
this way the great European war was to a minor extent transferred to
the waters and lands of the Far East.



Chapter XVI.
GREAT BRITAIN AND HER COLONIES


How England Became Mistress of the Seas

Great Britain as a Colonizing Power—Colonies in the Pacific
Region—Colonization in Africa—British Colonies in Africa—The Mahdi
Rebellion in Egypt—Gordon at Khartoum—Suppression of the Mahdi
Revolt—Colonization in Asia—The British in India—Colonies in
America—Development of Canada—Progress in Canada

In the era preceding the nineteenth century Spain, France, and Great
Britain were the great colonizing Powers, the last named being the
latest in the field, but rapidly rising to become the most important.

The active Powers in colonization within the nineteenth century were
the great rivals of the preceding period, Great Britain and France,
though the former gained decidedly the start, and its colonial empire
today surpasses that of any other nation of mankind. It is so enormous,
in fact, as to dwarf the parent kingdom, which is related to its
colonial dominion, so far as comparative size is concerned, as the
small brain of the elephant is related to its great body.

Other Powers, not heard of as colonizers in the past, have since come
into this field, though too late to obtain any of the great prizes.
These are Germany and Italy, the latter having recently added to its
acquisitions by the conquest of Tripoli. But there is a great Power
still to name, which in its way stands as a rival to Great Britain, the
empire of Russia, whose acquisitions in Asia have grown enormously in
extent. These are not colonies in the ordinary sense, but rather
results of the expansion of an empire through warlike aggression. Yet
they are colonial in the sense of absorbing the excess population of
European Russia. The great territory of Siberia was gained by Russia
before the nineteenth century, though within recent years the Russian
dominion in Asia has greatly increased, and has now become enormous,
extending from the Arctic Ocean to the borders of Afghanistan, Persia
and the Asiatic empire of Turkey.

GREAT BRITAIN AS A COLONIZING POWER

With this preliminary preview we may proceed to consider the history of
colonization within the recent period. And first we must take up the
results of the colonial enterprise of Great Britain, as much the most
important of the whole. In addition to Hindustan, in which the dominion
of Great Britain now extends to Afghanistan and Thibet in the north,
the British acquisitions in Asia now include Burmah and the west-coast
region of Indo-China, with the Straits Settlements in the Malay
peninsula, and the island of Ceylon, acquired in 1802 from Holland.

In the eastern seas Great Britain possesses another colony of vast
dimensions, the continental island of Australia, which, with its area
of nearly 3,000,000 square miles, is three-fourths the size of Europe.
The first British settlement was made here in 1788, at Port Jackson,
the site of the present thriving city of Sydney, and a part of the
island was maintained as a penal settlement, convicts being sent there
up to 1868. It was the discovery of gold in 1851 to which Australia
owed its great progress. The incitement of the yellow metal drew the
enterprising thither by thousands, until the population of the colony
is now more than 4,000,000, and is still growing at a rapid rate. There
are other valuable resources besides that of gold. Of its cities,
Melbourne, the capital of Victoria, with its suburbs, has more than
500,000 population; Sydney, the capital of New South Wales, 600,000,
while there are other cities of rapid growth. Australia is the one
important British colony obtained without a war. In its human beings,
as in its animals generally, it stood at a low level of development,
and it was taken possession of without a protest from the savage
inhabitants.

COLONIES IN THE PACIFIC REGION

The same cannot be said of the inhabitants of New Zealand, an important
group of islands lying southeast of Australia, which was acquired by
Great Britain as a colony in 1840. The Maoris, as the people of these
islands call themselves, are of the bold and sturdy Polynesian race, a
brave, generous, and warlike people. A series of wars with the natives
began in 1843 and continued until 1869, since which time the colony has
enjoyed peace. It can have no more trouble with the Maoris, since there
are said to be very few left. They had vanished before the “white man’s
face.” At present this colony is one of the most advanced politically
of any region on the face of the earth, so far as attention to the
interests of the masses of the people is concerned, and its laws and
regulations are interesting experiments for the remainder of the world.

In addition to those great island dominions in the Pacific, Great
Britain possesses the Fiji Islands, the northern part of Borneo, and a
large section of the extensive island of Papua or New Guinea, the
remainder of which is held by Holland and Germany. In addition there
are various coaling stations on the islands and coasts of Asia. In the
Mediterranean its possessions are Gibraltar, Malta and Cyprus, and in
America the great dominion of Canada, a considerable number of the
islands of the West Indies, and the districts of British Honduras and
British Guiana.

The history of colonization in two of the continents, Asia and Africa,
presents certain features of singularity. Though known from the most
ancient times, while America was quite unknown until four centuries
ago, the striking fact presents itself that at an early date in the
nineteenth century the continents of North and South America had been
largely explored from coast to center, while the interior of Asia and
Africa remained in great part unknown. This fact in regard to Asia was
due to the hostile attitude of its people, which rendered it dangerous
for any European traveler to attempt to penetrate its interior. In the
case of Africa it was due to the inhospitality of nature, which had
placed the most serious obstacles in the way of those who sought to
enter it beyond the coast regions. This state of affairs continued
until the latter half of the century, within which period there was a
remarkable change in the aspect of affairs, both continents being
penetrated in all directions and their walls of isolation completely
broken down.

COLONIZATION IN AFRICA

Africa is not only now well known, but the exploration of its interior
has been followed by political changes of the most revolutionary
character. It presented a virgin field for colonization, of which the
land-hungry nations of Europe hastened to avail themselves, dividing up
the continent between them until, by the end of the century, the
partition of Africa was practically complete. It is one of the most
remarkable circumstances in history that a well-known continent
remained thus so long unexplored to serve in our own days as a new
field for the outpouring of the nations. The occupation of Africa by
Europeans, indeed, began earlier. The Arabs had held the section north
of the Sahara for many centuries, Portugal claimed—but scarcely
occupied—large sections east and west, and the Dutch had a thriving
settlement in the south. But the exploration and division of the bulk
of the continent waited for the nineteenth century, and the greater
part of the work of partition took place within the final quarter of
that century.

In this work of colonization Great Britain and France stand foremost in
energy and success. Today the British possessions and protectorates in
Africa embrace 2,132,840 square miles; or, if we add Egypt and the
Egyptian Soudan—practically British territory—the area occupied or
claimed amounts to 2,446,040 square miles. The claims of France,
including a large area of the Sahara desert, are much larger, covering
4,000,000 square miles. Germany lays claim to 930,000;; Italy, to
59l,000; Portugal, to 800,000; Spain, to 86,600, the Congo Free State,
to 800,000; and Turkey to the 363,200 square miles of Egypt. The parts
of Africa unoccupied or unclaimed by Europeans are a portion of the
Desert of Sahara, which no one wants; Abyssinia, still independent;
Morocco, a French protectorate; and Liberia, a state over which rests
the shadow of protection of the United States.

BRITISH COLONIES IN AFRICA

Of the British colonial possessions in Africa the most important is
that in the far south, extending now from Cape Town to Lake Tanganyika,
and including an immense area replete with natural resources and
capable of sustaining a very large population. This region, originally
settled in the Cape Town region by the Dutch, was acquired by the
British as a result of an European war. Subsequently the
Boers—descendants of the Dutch settlers—made their way north, beyond
the British jurisdiction, and founded the new colonies of the Transvaal
Republic and the Orange Free State. The British of Cape Town at a later
date followed them north, settling Natal, defeating the Zulu blacks and
acquiring new territory, and eventually coming into hostile contact
with the Boers.

Defeated at first by the latter, a war of conquest broke out in 1899,
ending in 1902 with the overthrow of the Boer republics, after a brave
and vigorous resistance on their part. Under the ambitious leadership
of Cecil Rhodes and others, British dominion in South Africa was
extended northward over the protectorates of Rhodesia and Basutoland,
reaching, as stated, as far north as Lake Tanganyika and embracing an
area of about 1,300,000 square miles. Other British colonial
possessions in that continent include the large province of British
East Africa, covering 520,000 square miles, a large area in Somaliland
and possessions on the west coast of 150,000 square miles area. To
these, in a minor sense of possession, should be added Egypt, now
extending to British East Africa.

We have mentioned the respective regions held by other European nations
in Africa, France surpassing Great Britain in colonial area though not
in population. Among the French African possessions are included the
great island of Madagascar, lying off the east coast of the continent.
Mention should be made here of the extensive and promising Congo Free
State, under the suzerainty of Belgium. Covering eight hundred thousand
square miles, it comprises the populous and richly agricultural center
of Africa, its vast extension of navigable waters yielding
communication through its every part.

The occupation of Africa, at least that part of it which became British
territory, was not consummated without hostile activities. The most
recent of these was the long war between the Boer and British armies,
the final success being a costly and not very profitable triumph of the
British arms. Of other hostile relations may be mentioned the invasion
of Abyssinia by a British army in 1867, the suppression of the revolt
of Arabi Pasha in 1879, and the series of events arising from the
Mahdist outbreak in 1880.

THE MAHDI REBELLION IN EGYPT

The latter events call for some mention; and need to be preceded by a
statement of how Britain became dominant in Egypt. That country had
broken loose in large measure from the rule of Turkey during the reign
of the able and ambitious Mehemet Ali, who was made viceroy in 1840. In
1876 the independence of Egypt was much increased, and its rulers were
given the title of khedive, or king. The powers of the khedives
steadily increased, and in 1874–75 Ismail Pasha greatly extended the
Egyptian territory, annexing the Soudan as far as Darfur, and finally
to the shores of the lately discovered Victoria Nyanza. Egypt thus
embraced the valley of the Nile practically to its source, presenting
an aspect of immense length and great narrowness.

Soon after, the finances of the country became so involved that they
were placed under European control, and the growth of English and
French influence led to the revolt of Arabi Pasha. This was repressed
by Great Britain, which bombarded Alexandria and defeated the
Egyptians, France taking no part. As a result the co-ordinate influence
of France ended, and Great Britain was left as the practical ruler of
Egypt, which position she still maintains.

In 1880 began an important series of events. A Mohammedan prophet arose
in the Soudan, claiming to be the Mahdi, a Messiah of the Mussulmans. A
large body of devoted believers soon gathered around him, and he set up
an independent sultanate in the desert, defeating four Egyptian
expeditions sent against him, and capturing El Obeid, the chief city of
Kordofan, which he made his capital in 1883.

The effort to subdue the outbreak proved a long and arduous one, and
was accomplished only after many years and much loss to the British and
Egyptian forces. No time was lost in sending an army against the
fanatical Arabs. This was led by an English officer known as Hicks
Pasha. He fell into a Mahdist ambush at El Obeid, and after a desperate
struggle, lasting three days, his force was almost completely
annihilated, Hicks being the last to die. Very few of his men escaped
to tell the tale of their defeat.

Other expeditions of Egyptian troops sent against Osman Digna (“Osman
the Ugly”), a lieutenant of the Mahdi, similarly met with defeat, and
the Mahdists invested and besieged the towns of Sinkat and Tokar.

To relieve these towns, Baker Pasha, a daring and able British leader,
was sent with a force of 3,650 men. Unfortunately, his troops were
mainly Egyptian, and the result of preceding expeditions had inspired
these with a more than wholesome fear of the Mahdists. They met a party
of the latter, only about 1,200 strong, at a point south of Suakim, on
the Red Sea. Instantly the Egyptians broke into a panic of terror and
were surrounded and butchered in a frightful slaughter.

“Inside the square,” said an eye-witness, “the state of affairs was
almost indescribable. Cavalry, infantry, mules, camels, falling baggage
and dying men were crushed into a struggling, surging mass. The
Egyptians were shrieking madly, hardly attempting to run away, but
trying to shelter themselves one behind another.” “The conduct of the
Egyptians was simply disgraceful,” said another officer. “Armed with
rifle and bayonet, they allowed themselves to be slaughtered, without
an effort at self-defense, by savages inferior to them in numbers and
armed only with spears and swords.”

Baker and his staff officers, seeing affairs were hopeless, charged the
enemy and cut their way through to the shore, but of the total force
two-thirds were left dead or wounded on the field. Such was the
“massacre” of El Teb, which was followed four days afterwards by the
capture of Sinkat and slaughter of its garrison.

To avenge this butchery, General Graham was sent from Cairo with
reinforcements of British troops. These advanced upon Osman and
defeated him in two engagements, the last a crushing one, in which the
British lost only 200 men, while the Arab loss, in killed alone,
numbered over 2,000.

GORDON AT KHARTOUM

These events took place in 1884 and in the same year General Charles
Gordon—the famous Chinese Gordon—ascended the Nile to Khartoum, to
relieve the Egyptian garrison of that city. He failed in this, the
Arabs of the Soudan flocking to the standard of the Mahdi in such
multitudes that Khartoum was cut off from all communication with the
north, leaving Gordon and the garrison in a position of dire peril.

It became necessary to send an expedition for their relief, this being
led by Lord Wolseley, the hero of the Zulu and Ashanti wars. This
advanced in two sections, a desert and a river column. Two furious
attacks were made by the Mahdists on the desert troops, both being
repulsed with heavy loss. On reaching the river, they proceeded in
steamers which Gordon had sent down the Nile to meet them. But there
was unavoidable delay, and when the vicinity of Khartoum was reached,
on January 28, 1885, it was learned that the town had been taken and
Gordon killed two days before. All his men, 4,000 in number, were
killed with him.

SUPPRESSION OF THE MAHDI REVOLT

After this misfortune the Arabs were left in possession for nearly
twelve years, no other expedition being sent until 1896, while it was
not until 1898 that the Anglo-Egyptian forces reached the vicinity of
Khartoum. They were commanded by General Kitchener, one of the ablest
of British soldiers. His men were well drilled and very different in
character from those led by Baker Pasha. They met the Arabs at
Omdurman, near Khartoum, and gave them a crushing defeat, more than
10,000 of them falling, while the British loss was only about 200. This
ended the Arab resistance and the Soudan was restored to Egypt,
fourteen years after it had been taken by the Mahdi.

Brief mention of the holdings of other nations in Africa must suffice.
Germany has large areas in East Africa and Southwest Africa, with
smaller holdings elsewhere. The possessions of France extend from
Algeria and Tunis southward over the Sahara and the Soudan, with
holdings on the east and west coasts. Portugal has large, feebly held
districts in the south-central coast region, and Italy holds small
districts on the Red Sea and Somaliland and the recently acquired
Tripoli. Spain’s holdings are on the coast of Morocco and the Sahara.

COLONIZATION IN ASIA

The colonizing enterprise in Asia within recent years has been confined
to Great Britain, France and Russia, which nations have gained large
possessions in that great continent. Russia has made its way during
several centuries of conquest over Siberia and Central Asia, until its
immense possessions have encroached upon Persia and Afghanistan in the
south and China in the east. At present, while the dominion of Russia
in Europe comprises about 2,000,000 square miles, that in Asia is more
than 6,500,000 square miles, the total area of this colossal empire
being more than equal in area to the entire continent of North America.

The possessions of other nations in Asia are, aside from small holdings
on the Chinese coast, in the south of that continent. Holland has a
group of rich islands in the Indian Ocean, Portugal some small
holdings, and France a large area in Indo-China, gained by invasion and
conquest. This includes Cambodia, Cochin-China and Tonquin, won by hard
fighting since 1862.

Great Britain, in addition to the extensive peninsula of India, with
the neighboring rich island of Ceylon, has of late years acquired the
fertile plains of Burmah, now included in its Empire of India, the
whole covering an area of nearly 2,000,000 square miles. Its other
Asiatic possessions include Hong Kong, in China; the Straits
Settlements and other Malay states; Borneo and Sarawak, ad Aden and
Socotra, in Arabia.

THE BRITISH IN INDIA

The British control of India began with the founding of commercial
settlements early in the seventeenth century. Areas of land were
gradually acquired, and rivalry began later between England and France
for the control of Indian territory. The power of the British East
India Company in India was largely extended by the military operations
of the famous Lord Clive, and under Warren Hastings, a later governor
of ambitious character, received new accessions.

During the nineteenth century many accessions of territory were made,
the one threat to British dominion in the peninsula being the great
Sepoy rebellion, or Indian Mutiny, which needed all the resources of
the Company to overcome. The most important event that succeeded was
the taking over the powers of government, so far exercised by the East
India Company, and vesting them in the Crown, which assumed full
control of the now immense holdings of the Company. Subsequently came
the raising of India to the dignity of an empire, and the adding to the
title of Queen Victoria the further title of Empress of India. Since
that period the establishment of British dominion in India has become
almost complete, extending to the Himalayas in the north, and over
Baluchistan in the west and Burmah in the east. As a result India,
Canada and Australia have become the great trio of semi-continental
British colonial possessions, India being far the richest and most
populous of them all.

COLONIES IN AMERICA

We have next to deal with the British colonial possessions in America,
including the great Dominion of Canada and Newfoundland, and the minor
holdings of British Guiana, British Honduras, and the several islands
of Jamaica, Trinidad, Barbadoes, the Bahamas and the Bermudas. Of these
Canada is the only one that calls for notice here.

Occupying the northern section of the western hemisphere lies Great
Britain’s most extended colony, the vast Dominion of Canada, which
covers an immense area of the earth’s surface, surpassing that of the
United States, and nearly equal to the whole of Europe. Its population,
however, is not in accordance with its dimensions, though of late it is
growing rapidly, being now over 7,000,000. The bleak and inhospitable
character of the far northern section of its area is likely to debar
that region from ever having any other than a scanty nomad population,
fur animals being its principal useful product. It is, however, always
unsafe to predict. The recent discovery of gold in an arctic country
traversed by the Klondike river, brought miners by the thousands to
that wintry realm, and it would be very unwise to declare that the
remainder of the great northern region contains no treasures for the
craving hands of man. So far as the fertile regions of Manitoba,
Alberta and Saskatchewan are concerned, the recent demonstration of
their great availability as wheat-producing territory has added
immensely to our conception of the national wealth of Canada, which
promises to become one of the great wheat-growing regions of the earth.

First settled by the French in the seventeenth century, this country
came under British control in 1763, as a result of the great struggle
between the two active colonizing powers for dominion in America. The
outcome of this conquest is the fact that Canada, like the other
colonies of Great Britain, possesses a large alien population, in this
case of French origin.

DEVELOPMENT OF CANADA

At the opening of the nineteenth century the population of Canada was
small, and its resources were only slightly developed. Its people did
not reach the million mark until about 1840, though after that date the
tide of immigration flowed thither with considerable strength and the
population grew with some rapidity. In 1791 the original province of
Quebec had been divided into Upper and Lower Canada, and racial and
religious conditions of the next fifty years led to severe political
conflicts. As a result an act of union took place, the provinces being
reunited in 1840.

Upper Canada, at the opening of the eighteenth century, was only
slightly developed, the country being a vast forest, without towns,
without roads, and practically shut out from the remainder of the
world. The sparse population was made up largely of United Empire
Loyalists—refugees from the successful revolution in the Thirteen
Colonies. But it began to grow with the new century, numbers crossed
the Niagara River from the States to the fertile lands beyond,
immigrants crossed the waters from Great Britain and France, Toronto
was made the capital city, ad the population of the province soon rose
to 30,000 in number. Lower Canada, however, with its old cities of
Quebec and Montreal, and its flourishing settlements along the St.
Lawrence River, continued the most populous section of the country,
though its people were almost exclusively of French origin. The
strength of the British population lay in the upper province.

In time the union which existed between the two larger provinces of
Canada became unfitted to serve the purposes of the entire colony. The
maritime provinces began to discuss the question of local federation,
and it was finally proposed to unite all British North America into one
general union. This was done in 1867, the British Parliament passing an
act which created the “Dominion of Canada.” The new confederation
included Ontario (Upper Canada), Quebec (Lower Canada), New Brunswick
and Nova Scotia. Four years later Manitoba and British Columbia were
included, and Prince Edward Island in 1874. Since then other additions
have been made. A parliament was formed consisting of a Senate of life
members appointed by the Crown and an Assembly elected by the people.

Some important questions which have arisen in Canada since the dates
above given had largely to do with its relations to the United States
and its people. One of the most troublesome of these was that relating
to the productive fisheries on the banks of Newfoundland and the coasts
of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. For years the problem of the rights
of American fishermen in these regions excited controversy. Several
partial settlements have been made and in 1877 the sum of $5,000,000
was awarded to Great Britain in payment for the privileges granted to
the United States. A treaty was signed in 1888 for the settlement of
other branches of this vexatious question.

The discovery of gold on the Klondike River in 1896 developed another
problem, that of the true boundary between Alaska and Canada. At first,
under the belief that the gold region was in Alaska, it brought a rush
of American miners to that region. But it was soon found that the
mining region was in Canada and the mining laws imposed by the Canadian
authorities were bitterly objected to by the American miners. The
question of boundary has since been definitely settled by an
international tribunal of British and American jurists and the present
boundary line marked out by a scientific commission.

The industrial development of the Dominion within recent years has been
great. Agriculturally the development of the fertile wheat fields of
the middle west is of the most promising character, while railway
progress has been highly encouraging. The building of the Canadian
Pacific Railway was a remarkable enterprise at the time of its
construction. Recently Canada is approaching a position of rivalry with
the United States in this particular, a new transcontinental line, the
Grand Trunk Pacific, having been completed in 1914, while the Canadian
Northern is rapidly progressing.

PROGRESS IN CANADA

Railways have spread like a network over the rich agricultural
territory along the southern border land of the Dominion, from ocean to
ocean, and are now pushing into the deep forest land and rich mineral
and agricultural regions of the interior and the northwest, their total
length in 1914 approaching 30,000 miles.

These roads have been built largely under different forms of government
aid, such as land grants, cash subsidies, loans, the issue of
debentures, and the guarantee of interest on bonds.

In manufacturing industry almost every branch of production is to be
found, the progressive enterprise of the people of the dominion being
great, and a large proportion of the goods they need being made at
home. The best evidence of the enterprise of Canada in manufacture is
shown by the fact that she exports many thousand dollars worth of goods
annually more than she buys—England being her largest customer and the
United States second on the list.

Not only is the outside world largely ignorant of the importance of
Canada, but many of her own people fail to realize the greatness of the
country they possess. Its area of more than three and one-half millions
of square miles—one sixteenth of the entire land surface of the
earth—is great enough to include an immense variety of natural
conditions and products. This area constitutes forty per cent of the
far extended British empire, while its richness of soil and resources
in forest and mineral wealth are as yet almost untouched, and its
promise of future yield is immense. The dimensions of the dominion
guarantee a great variety of natural attractions. There are vast
grass-covered plains, thousands of square miles of untouched forest
lands, multitudes of lakes and rivers, great and small, and mountains
of the wildest and grandest character, whose natural beauty equals that
of the far-famed Alpine peaks. In fact, the Canadian Pacific Railway is
becoming a route of pilgrimage for the lovers of the beautiful and
sublime, its mountain scenery being unrivaled upon the continent.

In several conditions the people of Canada, while preserving the
general features of English society, are much more free and
untrammeled. The class system of Great Britain has gained little
footing in this new land, where early every farmer is the owner of the
soil which he tills, and the people have a feeling of independence
unknown to the agricultural population of European countries. There has
been great progress also in many social questions. The liquor traffic
is subject in some Provinces to the local option restriction; religious
liberty prevails; education is practically free and unsectarian; the
franchise is enjoyed by all citizens; members of parliament are paid
for their services; and though the executive department of the
government is under the control of a governor-general appointed by the
Crown, the laws of Canada are made by its own statesmen, and a state of
practical independence prevails. Recognizing this, and respecting the
liberty-loving spirit of the people, Great Britain is chary in
interfering with any question of Canadian policy, or in any sense
attempting to limit the freedom of her great transatlantic colony.



Chapter XVII.
THE OPEN DOOR IN CHINA AND JAPAN


Development of World Power in the East

Warlike Invasions of China—Commodore Perry and His Treaty—Japan’s Rapid
Progress—Origin of the China-Japan War—The Position of Korea—Li Hung
Chang and the Empress—How Japan Began War—The Chinese and Japanese
Fleets—The Battle of the Yalu—Capture of Wei Hai Wei—Europe Invades
China—The Boxer Outbreak—Russian Designs on Manchuria—Japan Begins War
on Russia—The Armies Meet—China Becomes a Republic

Asia, the greatest of the continents and the seat of the earliest
civilizations, yields us the most remarkable phenomenon in the history
of mankind. In remote ages, while Europe lay plunged in the deepest
barbarism, certain sections of Asia were marked by surprising activity
in thought and progress. In three far-separated regions—China, India,
and Babylonia—and in a fourth on the borders of Asia—Egypt—civilization
rose and flourished for ages, while the savage and the barbarian roamed
over all other regions of the earth. A still more extraordinary fact
is, that during the more recent era, that of European civilization,
Asia rested in the most sluggish conservatism, sleeping while Europe
and America were actively moving, content with its ancient knowledge
while the people of the West were pursuing new knowledge into its most
secret lurking places.

And this conservatism seemed an almost immovable one. For a century
England has been pouring new thought and new enterprise into India, yet
the Hindus cling stubbornly to their remotely ancient beliefs and
customs, though they show some signs of a political awakening. For half
a century Europe has been hammering upon the gates of China, but not
until recently did this sleeping nation show any signs of waking to the
fact that the world was moving around it. As regards the other early
civilizations—Babylonia and Egypt—they long ago were utterly swamped
under the tide of Turkish barbarism and exist only in their ruins.
Persia, once a great and flourishing empire, likewise sank under the
flood of Arabian and Turkish invasion, and today seems in danger of
being swallowed up in the tide of Russian and British ambition. Such
was the Asia upon which the nineteenth century dawned, and such it
remains in some measure today, though in parts of its vast area modern
civilization has gained a firm foothold.

This is especially the case with the island empire of Japan, a nation
the people of which are closely allied in race to those of China, yet
who have displayed a greater progressiveness and a marked readiness to
avail themselves of the resources of modern civilization. The
development of Japan has taken place within a brief period. Previous to
that time it was as resistant to western influences as China continued
until a later date. They were both closed nations, prohibiting the
entrance of modern ideas and peoples, proud of their own form of
civilization and their own institutions, and sternly resolved to keep
out the disturbing influences of the restless West. As a result, they
remained locked against the new civilization until after the nineteenth
century was well advanced, and China’s disposition to avail itself of
the results of modern invention was not manifested until the century
was near its end.

WARLIKE INVASION OF CHINA

China, with its estimated population of 300,000,000, attained to a
considerable measure of civilization at a very remote period, but until
very recently made almost no progress during the Christian era, being
content to retain its old ideas, methods and institutions, which its
people looked upon as far superior to those of the western nations.
Great Britain gained a foothold in China as early as the seventeenth
century, but the persistent attempt to flood the country with the opium
of India, in disregard of the laws of the land, so angered the emperor
that he had the opium of the British stores at Canton, worth
$20,000,000, seized and destroyed. This led to the “Opium War” of 1840,
in which China was defeated and was forced in consequence to accept a
much greater degree of intercourse with the world, five ports being
made free to the world’s commerce and Hong Kong ceded to Great Britain.
In 1856 an arbitrary act of the Chines authorities at Canton, in
forcibly boarding a British vessel in the Canton River, led to a new
war, in which the French joined the British and the allies gained fresh
concessions from China. In 1859 the war was renewed, and Peking was
occupied by the British and French forces in 1860, the emperor’s summer
palace being destroyed.

These wars had their effect in largely breaking down the Chinese wall
of seclusion and opening the empire more fully to foreign trade and
intercourse, and also in compelling the emperor to receive foreign
ambassadors at his court in Peking. In this the United States was among
the most successful of the nations, from the fact that it had always
maintained friendly relations with China. In 1876 a short railroad was
laid, and in 1877 a telegraph line was established. During the
remainder of the century the telegraph service was widely extended, but
the building of railroads was strongly opposed by the government, and
not until the century had reached its end did the Chinese awaken to the
importance of this method of transportation. They did, however, admit
steam traffic to their rivers, and purchased some powerful ironclad
naval vessels in Europe.

COMMODORE PERRY AND HIS TREATY

The isolation of Japan was maintained longer than that of China, trade
with that country being of less importance, and foreign nations knowing
and caring less about it. The United States has the credit of breaking
down its long and stubborn seclusion and setting in train the
remarkably rapid development of the island empire. In 1854 Commodore
Perry appeared with an American fleet in the bay of Yeddo, and, by a
show of force and a determination not to be rebuffed, he induced the
authorities to make a treaty of commercial intercourse with the United
States. Other nations quickly demanded similar privileges, and Japan’s
obstinate resistance to foreign intercourse was at an end.

The result of this was revolutionary in Japan. For centuries the
Shogun, or Tycoon, the principal military noble, had been dominant in
the empire, and the Mikado, the true emperor, relegated to a position
of obscurity. But the entrance of foreigners disturbed conditions so
greatly—by developing parties for and against seclusion—that the Mikado
was enabled to regain his long-lost power, and in 1868 the ancient form
of government was restored, the nobles being relegated to their
original rank and their semi-feudal system overthrown.

JAPAN’S RAPID PROGRESS

The Japanese quickly began to show a striking activity in the
acceptance of the results of western civilization, alike in regard to
objects of commerce, inventions, and industries, and to political
organization. The latter advanced so rapidly that in 1889 the old
despotic government was, by the voluntary act of the emperor, set aside
and a limited monarchy established, the country being given a
constitution and a legislature, with universal suffrage for all men
over twenty-five. This act is of remarkable interest, it being doubtful
if history records any similar instance of a monarch decreasing his
authority without appeal or pressure from his people. It indicates a
liberal spirit that could hardly have been looked for in a nation that
had so recently opened its doors. It was, however, probably the result
of a previous compact with the nobles who aided the Mikado to regain
his throne. Today, Japan differs little from the nations of Europe and
America in its institutions and industries, and from being among the
most backward, has taken its place among the most advanced nations of
the world.

The Japanese army has been organized upon the European system, and
armed with the most modern style of weapons, the German method of drill
and organization being adopted. Its navy consists of about two hundred
war vessels, built largely in British dockyards and manned by sailors
trained under British officers. A number of powerful ships are in
process of building. Railroads have been widely extended; telegraphs
run everywhere; education is in an advancing stage of development,
embracing an imperial university at Tokio, and institutions in which
foreign languages and science are taught; and in a hundred ways Japan
is progressing at a rate which is one of the greatest marvels of the
twentieth century. This is particularly notable in view of the longer
adherence maintained by the neighboring empire of China to its old
customs, and the slowness with which it yielded to the influx of new
ideas.

ORIGIN OF THE CHINA-JAPAN WAR

As a result of this difference in progress between the two nations we
have to describe a remarkable event, one of the most striking evidences
that could be given of the practical advantage of modern civilization.
Near the end of the century war broke out between China and Japan, and
there was shown to the world the singular circumstance of a nation of
40,000,000 people, armed with modern implements of war, attacking a
nation of 300,000,000—equally brave, but with its army organized on an
ancient system—and defeating it as quickly and completely as Germany
defeated France in the Franco-German War. This war, which represents a
completely new condition of affairs in the continent of Asia, is of
sufficient interest and importance to speak of at some length.

Between China and Japan lay the kingdom of Korea, separated by rivers
from the former and by a strait of the ocean from the latter, and
claimed as a vassal state by both, yet preserving its independence as a
state against the pair. Japan invaded this country at two different
periods in the past, but failed to conquer it. China has often invaded
it, with the same result. Thus it remained practically independent
until near the end of the nineteenth century, when the question of
predominance in it became a cause of war between the two rival empires.

Korea long pursued the same policy as China and Japan, locking its
ports against foreigners so closely that it became known as the Hermit
Nation and the Forbidden Land. But it was forced to give way, like its
neighbors. The opening of Korea was due to Japan. In 1876 the Japanese
did to this secluded kingdom what Commodore Perry had done to Japan
twenty-two years before. They sent a fleet to Seoul, the Korean
capital, and by threat of war forced the government to open to trade
the port of Fusan. In 1880 Chemulpo was made an open port. Later on the
United States sent a fleet there which obtained similar privileges.
Soon afterwards most of the nations of Europe were admitted to trade,
and the isolation of the Hermit Nation was at an end. Less than ten
years had sufficed to break down an isolation which had lasted for
centuries. In less than twenty years after—in the year 1899—an electric
trolley railway was put in operation in the streets of Seoul—a
remarkable evidence of the great change in Korean policy.

THE POSITION OF KOREA

Korea was no sooner opened to foreign intercourse than China and Japan
became rivals for influence in that country—a rivalry in which Japan
showed itself the more active. The Koreans became divided into two
factions, a progressive one that favored Japan, and a conservative one
that favored China. Japanese and Chinese soldiers were landed upon its
soil, and the Chinese aided their party, which was in ascendency among
the Koreans, to drive out the Japanese troops. War was threatened, but
it was a averted by a treaty in 1885 under which both nations agreed to
withdraw their troops and to send no officers to drill the Korean
soldiers.

The war, thus for the time averted, came nine years afterwards, in
consequence of an insurrection in Korea. The people of that country
were discontented. They were oppressed with taxes and by tyranny, and
in 1894 the followers of a new religious sect broke out in open revolt.
Their numbers rapidly increased until they were 20,000 strong, and they
defeated the government troops, captured a provincial city, and put the
capital itself in danger. The Min (or Chinese) faction was then at the
head of affairs in the kingdom and called for aid from China, which
responded by sending some two thousand troops and a number of war
vessels to Korea. Japan, jealous of any such action on the part of
China, responded by surrounding Seoul with soldiers, several thousands
in number.

Disputes followed. China claimed to be suzerain of Korea and Japan
denied it. Both parties refused to withdraw their troops, and the
Japanese, finding that the party in power was acting against them,
advanced on the capital, drove out the officials, and took possession
of the palace and the king. A new government, made up of the party that
favored Japan, was organized, and a revolution was accomplished in a
day. The new authorities declared that the Chinese were intruders and
requested the aid of the Japanese to expel them. War was close at hand.

LI HUNG CHANG AND THE EMPRESS

China was at that time under the leadership of a statesman of marked
ability, the famous Li Hung Chang, who, from being made viceroy of a
province in 1870, had risen to be the prime minister of the empire. At
the head of the empire was a woman, the Dowager Empress Tsu Tsi, who
had usurped the power of the young emperor and ruled the state. It was
to these two people in power that the war was due. The dowager empress,
blindly ignorant of the power of the Japanese, decided that these
“insolent pigmies” deserved to be chastised. Li, her right-hand man,
was of the same opinion. At the last moment, indeed, doubts began to
assail his mind, into which came a dim idea that the army and navy of
China were not in shape to meet the forces of Japan. But the empress
was resolute. Her sixtieth birthday was at hand and she proposed to
celebrate it magnificently; and what better decorations could she
display than the captured banners of these insolent islanders? So it
was decided to present a bold front, and, instead of the troops of
China being removed, reinforcements were sent to the force at Asan.

HOW JAPAN BEGAN WAR

There followed a startling event. On July 25th three Japanese
men-of-war, cruising in the Yellow Sea, came in sight of a transport
loaded with Chinese troops and convoyed by two ships of the Chinese
navy. The Japanese admiral did not know of the seizure of Seoul by the
land forces, but he took it to be his duty to prevent Chinese troops
from reaching Korea, so he at once attacked the warships of the enemy,
with such effect that they were quickly put to flight. Then he sent
orders to the transport that it should put about and follow his ships.

This the Chinese generals refused to do. They trusted to the fact that
they were on a chartered British vessel and that the British flag flew
over their heads. The daring Japanese admiral troubled his soul little
about this foreign standard, but at once opened fire on the transport,
and with such effect that in half an hour it went to the bottom,
carrying with it one thousand men. Only about one hundred and seventy
escaped.

On the same day that this terrible act took place on the waters of the
sea, the Japanese left Seoul en route for Asan. Reaching there, they
attacked the Chinese in their intrenchments and drove them out. Three
days afterwards, on August 1, 1894, both countries issued declarations
of war.

Of the conflict that followed, the most interesting events were those
that took place on the waters, the land campaigns being an unbroken
series of successes for the well-organized and amply-armed Japanese
troops over the medieval army of China, which went to war fan and
umbrella in hand, with antiquated weapons and obsolete organization.
The principal battle was fought at Ping Yang on September 15th, the
Chinese losing 16,000 killed, wounded and captured, while the Japanese
loss was trifling. In November the powerful fortress of Port Arthur was
attacked by army and fleet, and surrendered after a two days’ siege.
Then the armies advanced until they were in the vicinity of the Great
Wall, with the soil and capital of China not far before them.

THE CHINESE AND JAPANESE FLEETS

With this brief review of the land operations, we must return to the
movements of the fleets. Backward as the Chinese were on land, they
were not so on the sea. Li Hung Chang, a born progressive, had vainly
attempted to introduce railroads into China, but he had been more
successful in regard to ships, and had purchased a navy more powerful
than that of Japan. The heaviest ships of Japan were cruisers, whose
armor consisted of deck and interior lining of steel. The Chinese
possessed two powerful battleships, with 14-inch iron armor and turrets
defended with 12-inch armor, each carrying four 12-inch guns. Both
navies had the advantage of European teaching in drill, tactics, and
seamanship. The Ting Yuen, the Chinese flagship, had as virtual
commander an experienced German officer named Von Hanneken; the Chen
Yuen, the other big ironclad, was handled by Commander McGiffen,
formerly of the United States navy. Thus commanded, it was expected in
Europe that the superior strength of the Chinese ships would ensure
them an easy victory over those of Japan. The event showed that this
was a decidedly mistaken view.

It was the superior speed and the large number of rapid-fire guns of
the Japanese vessels that saved them from defeat. The Chinese guns were
mainly heavy Krupps and Armstrongs. They had also some machine guns,
but only three quick-firers. The Japanese, on the contrary, had few
heavy armor-piercing guns, but were supplied with a large number of
quick-firing cannon, capable of pouring out shells in an incessant
stream. Admiral Ting and his European officers expected to come at once
to close quarters and quickly destroy the thin-armored Japanese craft.
But the shrewd Admiral Ito, commander of the fleet of Japan, had no
intention of being thus dealt with. The speed of his craft enabled him
to keep his distance and to distract the aim of his foes, and he
proposed to make the best use of this advantage. Thus equipped, the two
fleets came together in the month of September, and an epoch-making
battle in the history of the ancient continent of Asia was fought.

THE BATTLE OF THE YALU

On the afternoon of Sunday, September 16, 1894, Admiral Ting’s fleet,
consisting of 11 warships, 4 gunboats, and 6 torpedo boats, anchored
off the mouth of the Yalu River. They were there as escorts to some
transports, which went up the river to discharge their troops. Admiral
Ito had been engaged in the same work farther down the coast, and early
on Monday morning came steaming towards the Yalu in search of the
enemy. Under him were in all twelve ships, none of them with heavy
armor, one of them an armed transport. The swiftest ship in the fleet
was the YOSHINO, capable of making twenty-three knots, and armed with
44 quick-firing Armstrongs, which would discharge nearly 4,000 pounds
weight of shells every minute. The heaviest guns were long 13-inch
cannon, of which four ships possessed one each, protected by 12-inch
shields of steel. Finally, they had an important advantage over the
Chinese in being abundantly supplied with ammunition.

With this formidable fleet, Ito steamed slowly to the north-westward.
Early on Monday morning he was off the island of Hai-yun-tao. At 7 A.M.
the fleet began steaming north-eastward. It was a fine autumn morning.
The sun shone brightly, and there was only just enough of a breeze to
ripple the surface of the water. The long line of warships cleaving
their way through the blue waters, all bright with white paint, the
chrysanthemum of Japan shining like a golden shield on every bow, and
the same emblem flying in red and white from every masthead, formed a
striking spectacle. Some miles away to port rose the rocky coast and
the blue hills of Manchuria; on the other side was the Korean Gulf.

Omitting details of the long and uninteresting fight which followed it
may be said that the most remarkable feature of the battle of the Yalu
was that it took place between two nations which, had the war broken
out forty years earlier, would have done their fighting with fleets of
wooden junks and weapons of the past centuries. As an object lesson of
the progress of China and Japan in modern ideas it is of the greatest
interest, though results were drawn.

CAPTURE OF WEI HAI WEI

In January, 1895, the Japanese fleet advanced against the strongly
fortified stronghold of Wei Hai Wei, on the northern coast of China.
Here a force of 25,000 men was landed successfully, and attacked the
fort in the rear, quickly capturing its landward defenses. The
stronghold was thereupon abandoned by its garrison and occupied by the
Japanese. The Chinese fleet lay in the harbor, and surrendered to the
Japanese after several ships had been sunk by torpedo boats.

China was now in a perilous position. Its fleet was lost, its coast
strongholds of Port Arthur and Wei Hai Wei were held by the enemy, and
its capital was threatened from the latter place and by the army north
of the Great Wall. A continuation of the war promised to bring about
the complete conquest of the Chinese empire, and Li Hung Chang, who had
been degraded from his official rank in consequence of the disasters to
the army, was now restored to all his honors and sent to Japan to sue
for peace. In the treaty obtained China was compelled to acknowledge
the independence of Korea, to cede to Japan the island of Formosa and
the Pescadores group, and that part of Manchuria occupied by the
Japanese army, including Port Arthur, also to pay an indemnity of
300,000,000 taels and open seven new treaty ports. This treaty was not
fully carried out. The Russian, British, and French ministers forced
Japan, under threat of war, to give up her claim to the Liao-tung
peninsula and Port Arthur, which stronghold was soon after obtained,
under long lease, by the Russians.

EUROPE INVADES CHINA

The story of China during the few remaining years of the century may be
briefly told. The evidence of its weakness yielded by the war with
Japan was quickly taken advantage of by the great Powers of Europe, and
China was in danger of going to pieces under their attacks, which grew
so decided and ominous that rumors of a partition between these Powers
of the most ancient and populous empire of the world filled the air.

In 1898 decided steps in this direction were taken. Russia leased from
China for ninety-nine years Port Arthur and Talien Wan, and took
practical possession of Manchuria, through which a railroad was built
connecting with the Trans-Siberian road, while Port Arthur afforded her
an ice-free harbor for her Pacific fleet. Great Britain, jealous of
this movement on the part of Russia, forced from the unwilling hands of
China the port of Wei Hai Wei, and Germany demanded and obtained the
cession of a port at Kiau Chau, farther down the coast, in retribution
for the murder of some missionaries. France, not to be outdone by her
neighbors, gained concessions of territory in the south, adjoining her
Indo-China possessions, and Italy, last of all, came into the Eastern
market with a demand for a share of the nearly defunct empire.

The nations appeared to be settling on China in all directions and to
be ready to tear the antique commonwealth to pieces between them.
Within the empire itself revolutionary changes took place, the dowager
empress having first deprived the emperor of all power and then
enforced his abdication.

Meanwhile one important result came from the war. Li Hung Chang and the
other progressive statesmen of the empire, who had long been convinced
that the only hope of China lay in its being thrown open to Western
science and art, found themselves able to carry out their plans, the
conservative opposition having seriously broken down. The result of
this was seen in a dozen directions. Railroads, long almost completely
forbidden, gained free “right of way,” and promised in the near future
to traverse the country far and wide. Steamers ploughed their way for a
thousand miles up the Yang-tse-Kiang; engineers became busy exploiting
the coal and iron mines of the Flowery Kingdom; great factories,
equipped with the best modern machinery, sprang up in the foreign
settlements; foreign books began to be translated and read; and the
empress even went so far as to receive foreign ambassadors in public
audience and on a footing of outward equality in the “forbidden city”
of Peking, long the sacredly secluded center of an empire locked
against the outer world.

The increase of European interference in China, with indications of a
possible intention to dismember that ancient empire and divide its
fragments among the land-hungry nations of the West, was viewed in
China with dread and indignation, the feeling of hostility extending to
the work of the missionaries, who were probably viewed by many as
agents in the movement of invasion.

THE BOXER OUTBREAK

The hostile sentiment thus developed was indicated early in 1900 by the
outbreak of a Chinese secret society known by a name signified in
English by the word “boxers.” These ultra-patriots organized an
anti-missionary crusade in several provinces of North China in which
many missionaries and native Christians were killed. The movement
extended from the missionary settlements to include the whole foreign
movement in China, and was evidently encouraged by the dowager empress
and her advisers.

As a result the outbreak spread to Peking, where Baron von Ketteler,
the German minister, was killed, several of the legation buildings were
destroyed, and more than two hundred refugees were besieged within the
walls of the British legation. The danger to which the ministries and
their assistants and families were exposed aroused Europe and America,
and as the Chinese government took no steps to allay the outbreak, a
relief expedition was organized, in which United States, British,
French, German, Russian and Japanese forces took part.

The fleet of the allies bombarded and destroyed the Taku forts, and
heavy fighting took place at Tien-tsin, Pie-tsang and Yang-tsun. The
military expedition reached Peking and rescued the besieged on August
14, 1906, the empress and her court fleeing from the capital. A peace
treaty was signed on September 7, 1907, one of the conditions of which
was that China should pay an indemnity of $320,000,000 to the foreign
Powers. The share of this allotted to the United States was
$24,440,000, but after a portion of this had been paid the United
States in 1908 remitted $10,800,000, on the ground that this was in
excess over its actual expense. This act of generosity won the earnest
gratitude of China.

This event, significant of the latent and active hostilities between
the East and the West, was followed by a much greater one in 1904–05,
when Japan had the hardihood to engage in war with the great European
empire of Russia and the unlooked-for ability and good fortune to
defeat its powerful antagonist.

RUSSIAN DESIGNS ON MANCHURIA

This contest, which takes its place among the great wars of modern
times, must be dealt with briefly here, as it belongs to European
history only in the minor sense of a European country being engaged in
it. It arose from the encroachments of Russia in the Chinese province
of Manchuria and fears on the part of Japan that the scope of Russian
designs might include the invasion and conquest of that country.

As already stated, Russia secured a lease of Port Arthur, at the
southern extremity of Manchuria, from China in 1896. Subsequently the
Siberian Railway was extended southward from Harbin to this place, the
harbor was deepened, and building operations were begun at a new town
named Dalny, which was to be made Asia’s greatest port. The line of the
railway was strongly guarded with Russian troops.

These movements of Russia excited suspicion in Great Britain and Japan,
which countries so strongly opposed the military occupation by Russia
of Chinese territory that in 1901 Russia agreed to withdraw her troops
within the following year, to restore the railway to China, and
subsequently to give up all occupation of Chinese territory.

Of these agreements only the first was kept, and that only temporarily.
In 1903 Japan proposed an agreement with Russia to the effect that both
parties should respect the integrity of China and Korea, while the
interest of Japan in Korea and that of Russia in Manchuria should be
recognized. The refusal of Russia to accept this proposition overcame
the patience of Japan, whose rulers saw clearly that Russia had no
intention of withdrawing from the country occupied or of hampering her
future purposes with agreements. In fact Japan’s own independence
seemed threatened.

JAPAN BEGINS WAR ON RUSSIA

The result was in consonance with the Japanese character. In February,
1904, Japan withdrew her minister from the capital of Russia and three
days later, without the formality of a declaration of war, attacked the
Russian fleets at Chemulpo and Port Arthur. The result was the sinking
of two Russian ships in Chemulpo harbor, and the disabling of a number
of vessels at Port Arthur.

Troops were landed at the same time. Seoul, the capital of Korea, was
occupied, and an army marched north to Ping-Yang. The first land
engagement took place on the Yalu on April 30th, the Japanese forces
under General Kuroki attacking and defeating the Russians at that
point, and making a rapid advance into Manchuria.

Meanwhile Admiral Togo had been busy at Port Arthur. On April 13th he
sent boats in shore to plant mines. Makharov, the Russian admiral,
followed these boats out until he found Togo awaiting him with a fleet
too strong for him to attack. On his return his flag-ship, the
PETROPAVLOVSK, struck one of the mines and went down with her crew of
750 and Makharov himself. The smaller ships reached harbor in bad shape
from their experience of Togo’s big guns. On August 10th, the Port
Harbor fleet was again roughly handled by the Japanese, and some days
later a Vladivostock squadron, steaming southward to reinforce the Port
Arthur fleet, was met and defeated. This ended the naval warfare for
that period, all the ships which Russia had on the Pacific being
destroyed or seriously injured.

THE ARMIES MEET

On land the Japanese made successful movements to the north and south.
An army under General Oku landed in the Liao-tung peninsula early in
May, cut the railway to Port Arthur, and captured Kin-chau, nearly
forty miles from that port. There followed a terrible struggle on the
heights of Nan-Shan, ending in the repulse of the Russian garrison,
with a loss of eighty guns. This success gave the Japanese control of
Dalny, which formed for them a new base. General Nogi soon after landed
with a strong force and took command of the operation against Port
Arthur.

The northern army met with similar success, General Kuroki fighting his
way to the vicinity of Liao-yang, where he soon had the support of
General Nozdu, who had landed an army in May. Oku, marching north from
the peninsula, also supported him, the three generals forcing
Kuropatkin, the Russian commander-in-chief, back upon his base. Marshal
Oyama, a veteran of former wars, was made commander-in-chief of the
Japanese armies.

Liao-tung became the seat of one of the greatest battles of the war,
lasting seven days, the number of dead and wounded being over 30,000.
It ended in the retreat of Kuropatkin’s army, which fell back upon the
line of defenses covering Mukden, the Manchurian capital. Here he was
again attacked by Kuroki, who captured the key of the Russian position
on the 1st of September, and held it until reinforcements arrived.

For a month the armies faced each other south of Mukden, the resting
spell ending in a general advance of the Russian army, which had been
largely reinforced. In the battle that followed the Russians lost
heavily, but failed to break the Japanese lines, and after a fortnight
of hard fighting both sides desisted from active hostilities, holding
their positions with little change.

PORT ARTHUR TAKEN

Meanwhile Port Arthur had become closely invested. One by one the hills
surrounding the harbor were taken by the Japanese, after stubborn
resistance. Big siege guns were dragged up and began to batter the town
and the ships. On August 16th, General Stoessel, commander at Fort
Arthur, having refused to surrender, a grand assault was ordered by
Nogi. It proved unsuccessful, while the assailants lost 14,000 men. The
bombardment continued, the buildings and ships suffering severely.
Finally tunnels were cut through the solid rock and on December 20th
the principal stronghold in the east was carried by storm. Other forts
were soon taken and on January 2, 1905, the port was surrendered, the
Japanese obtaining 40,000 prisoners, 59 forts, about 550 guns, and
other munitions. The fleet captured consisted of four damaged
battleships, two damaged cruisers and a considerable number of smaller
craft.

We left the armies facing each other at Mukden in late September. They
remained there until February, 1905, without again coming into contact,
and no decisive action took place until March. Kuropatkin’s force had
meanwhile been largely reinforced, through the difficult aid of the
one-tracked Siberian railway, and was now divided into three armies or
approximately 150,000 each. Oyama had also received large
reinforcements and now had 500,000 men under his command. These
consisted of the armies under Kuroki, Nozdu and Oku, and the force of
Nogi released by the capture of Port Arthur.

General Grippenburg had command of one of the Russian armies and on
January 25th took position on the left bank of the Hun River. Here, in
the month following, he lost 10,000 of his men, and then threw up his
post, declaring that his chief had not properly supported him. On
January 19th, a Japanese advance in force began, attacking with energy
and forcing Kuropatkin to withdraw his center and left behind the line
of the Hun. Here he fiercely attacked Oku and Nogi, for the time
checking their advance. But Bilderling and Linievitch just then fell
into difficulties and it became necessary to retreat, leaving Mukden to
the enemy.

There were no further engagements of importance between the armies,
though they remained face to face for months in a long line south of
Harbin. Kuropatkin during this time was relieved from command,
Linievitch being appointed to succeed him. The remaining conflict of
the war was a naval one, of remarkable character.

RUSSIAN FLEET DEFEATED

Russia, finding its Pacific fleet put out of commission, and quite
unable to face the doughty Togo, had despatched a second fleet from the
Baltic, comprising nearly forty vessels in all. These made their way
through the Suez Canal and Indian Ocean and moved upward through the
Chinese and Japanese Seas, finding themselves on May 27, 1905, in the
strait of Tsushuma, between Korea and Japan. Hitherto not a hostile
vessel had been seen. Togo had held his fleet in ambush, while keeping
scouts on the lookout for the coming Russians.

Suddenly the Russians found themselves surrounded by a long line of
enemies, which had suddenly appeared in their front. The attack was
furious and irresistible; the defense weak and ineffective. Night was
at hand, but before it came five Russian warships had gone to the
bottom. A torpedo attack was made during the night and the general
engagement resumed next morning. When a halt was called, Admiral Togo
had sunk, disabled or captured eight battleships, nine cruisers, three
coast-defense ships, and a large number of other craft, the great
Russian fleet being practically a total loss, while Togo had lost only
three torpedo boats and 650 men. The losses in men by the Russians was
4,000 killed, and 7,300 prisoners taken. Altogether it was a naval
victory which for completeness has rarely been equaled in history.

Russia, beaten on land and sea, was by this time ready to give up the
struggle, and readily accepted President Roosevelt’s suggestion to hold
a peace convention in the United States. The terms of the treaty were
very favorable to Russia, all things considered; but the power of Japan
had been strained to the utmost, and that Power felt little inclined to
put obstacles in the way. The island of Sakhalin was divided between
them, both armies evacuated Manchuria, leaving it to the Chinese, and
Port Arthur and Dalny were transferred to Japan.

Yet though Japan received no indemnity and little in the way of
material acquisitions of any kind, she came out of the war with a
prestige that no one was likely to question, and has since ranked among
the great Powers of the world. And she has added considerably to her
territory by the annexation of Korea, in which there was no one to
question her right.

CHINA BECOMES A REPUBLIC

While Japan was manifesting this progress in the arts of war, China was
making as great a progress in the arts of peace. The building of
railroads, telegraphs, modern factories, and other western innovations
proceeded apace, modern literature and systems of education were
introduced, and the old competitive examinations for office, in the
Confucian literature and philosophy, were replaced by examinations in
modern science and general knowledge. Yet most surprising of all was
the great political revolution which converted an autocratic empire
which had existed for four or five thousand years into a modern
constitutional republic of advanced type. This is the most surprising
political overturn that history anywhere presents.

For many years a spirit of opposition to the Manchu rulers had existed
and had led more than once to rebellions of great scope. The success of
Japan in war was followed in China by a revolutionary movement whose
first demand was for a constitutional government, this leading, on
September 20, 1907, to an imperial decree outlining a plan for a
national assembly. On July 22, 1908, another decree provided for
provincial assemblies to serve as a basis for a future parliament.
Later the government promised to introduce a parliamentary system
within nine years.

The idea of such a government spread rapidly throughout the country,
and the demand arose for an immediate parliament. As the government
resisted this demand, the revolutionary sentiment grew, and in October,
1911, a rebellious movement took place at Wuchang which rapidly spread,
the rebels declaring that the Manchu dynasty must be overthrown.

Soon the movement became so threatening that the emperor issued a
decree appealing to the mercy of the people, and abjectly acknowledging
that the government had done wrong in many particulars. Yuan Shi-Kai, a
prominent revolutionary statesman, was made prime minister and a
national assembly convened. It had become too late, however, to check
the movement, and at the end of 1911 a new republic was announced at
Nanking, under the provisional presidency of Dr. Sun Yat-Sen, a student
of modern institutions in Europe and America. The abdication of the
emperor quickly followed, in February 12, 1912, ending a Manchu dynasty
which had held the throne for 267 years. Yuan Shi-Kai was later chosen
as president.

This is a very brief account of the radical revolution that took place
and we cannot go into the details of what succeeded. It must suffice to
say that the republic has since persisted, Yuan Shi-Kai still serving
as president. The republic has a parliament of its own; a president and
cabinet and all the official furniture of a republican government.
There is only needed an education of the people into the principles of
free government “of the people, for the people, and by the people” to
complete the most remarkable political revolution the world has yet
known.



Chapter XVIII.
TURKEY AND THE BALKAN STATES


Checking the Dominion of the Turk in Europe

The Story of Servia—Turkey in Europe—The Bulgarian Horrors—The Defense
of Plevna—The Congress of Berlin—Hostile Sentiments in the
Balkans—Incitement to War—Fighting Begins—The Advance on
Adrianople—Servian and Greek victories—The Bulgarian Successes—Steps
toward Peace—The War Resumed—Siege of Scutari—Treaty of Peace—War
Between the Allies—The Final Settlement

In the southeast of Europe lies a group of minor kingdoms, of little
importance in size, but of great importance in the progress of recent
events. Their sudden uprising in 1912, their conquest of nearly the
whole existing remnant of Turkey in Europe, and the subsequent struggle
between them for the spoils are specially important from the fact that
Servia, one of this group of states, was the ostensible—hardly the
actual—cause of the great European war of 1914.

These, known as the Balkan States from their being traversed by the
Balkan range of mountains, comprise the kingdoms of Roumania, Bulgaria,
Servia, Montenegro, and the recent and highly artificial kingdom of
Albania. Greece is an outlying member of the group.

THE STORY OF SERVIA

Of these varied states Servia is of especial interest from its
immediate relation to the European contest. Its ancient history, also,
possesses much of interest. Minor in extent at present, it was once an
extensive empire. Under its monarch, Stephen Dushan (1336–56), it
included the whole of Macedonia, Albania, Thessaly, Bulgaria, and
Northern Greece, leaving little of the Balkan region beyond its
borders. In 1389 its independence ended as a result of the battle of
Kossova, it becoming tributary to the conquering empire of the Turks.
In another half century it became a province of Turkey in Europe, and
so remained for nearly two hundred years.

Its succeeding history may be rapidly summarized. In 1718 Austria won
the greater part of it, with its capital, Belgrade, from Turkey, but in
1739 it was regained by the Turks. Barbarous treatment of the Christian
population of Servia by its half-civilized rulers led to a series of
insurrections, ending in 1812 in its independence, by the terms of the
Treaty of Bukarest. The Turks won it back in 1813, but in 1815, under
its leader, Milosh, its complete independence was attained.

After the fall of Plevna in the Russo-Turkish War of 1877–78, Servia
joined its forces to those of Russia, and by the Treaty of Berlin it
obtained an accession of territory and full recognition by the Powers
of Europe of its independence. In 1885 a national rising took place in
Eastern Roumelia, a province of Turkey, which led to the Turkish
governor being expelled and union with Bulgaria proclaimed. Servia
demanded a share of this new acquisition of territory and went to war
with Bulgaria, but met with a severe defeat. When, in 1908, Austria
annexed the former Turkish provinces of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the
people of Servia were highly indignant, these provinces being largely
inhabited by people of the Servian race. The exasperation thus caused
is of importance, especially as augmented by the agency of Austria in
preventing Servia from obtaining a port on the Adriatic after the
Balkan war of 1912–13. The seething feeling of enmity thus engendered
had its final outcome in the assassination of the Austrian Crown Prince
Ferdinand in 1914, and the subsequent invasion of Servia by the armies
of Austria.

We have here spoken of the stages by which Servia gradually won its
independence from Turkey and its recognition as a full-fledged member
of the European family of nations. There are several others of the
Balkan group which similarly won independence from Turkey and to the
story of which some passing allusion is desirable.

How Greece won its independence has been already told. Another of the
group, the diminutive mountain state of Montenegro, much the smallest
of them all, has the honor of being the only section of that region of
Europe that maintained its independence during the long centuries of
Turkish domination. Its mountainous character enabled its hardy
inhabitants to hold their own against the Turks in a series of deadly
struggles. In 1876–78 its ruler, Prince Nicholas, joined in the war of
Servia and Russia against Turkey, the result being that 1,900 square
miles was changed from a principality into a kingdom, Prince Nicholas
gaining the title of King Nicholas. A second acquisition of territory
succeeded the Balkan War of 1913, the adjoining Turkish province of
Novibazar being divided between it and Servia.

TURKEY IN EUROPE

With this summary of the story of the Balkans we shall proceed to give
in more detail its recent history, comprising the wars of 1876–78 and
of 1912–13. As for the relations between Turkey and the Balkan
peninsula, it is well known how the Asiatic conquerors known as Turks,
having subdued Asia Minor, invaded Europe in 1355, overran most of the
Balkan country, and attacked and took Constantinople in 1453. Servia,
Bosnia, Albania, and Greece were added to the Ottoman Empire, which
subdued half of Hungary and received its first check on land before the
walls of Vienna in 1529, and on the ocean at the battle of Lepanto in
1571. Vienna was again besieged by the Turks in 1683, and was then
saved from capture by Sobieski of Poland and Charles of Lorraine.

This was the end of Turkish advance in Europe. Since that date it has
been gradually yielding to European assault, Russia beginning its
persistent attacks upon Turkey about the middle of the eighteenth
century. At that time Turkey occupied a considerable section of
Southern Russia, but by the end of the century much of this had been
regained. In 1812 Russia won that part of Moldavia and Bessarabia which
lies beyond the Pruth, in 1828 it gained the principal mouth of the
Danube, and in 1829 it crossed the Balkans and took Adrianople. The
independence of Greece was acknowledged the same year.

The next important event in the history of Turkey in Europe was the
Crimean War, the story of which has been told in an earlier chapter.
The chief results of it were a weakening of Russian influence in
Turkey, the abolition of the Russian protectorate over Moldavia and
Wallachia (united in 1861 as the principality of Roumania), and the
cession to Turkey of part of Bessarabia.

Turkey also came out of the Crimean War weakened and shorn of
territory. But the Turkish idea of government remained unchanged, and
in twenty years’ time Russia was fairly goaded into another war. In
1875 Bosnia rebelled in consequence of the insufferable oppression of
the Turkish tax-collectors. The brave Bosnians maintained themselves so
sturdily in their mountain fastnesses that the Turks almost despaired
of subduing them, and the Christian subjects of the Sultan in all
quarters became so stirred up that a general revolt was threatened.

THE BULGARIAN HORRORS

The Turks undertook to prevent this in their usual fashion. Irregular
troops were sent into Christian Bulgaria with orders to kill all they
met. It was an order to the Mohammedan taste. The defenseless villages
of Bulgaria were entered and their inhabitants slaughtered in cold
blood, till thousands of men, women, and children had been slain.

When tidings of these atrocities reached Europe the nations were filled
with horror. The Sultan made smooth excuses, and diplomacy sought to
settle the affair, but it became evident that a massacre so terrible as
this could not be condoned so easily. Disraeli, then prime minister of
Great Britain, sought to minimize these reports so as to avert a great
war in which England might be plunged. But Gladstone, at that time in
retirement, arose, and by his pamphlet on the “Bulgarian Horrors”
aroused a fierce public sentiment in England. His denunciation rang out
like a trumpet-call. “Let the Turks now carry away their abuses in the
only possible manner—by carrying off themselves,” he wrote. “Their
Zaptiehs and their Mudirs, their Bimbashis and their Yuzbachis, shall,
I hope, clear out from the province they have desolated and profaned.”

He followed up this pamphlet by a series of speeches, delivered to
great meetings and to the House of Commons, with which for four years
he sought, as he expressed it, “night and day to counterwork the
purpose of Lord Beaconsfield.” He succeeded; England was prevented by
his eloquence from actively resisting Russia; and he excited the fury
of the war party to such an extent that at one time it was not safe for
him to appear in the streets of London.

Hostilities were soon proclaimed. The Russians, of the same race and
religious sect as the Bulgarians, were excited beyond control, and in
April 1877, Alexander II declared war against Turkey. The outrages of
the Turks had been so flagrant that no allies came to their aid, while
the rottenness of their empire was shown by the rapid advance of the
Russian armies. They crossed the Danube in June. In a month later, they
had occupied the principal passes of the Balkan mountains and were in
position to descend on the broad plain that led to Constantinople. But
at this point in their career they met with a serious check. Osman
Pasha, the single Turkish commander of ability that the war developed,
occupied the town of Plevna with such forces as he could gather,
fortified it as strongly as possible, and from its walls defied the
Russians.

THE DEFENSE OF PLEVNA

The invaders dared not advance and leave this stronghold in their rear.
For five months all the power of Russia and the skill of its generals
were held in check by this brave man and his followers, until Europe
and America alike looked on with admiration at his remarkable defense,
in view of which the cause of the war was almost forgotten. The Russian
general Kudener was repulsed with the loss of 8,000 men. The daring
Skobeleff strove in vain to launch his troops over Osman’s walls. At
length General Todleben undertook the siege, adopting the slow but safe
method of starving out the defenders. Osman Pasha now showed his
courage, as he had already shown his endurance. When hunger and disease
began to reduce the strength of his men, he resolved on a final
desperate effort. At the head of his brave garrison the “Lion of
Plevna” sallied from the city, and fought with desperate courage to
break through the circle of his foes. He was finally driven back into
the city and compelled to surrender.

Osman had won glory, and his fall was the fall of the Turkish cause.
The Russians crossed the Balkans, capturing in the Schipka Pass a
Turkish army of 30,000 men. Adrianople was taken, and the Turkish line
of retreat cut off. The Russians marched to the Bosporus, and the
Sultan was compelled to sue for peace to save his capital from falling
into the hands of the Christians, as it had fallen into those of the
Turks four centuries before.

Russia had won the game for which she had made so long a struggle. The
treaty of San Stefano practically decreed the dissolution of the
Turkish Empire. But at this juncture the other nations of Europe took
part. They were not content to see the balance of power destroyed by
Russia becoming master of Constantinople, and England demanded that the
treaty should be revised by the European Powers in order to guard her
own route to India. Russia protested, but Beaconsfield threatened war,
and the Czar gave way.

THE CONGRESS OF BERLIN

The Congress of Berlin, to which the treaty was referred, settled the
question in the following manner: Montenegro, Roumania, and Servia were
declared independent, and Bulgaria became free, except that it had to
pay an annual tribute to the Sultan. The part of old Bulgaria that lay
south of the Balkan Mountains was named Eastern Roumelia and given its
own civil government, but was left under the military control of
Turkey. Bosnia and Herzegovina were placed under the control of
Austria. All that Russia obtained for her victories were some provinces
in Asia Minor. Turkey was terribly shorn, and since then her power has
been further reduced, for Eastern Roumelia has broken loose from her
control and united itself again to Bulgaria.

Another twenty years passed, and Turkey found itself at war again. It
was the old story, the oppression of the Christians. This time the
trouble began in Armenia, a part of Turkey in Asia, where in 1895 and
1896 terrible massacres took place. Indignation reigned in Europe, but
fears of a general war kept the Powers from using force, and the Sultan
paid no heed to the reforms he had promised to make.

In 1896 the Christians (Greeks) of the island of Crete broke out in
revolt against the oppression and tyranny of Turkish rule. Of all the
Powers of Europe little Greece was the only one that came to their aid,
and the great nations, still inspired with the fear of a general war,
sent their fleets and threatened Greece with blockade unless she would
withdraw her troops.

The result was one scarcely expected. Greece was persistent, and
gathered a threatening army on the frontier of Turkey, and war broke
out in 1897 between the two states. The Turks now, under an able
commander, showed much of their ancient valor and intrepidity, crossing
the frontier, defeating the Greeks in a rapid series of engagements,
and occupying Thessaly, while the Greek army was driven back in a state
of utter demoralization. At this juncture, when Greece lay at the mercy
of Turkey, as Turkey had lain at that of Russia twenty years before,
the Powers, which had refused to aid Greece in her generous but
hopeless effort, stepped in to save her from ruin. Turkey was bidden to
call a halt, and the Sultan reluctantly stopped the march of his army.
He demanded the whole of Thessaly and a large indemnity in money. The
former the Powers refused to grant, and reduced the indemnity to a sum
within the power of Greece to pay. Thus the affair ended, and such was
the status of the Eastern Question until the hatred of the Balkan
States again leaped into flame in the memorable Balkan War of 1912.

HOSTILE SENTIMENTS OF THE BALKANS

As may be seen from what has been said, the sentiment of hostility
between the Christian States of the Balkan region and the Mohammedan
empire of Turkey was not likely to be easily allayed. The atrocities of
persecution which the Christians had suffered at the hands of the Turks
were unforgotten and unavenged, and to them was added an ambitious
desire to widen their dominions at the expense of Turkey, if possible
to drive Turkey completely out of Europe and extend their areas of
control to the Mediterranean and the Bosporus. These states consisted
of Servia, made an autonomous principality in 1830, an independent
principality in 1878, and a kingdom in 1882; Bulgaria, an autonomous
principality in 1878, an independent kingdom in 1908; Roumania, an
autonomous principality in 1802, an independent principality in 1878, a
kingdom in 1881; Montenegro, an independent principality in 1878, a
kingdom in 1910; Eastern Roumelia, autonomous in 1878, annexed to
Bulgaria in 1885. Adjoining these on the south was Greece, an
independent kingdom since 1830. The former provinces of Bosnia and
Herzegovina had been assigned to Austrian administrative control in
1878, and annexed by Austria-Hungary in 1908, an act which added to the
feeling of unrest in the Balkan States.

The relations existing between the Balkan States and their neighbors
was one of dissatisfaction and hostility which might at any time break
into war, this being especially the case with those which bordered
directly upon Turkey—Servia, Bulgaria, Montenegro and Greece. Roumania,
being removed from contact, had less occasion to entertain warlike
sentiments.

INCITEMENT TO WAR

A fitting time for this indignation and hostile feeling to break out
into war came in 1912, as a result of the invasion and conquest of
Tripoli by Italy in 1911–12. This war, settled by a protocol in favor
of Italy on October 15, 1912, had caused financial losses and political
unrest in Turkey which offered a promising opportunity for the states
to carry into effect their long-cherished design. They did not act as a
unit, the smallest of them, Montenegro,, declaring war on Turkey on
October 8th, and Greece, on October 17th. In regard to Servia and
Bulgaria, Turkey took the initiative, declaring war on them October 17,
1912.

But acts of war did not wait for a formal declaration. On October 5th,
King Peter of Servia thus explained to the National Assembly of that
state his reasons for mobilizing his troops:

“I have applied with friendly counsels to Constantinople regarding the
misery which the Christian nationalities, including ours, are suffering
in Turkey, and it is to be regretted that all this was of no avail.
Instead of the expected reforms we were surprised a few days ago by the
mobilization of the Turkish army near our frontiers. To this act, by
which our safety was endangered, Servia had only one reply. By my
decree our army was put into a mobile state.

“Our position is clear. Our duty is to undertake measures insuring our
safety. It is our duty, in conformity with other Christian Balkan
states, to do everything in our power to insure proper conditions for a
real and permanent peace in the Balkans.”

The first raid into Turkish territory was made by the Bulgarian bandit
Sandansky, who in 1902 had kidnapped Miss Ellen M. Stone, an American
missionary, and held her for a ransom of $65,000 to procure funds for
his campaign. At the head of a band of 2,500 Bulgarians he crossed the
frontier and burned the Turkish blockhouse at Oschumava, afterwards
occupying a strategic position above the Struma River.

FIGHTING BEGINS

The Montenegro army opened the war on October 9th, by attacking a
strong Turkish position opposite Podgoritza, Franz Peter, the youngest
son of King Nicholas, firing the first shot. Bulgaria, without waiting
to declare war, crossed the frontier on October 14th and made a sharp
attack on the railway patrols between Sofia and Uskut. Sharp fighting
at the same time took place on the Greek frontier, the Greeks capturing
Malurica Pass, the chief mountain pass leading from Greece to Turkey on
the northern frontier. As regards the reasons impelling Greece to take
an active part in the war, it must be remembered that the great
majority of Greeks still lived under the Turkish flag, while the twelve
islands in the Aegean Sea seized by Italy during its war with Turkey
were clamoring to be annexed to Greece instead of being returned to
Turkey by the treaty of peace between Italy and Turkey.

Such were the conditions and events existing at the opening of the war.
It developed with great rapidity, a number of important battles being
fought, in which the Turks were defeated. The military strength of the
combined states exceeded that of Turkey, and within a month’s time they
made rapid advances, the goals sought by them being Constantinople,
Adrianople, Salonica and Scutari.

THE ADVANCE ON ADRIANOPLE

The most important of the Balkan movements was that of the Bulgarian
army upon Adrianople, the second to Constantinople in importance of
Turkish cities. By October 20th the Bulgarian main army had forced the
Turks back upon the outward forts of this stronghold, while the left
wing threatened the important post of Kirk-Kilisseh, in Thrace, about
thirty miles northeast of Adrianople. This place, regarded as “the Key
to Adrianople,” was take on the 24th, after a three days’ fight, the
Turkish forces, said to be 150,000 strong, retiring in disorder.

The Bulgarians continued their advance, fighting over a wide
semicircular area before Adrianople, upon which city they gradually
closed, taking some of the outer forts and making their bombardment
felt within the city itself.

SERVIAN AND GREEK VICTORIES

While the Bulgarians were making such vigorous advances towards the
capital of the Turkish empire, their allies were winning victories in
other quarters. Novibazar, capital of the sanjak of the same name, was
taken by the Servians on October 23rd. Prishtina and other towns and
villages of Old Servia were also taken, the victors being received by
the citizens with open arms of welcome and other demonstrations of joy.
Tobacco and refreshments were pressed upon the soldiers, while the
people put all their possessions at the disposal of the military
authorities.

The Greeks were also successful, an army under the Crown Prince
capturing the town of Monastir, which was garrisoned by a Turkish force
estimated at 40,000. The Montenegrin forces were regarded as of high
importance as a means of widening the area of their narrow kingdom.
Other important towns or Old Servia were taken, including Kumanova,
captured on the 25th, Uskab, captured on the 26th, and Istib, 45 miles
to the southwest, occupied without opposition on the following day.
This place, a very strong natural position in the mountains, was known
as the Adrianople of Macedonia.

THE BULGARIAN SUCCESSES

While these movements were taking place in the west, the siege of
Adrianople was vigorously pushed. It was completely surrounded by
Bulgarian troops by the 29th, and its commander formally summoned to
surrender the city. The besiegers, however, had great difficulties to
overcome, the country around being inundated by the rivers Maretza and
Arda in consequence of heavy rains. These floods at the same time
impeded the movements of the Turks.

On October 31st, after another three-day fight, the Bulgarians achieved
the great success of the war, defeating a Turkish army of 200,000 men.
Only a fortnight had passed since Turkey declared war. The first week
of the campaign closed with the dramatic fall of Kirk-Kilesseh, fully
revealing for the first time the disorganization, bad morale and
inefficient commissariat of the Turkish army. Ten days later that army
was defeated and routed, within fifty miles from Constantinople,
forcing it to retreat within the capital’s line of defenses.

Apparently Nazim Pasha had been completely outmaneuvered by Savoff’s
generalship. The Bulgarian turning movement along the Black Sea coast
appears to have been a feint, which induced the Turkish commander to
throw his main army to the eastward, to such effect that the Bulgarian
force on this side had the greatest difficulty in holding the Turks in
check.

In fact, the Bulgarians gave way, and thus enabled Nazim Pasha to
report to Constantinople some success in this direction. In the
meantime, however, General Savoff hurled his great strength against the
Turks’ weakened left wing, which he crushed in at Lule Burgas. The
fighting along the whole front, which evidently was of the most
stubborn and determined character, was carried on day and night without
intermission, and both sides lost heavily.

The final result was to force the Turks within the defensive lines of
Tchatalja, the only remaining fortified position protecting
Constantinople. These lines lie twenty-five miles to the northwest of
the capital.

The seat of war between Bulgaria and Turkey, aside from the continued
siege of Adrianople, was by this success transferred to the Tchatalja
lines, along which the opposing armies lay stretched during the week
succeeding the Lule Burgas victory. Here siege operations were
vigorously prosecuted, but the Turks, though weakened by an outbreak of
cholera in their ranks, succeeded in maintaining their position.

STEPS TOWARD PEACE

Elsewhere victory followed the banners of the allies. On November 8th
the important port of Salonica was taken by the Greeks, and on the 18th
the Servians captured Monastir, the remaining Turkish stronghold in
Macedonia. The fighting here was desperate, lasting three days, the
Turkish losses amounting to about 20,000 men. In Albania the
Montenegrin siege of Scutari continued, though so far without success.

Turkey had now enough of the war. On November 3d she had asked a
mediation of the Powers, but these replied that she must treat directly
with the Balkan nations. This caused delay until the end of the month,
the protocol of an armistice being approved by the Turkish cabinet on
November 30th, and signed by representatives of Turkey, Bulgaria,
Servia and Montenegro on December 3d. Greece refused to sign, but at a
later date agreed to take part in a conference to meet in London on
December 16th.

This peace conference continued in session until January 6, 1913,
without reaching any conclusions, Turkey refusing to accept the Balkan
demands that she should yield practically the whole of her territory in
Europe. At the final session of the conference she renounced her claim
to the island of Crete, and promised to rectify her Thracian frontier,
but insisted upon the retention of Adrianople. This place, the original
capital of the Ottoman Empire in Europe, and containing the splendid
mosque of Sultan Selim, was highly esteemed by the Mohammedans, who
clung to it as a sacred city.

War seemed likely to be resumed, though the European Powers strongly
suggested to Turkey the advisability of yielding on this point, and
leaving the question of the fate of the Aegean Islands to the Powers,
which promised also to guard Mussulman interests in Adrianople.
Finally, on January 22d, the Porte consented to this request of the
Powers, a decision which was vigorously resented by the warlike party
known as Young Turks.

Demonstrations at once broke out in Constantinople, leading to the
overthrow of the cabinet and the murder of Nazim Pasha, former minister
of war and commander-in-chief of the Turkish army. He was succeeded by
Enver Bey, the most spirited leader of the Young Turks, who became
chief of staff of the army.

On January 30th the Balkan allies denounced their armistice and a
renewed war seemed imminent. On the same day the Ottoman government
offered a compromise, agreeing to divide Adrianople between the
contestants in such a way that they might retain the mosques and the
historic monuments. As for the Aegean Islands, they would leave these
to the disposition of the Powers.

THE WAR RESUMED

To this compromise the Balkan allies refused to agree and on February
3d hostile operations were resumed. The investment of Adrianople had
remained intact during the interval, and on the 4th a vigorous
bombardment took place, the Turkish response being weak. Forty Servian
seven-inch guns had been mounted, their shells falling into the town,
part of which again broke into flames. At points the lines of besiegers
and besieged were only 200 yards apart. An attempt was made also to
capture the peninsula of Gallipoli, which commands the Dardanelles, and
thus take the Turkish force in the rear. Fifty thousand Bulgarians had
been landed on this coast in November, and the Greek fleet in the Gulf
of Saros supported the attack. If successful, there would be nothing to
prevent this fleet from passing the straits, defeating the inferior
Turkish war vessels and attacking Constantinople from the rear.
Fighting in this region continued for several days, the Turkish forces
being driven back, but still holding their forts.

SIEGE OF SCUTARI

In the west the most important operation at this period was that of the
Montenegrins, led by King Nicholas in person, against Scutari, an
Albanian stronghold which they were eager to possess.

Servian artillery aided in the assault, and on February 8th the
important outwork on Muselim Hill was taken by an impulsive bayonet
charge. The city was not captured, however, until April 23d, when an
entire day’s ceaseless fighting ended in the yielding of the garrison,
the climax of a six-month siege.

An energetic attack had been made by the Bulgarians and Serbs on
Adrianople on March 14th, ending in a repulse, and on the 22d another
vigorous assault was begun, continuing with terrific fighting for four
days. It ended in a surrender of the city on the 26th. The siege had
continued for 152 days. Before yielding, the Turks blew up the arsenal
and set fire to the city at several points. At the same time Tchatalja,
which had been actively assailed, fell into the hands of the allies and
Constantinople lay open to assault.

Meanwhile the Powers of Europe had again offered their good services to
mediate between the warring forces, and a conditional mediation was
agreed to by the Balkan allies. Movements towards peace, however,
proceeded slowly, the most interesting event of the period being a
demand by Austria, backed by Italy, that Montenegro should give up the
city of Scutari. Earnest protests were made against this by King
Nicholas, but the despatch of an Austrian naval division on April 27th
to occupy his ports and march upon Cettinje, his capital, obliged him
reluctantly to yield and on May 5th Scutari was given up to Austria, to
form part of a projected Albanian kingdom.

TREATY OF PEACE

Peace between the warring nations was finally concluded on May 30,
1913, the treaty providing that Turkey should cede to her allied foes
all territory west of a line drawn from Enos on the Aegean coast to
Media on the coast of the Black Sea. This left Adrianople in the hands
of the Bulgarians and gave Turkey only a narrow strip of territory west
of Constantinople, the meager remnant of her once great holdings upon
the continent of Europe. The victors desired to divide the conquered
territory upon a plan arranged between them before the war, but the
purposes of Austria and Italy were out of agreement with this design
and the Powers insisted in forming out of the districts assigned to
Servia and Greece a new principality to be named Albania, embracing the
region occupied by the unruly Albanian tribes.

This plan gave intense dissatisfaction to the allies. It seemed
designed to cut off Servia from an opening upon the Mediterranean,
which that inland state ardently desired and Austria strongly opposed.
Montenegro was also deprived of the warmly craved city of Scutari,
which she had won after so vigorous a strife. Bulgaria also was
dissatisfied with this new project and opposed the demands of Servia
and Greece for compensation in land for the loss of Albania or for
their support of the Bulgarian operations.

WAR BETWEEN THE ALLIES

Thus the result of this creation of a new and needless state out of the
conquered territory by the peace-making Powers roused hostilities among
the allies which speedily flung them into a new war. Bulgaria refused
to yield any of the territory held by it to the Servians and Greeks,
and Greece in consequence made a secret league with Servia against
Bulgaria.

It was the old story of a fight over the division of the spoils. It is
doubtful which of the contestants began hostile operations, but
Bulgaria lost no time in marching upon Salonica, held by Greece, and in
attacking the Greek and Servian outposts in Macedonia. The plans of
General Savoff, who had led the Bulgarians to victory in the late war
and who commanded in this new outbreak, in some way fell into the hands
of the Greeks and gave them an important advantage. They at once, in
junction with the Servians, attacked the Bulgarians and drove them
back. From the accounts of the war, probably exaggerated, this struggle
was accompanied by revolting barbarities upon the inhabitants of the
country invaded, each country accusing the other of shameful
indignities.

What would have been the result of the war, if fought out between the
original contestants, it is impossible to say, for at this juncture a
new Balkan State, which had taken no part in the Turkish war, came into
the field. This was Roumania, lying north of Bulgaria and removed from
any contact with Turkey. It had had a quarrel with Bulgaria, dating
back to 1878, concerning certain territory to which it laid claim. This
was a strip of land on the south side of the Danube near its mouth and
containing Silistria and some other cities.

THE FINAL SETTLEMENT

King Charles of Roumania now took the opportunity to demand this
territory, and when his demand was refused by Ferdinand of Bulgaria he
marched an army across the Danube and took the Bulgarians, exhausted by
their recent struggle, in the rear. No battles were fought. The
Roumanian army advanced until within thirty miles of Sofia, the
Bulgarian capital, and Ferdinand was obliged to appeal for peace, and
in the subsequent treaty yielded to Roumania the tract desired, which
served to round out the frontier on the Black Sea.

Another unexpected event took place. While her late foes were
struggling in a war of their own, Turkey quietly stepped into the
arena, and on July 20th retook possession, without opposition, of
Adrianople, Bulgaria’s great prize in the late war.

A peace conference was held at Bukarest, capital of Roumania, beginning
July 30th, and framing a treaty, signed on August 10th.

This provided for the evacuation of Bulgaria by the invading armies,
and also for a division of the conquered territory. Bulgaria gained the
largest amount of territory, though less than she had claimed. Greece
retained the important seaport of Salonica, the possession of which had
been hotly disputed, and gained the largest sea front. Montenegro,
though deprived of the much-coveted Scutari, was assigned part of
northern Albania and the Turkish sanjak of Novibazar, adjoining on the
east, considerably increasing her diminutive territory.

Servia had most reason to be dissatisfied with the result, in view of
her craving for an opening to the sea. Cut off by Albania on the west,
it sought an opening on the south, demanding the city of Kavala, on the
Aegean Sea. But to this Greece strongly objected, as that city, one of
the great tobacco marts of the world, was inhabited almost wholly by
Greeks. Servia, however, extended southward far over its old territory,
gaining Uskub, its old capital. And the Powers also agreed that it
should have commercial rights on the Mediterranean, thorough railroad
connection with Salonica.

As regards Turkey’s shrewd advantage of the opportunity to retake
Adrianople, it proved a successful move. The Russian press strongly
advocated that the Turks should be ejected, but the jealousy of the
Powers prevented any agreement as to who should do this and in the end
the Turks remained, with a considerable widening of the tract of land
before assigned to them.

In these wars it is estimated that 358,000 persons died, and that the
cost of the two wars, to the several nations involved, reached a total
of $1,200,000,000. Its general result was almost to complete the work
of expelling the Turks from Europe, the territory lost by them being
divided up between the several Balkan nations.



Chapter XIX.
METHODS IN MODERN WARFARE


Ancient and Modern Weapons—New Types of Weapons—The Iron-clad
Warship—The Balloon in War—Tennyson’s Foresight—Gunning for
Airships—The Submarine—Under-water Warfare—The New Type of
Battleship—Mobilization—The Waste of War

One hundred years ago the Battle of Waterloo had just been fought and
Napoleon’s star had set never to rise again. For years he had swept
Europe with his armies, rending the nations into fragments, and winning
world-famous victories with weapons that no one would look for today
except in a military museum, weapons antiquated beyond all possible
utility on a modern field of battle.

ANCIENT AND MODERN WEAPONS

Every fresh modern war has been fought with new weapons, and during the
past century there have been countless inventions for the carrying on
of warfare in a more destructive manner, apparently on the
philanthropic theory that war should be made so terrible that it must
quickly pass away.

But it has happened that as soon as a particularly horrible contrivance
was invented and introduced into armies and navies, other inventors
immediately set themselves to offset and discount its probable effect.
Consequently war not only has not passed away, but we have it with us
in more frightful form that ever before. Thus it is that each big war,
after being heralded as the world’s last conflagration, has proved but
the herald of another war, bigger and more death-dealing still.

Since the Civil War in the United States, in which probably more new
features in modes of fighting were introduced than in any conflict that
had preceded it, there have been immense improvements in arms, in
armament and in general efficiency of both armies and navies. It was
the Civil War that brought into being the turreted MONITOR, one of the
greatest contributions to naval architecture the navies of the world
had then known. While the turrets on the modern battleship are very
different in design, in armor and in arrangement from those on the old
monitors, they are nothing more than an adaptation of the original
devices.

The same is the case with the small arms and the field guns of the
modern armies, these having been greatly improved since the period of
the Civil war. The breech-loading and even the magazine rifle are now
in use in every army, while the smallest field piece of today is almost
as efficient as the most powerful gun in use fifty years ago.

The first attempt to use a torpedo boat dates back to the Civil War. A
primitive contrivance it was, but it showed a possibility in naval
warfare which speedily led to the general building of torpedo boats,
and to the invention of the highly efficient Whitehead torpedo.

THE IRONCLAD WARSHIP

Another lesson in warfare was taught when the ironclad MERRIMAC and
MONITOR met and fought for mastery in Hampton Roads. The ironclad
vessel was not then a new idea in naval architecture, but its
efficiency as a fighting machine was then first demonstrated. Iron for
armor soon gave way to thick and tough steel, while each improvement in
armor led to a corresponding improvement in guns and projectiles, until
now a battle at sea has grown to be a remarkably different affair from
the great ocean combats of Nelson’s time.

But development in the art of war has not ceased with the improvement
in older types of weapons. New devices, scarcely thought of in former
wars, have been introduced. These include the use of the balloon and
aeroplane as scouting devices, of the bomb filled with explosives of
frightful rending power, and of the submarine naval shark, designed to
attack the mighty battleships from under water.

THE BALLOON IN WAR

Of recent years the balloon has been developed into the dirigible, the
flying machine that can be steered and directed. Made effective by
Count Zeppelin and others, its possibilities as an aid in war were
quickly perceived. Then came the notable invention of the Wright
Brothers, and after 1904 the aeroplane quickly expanded into an
effective aerial instrument, the probably serviceableness of which in
war was evident to all. Here we are tempted to stop and quote the
remarkable prediction from Tennyson’s “Locksley Hall,” the truth of
which is now being so strikingly verified:

“For I dipt into the future, far as human eye could see,
Saw the vision of the world and all the wonder that would be;
Saw the heavens fill with commerce, argosies of magic sails,
Pilots of the purple twilight, dropping down with costly bales;
Heard the heavens fill with shouting, and there rained a ghastly dew
From the nations’ airy navies grappling in the central blue;
Far along the world-wide whisper of the south-wind rushing warm,
With the standards of the peoples plunging through the thunder storm;
Till the war drum throbbed no longer, and the battle flags were furled
In the parliament of man, the federation of the world.”

GUNNING FOR AIRSHIPS

The airship does not float safely in the cental blue, aside from
attacks by flying foes. Guns pointing upward have been devised to
attack the daring aviator from the ground and flying machines can thus
be swiftly brought down, like war eagles shot in the sky. Several types
of guns for this purpose are in use, some to be employed on warships or
fortifications, others, mounted on automobile trucks, for use in the
field.

The Ehrhardt gun, a German weapon, which is designed to be mounted on
an auto-truck, weighs nearly 1700 pounds. The car carries 140 rounds of
ammunition and the whole equipment in service condition weighs more
than six tons. The gun has an extreme range at 45 degrees elevation of
12,029 yards, or more than six miles. The sights are telescopic, a
moving object can be followed with ease, and the gun is capable of
being fired very rapidly. The British are provided with the Vickers
gun, which is mainly intended for naval use, but the military arm is
also provided with anti-balloon guns, which have great range and can
throw a three-pound shell at any high angle. Some of these guns use
incendiary shells, intended to ignite the gas in dirigibles. There is
another type that explodes shrapnel. In addition to these, rifle fire
is apt to be effective, in case of airships coming within its range.

Jules Vedrines, a well-known French aviator, tells this story of his
experience while doing scout duty for the French army:

“Those German gunners surely have tried their best to get me,” he
wrote. “Each night when I come back to headquarters my machine looks
more and more like a sieve because of the numerous bullet holes in the
wings.

“I have been keeping tab on the number of new bullet holes in my
machine each day, marking each with red chalk, so that I won’t include
any of the old ones in the next day’s count. My best record so far for
one day is thirty-seven holes. That shows how close the enemy has come
to hitting me. My duties as scout require me to cover various distances
each day. The best record so far in one day is 600 miles.”

THE SUBMARINE

The submarine is another type of war apparatus, one the utility of
which promises to be very great. It is of recent origin. At the time of
the Spanish-American War there were only five submarines in all the
navies of the world, and of this number three were in the French navy,
one in Italy and one in Portugal. The United States was building its
first one, and had not decided what type to select. At the outbreak of
the Russo-Japanese War Great Britain had nine of the American (Holland)
type of submarines and was building twenty more, while France had
accumulated thirty-six of various types and of various grades of
reported efficiency, while Germany had none. In 1914 there were nearly
four hundred vessels of this type in the world’s navies, France
standing first with 173.

It was believed that the moral effect of the submarine would be almost
as important as its physical effect in dealing with an enemy’s warship,
and this idea has been justified. Some persons maintained that fights
of submarines with each other might take place, each, like the Kilkenny
cats, devouring the other. But the fact is that when submerged the
submarine is as blind as the traditional bat. Its crew cannot see any
object under water, and is compelled to resort to the use of the
periscope, which emerges unostentatiously above the water, in order to
see its own course.

It is known that the periscope is the eye of the submarine, and
naturally attention has been paid to the best way of destroying this
vital part of such boats. Recently, grappling irons have been devised
for use from dirigibles, which are expected to drag out the periscope
as the dirigible flies above it. Careful plans for torpedoing
submarines also have been made, but their effectiveness likewise
remains to be demonstrated.

Submarine builders have naturally held the view that the submerged boat
could not be seen. But it has been discovered that from a certain
height an observer may trace the course of a submerged submarine with
as great accuracy as if it were running on the surface. It is found
that the submerged boat can readily be seen from the dirigible and the
aeroplane. On the other hand an anti-balloon gun has been devised which
can be raised from the submarine when it comes to the surface, and used
against the hostile airship.

UNDER-WATER WARFARE

The submarine is supposed to have its most important field of operation
against a fleet of battleships and cruisers besieging a seaport city.
These great war craft, covered above the waterline with thick steel
armor, are vulnerable below, and a torpedo discharged from a torpedo
boat or an explosive bomb attached to the lower hull by a submarine may
send the largest and mightiest ship to the bottom, stung to death from
below.

With this idea in view torpedo boars, destroyers designed to attack
torpedo boats and submarines have been multiplied in modern navies. We
have just begun to appreciate the effectiveness of this type of
vessels. Their possibilities are enormous and their latent power
renders the bombardment from sea of town or fort a far more perilous
operation than of old. Fired at by the great guns of the fort capable
of effective work at eight or ten miles distance, exposed to explosive
bombs dropped from soaring airships, made a target for the deadly
weapon of the torpedo boat, and in constant risk of being stung by the
submarine wasp, these great war ships, built at a cost of ten or more
millions and peopled by hundreds of mariners, are in constant danger of
being sent to the bottom with all on board a contingency likely to
shake the nerves of the steadiest Jack Tar or admiral on board.

A typical submarine has a length of about 150 feet and diameter of 15
feet, with a speed of eleven knots on the surface and five knots when
submerged. Some of the more recent have a radius of navigation of 4,500
miles without need of a new supply of stores and fuel. On the surface
they are propelled by gasoline engines, but when submerged they use
electric motors driven by storage batteries. If the weather should grow
too rough they can sink below the waves.

THE NEW TYPE OF BATTLESHIP

While the peril of the big ship has thus been increased, the size and
fighting capacity of those ships have steadily grown and at the same
time their cost, which is becoming almost prohibitive. Taking the
British navy, the leader in this field, the size of battleships was
yearly augmented until in 1907 the famous Dreadnought appeared, looked
upon at the time as the last word in naval architecture. This great
ship was of 17,900 tons displacement and 23,000 horse-power, its armor
belt eleven inches thick, its major armament composed of ten
twelve-inch guns. There are now twenty British battleships of larger
size, some much larger.

On shore a similar increase may be seen in the size and effectiveness
of armies and the strength of fortifications. In all the larger nations
of Europe except Great Britain the whole able-bodied male population
are now obliged to spend several years in the army, and to be ready at
a moment’s notice to drop all the avocations of peace and march to the
front, ready to risk their lives in their country’s service or at the
command of the autocrat under whom they live.

MOBILIZATION

Mobilization is a word with strenuous significance. When it is put into
effect every able-bodied man must report without delay for service. His
name is on the army lists; if he fails to report he is branded as a
deserter. In Germany, the order to mobilize is issued by the Emperor
and is immediately sent out by all military and civil authorities, at
home or abroad. Every person knows at once what he is required to do.
Skeleton regiments are filled out and additional regiments formed.
Simultaneously there is a levy of horses. The order reaches into every
household; into the factories, the shipyards, the hotels, the farms,
river boats, everywhere. Almost instantly the male individuals within
the prescribed ages must at once report to the barracks to come under
military discipline. Infantry, cavalry and artillery units double and
triple at once.

This is the first step in mobilization. The second is the
transportation and concentration of forces. The railways are seized,
the telegraph and telephone systems. Mail, military, aerial and railway
services are assigned. The commissary lines are laid and transportation
provided for. With marvelous efficiency the full fighting strength, in
front and rear, is made ready and co-ordinated.

The psychological effect of mobilization is tremendous. In every
household home-ties are broken. The fields are stripped of men.
Industry stops. Artillery rolls through the streets, bands play. An
atmosphere of apprehension settles down on the country.

THE WASTE OF WAR

And the waste of it all; the criminal, unbelievable waste! Consider the
vast loss of products that is due, not only to actual war, but to
unceasing and universal preparation for war.

It has been stated on the highest authority that during the last decade
forty per cent of the total outlay of European states has been absorbed
by the armies and navies which, when war arises, seek in every way to
destroy as much as they can of the remainder. Commenting on this state
of affairs, Count Sergius Witte, the ablest of Russian statesmen and
financiers, said in London not long ago:

“Sketch a picture in your mind’s eye of all that those sums, if
properly spent, could effect for the nations who now waste them on
heavy guns, rifles, dreadnaughts, fortresses and barracks. If this
money were laid out on improving the material lot of the people, in
housing them hygienically, in procuring for them healthier air, medical
aid and needful periodical rest, they would live longer and work to
better purpose, and enjoy some of the happiness or contentment which at
present is the prerogative of the few.

“Again, all the best brain work of the most eminent men is focused on
efforts to create new lethal weapons, or to make the old ones more
deadly. For one of the arts in which cultured nations have made most
progress is warfare. The noblest efforts of the greatest thinkers are
wasted on inventions to destroy human life.

“When I call to mind the gold and the work thus dissipated in smoke and
sound and compare that picture with this other villagers with drawn,
sallow faces, men and women and dimly conscious children perishing
slowly and painfully of hunger I begin to ask myself whether human
culture and the white man who personifies it are not wending toward the
abyss.”

In “War and Waste” Dr. David Starr Jordan quotes the table of Richet to
show the cost of a general European war.

Per day the French statistician figures the war’s cost thus:

Feed of men …………………………………. $12,600,000
Feed of horses ……………………………….. 1,000,000
Pay (European rates) ………………………….. 4,250,000
Pay of workmen in arsenals and ports ……………. 1,000.000
Transportation (sixty miles, ten days) ………….. 2,100,000
Transportation of provisions …………………… 4,200,000
Munitions
Infantry, ten cartridges a day …………….. 4,200,000
Artillery, ten shots per day ………………. 1,200,000
Marine, two shots per day …………………. 400,000
Equipment ……………………………………. 4,200,000
Ambulances, 500,000 wounded or ill ($1 per day) ….. 500,000
Armature …………………………………….. 500,000
Reduction of imports ………………………….. 5,000,000
Help to the poor (20 cents per day to one in ten) … 6,800,000
Destruction of towns, etc ……………………… 2,000,000

TOTAL PER DAY …………….. $49,950,000



Chapter XX.
CANADA’S PART IN THE WORLD WAR


New Relations Toward the Empire—Military Preparations—The Great Camp at
Valcartier—The Canadian Expeditionary Force—Political Effect of
Canada’s Action on Future of the Dominion

The sailing of the First Canadian Contingent on October 2, 1914, for
England, en route to the theater of war, marked a noteworthy epoch in
Canadian history. For the first time the Dominion took her place, not
as a British colony, but as a component part of the British Empire.
This position was established by the voluntary offer of expeditionary
troops to be raised, equipped, and paid by Canada for the defense of
the British empire.

For many years a movement had been on foot to bring about this attitude
on the part of the Dominion by His Majesty’s government.

No such action was taken by the Dominion in the South African War,
though a Canadian regiment was raised for the guarding of Halifax so
that the regiment of British soldiers doing garrison duty there might
be released for service at the front, and all other troops who left
Canada went simply as volunteers to join the British army, though
raised by the Dominion government.

When the situation in South Africa reached a critical stage and there
were fears of German interference on behalf of the Boers it became
clear that the British government strongly desired a helping hand from
Canada for political reasons. It seemed a good time to show a solid
front and a united Empire. Later, on October 3d, there came a request
for 500 men from the British Colonial Secretary. No immediate action
was taken on this, but on October 13th, the government passed an
Order-in-Council for the raising of 1,000 volunteers and providing for
their equipment and transportation. But these men were really British
volunteers, not Canadian troops, as once at the front they became
British soldiers under British pay. This contingent was known as a
“Special Service Battalion of the Royal Canadian Regiment of Infantry,”
and did not belong in any sense to the organized troops of the
Dominion, either regular or militia, although they approached more
nearly to that status than in any previous case of assistance given by
the Dominion to the Empire.

In the Indian Mutiny in 1857 a regiment was raised in Canada by the
British government known as the 100th Prince of Wales Royal Canadian
Regiment” and in the Empire’s other wars, such as the Crimean and the
Soudanese, there were always Canadian volunteers in the British forces.

MILITARY PREPARATIONS

The declaration of war by Great Britain on Germany made on the night of
August 4, 1914, found the people of the Dominion not wholly unprepared
for the situation. For some time ways of helping the mother country had
been the chief topic both in government circles and among the people at
large. This is best instanced by the following telegram sent by His
Royal Highness, the governor-General, to the Secretary of State for the
colonies, Rt. Hon. Lewis Harcourt.

“Ottawa, August 1, 1914

In view of the impending danger of war involving the Empire my advisers
are anxiously considering the most effective means of rendering every
possible aid, and will welcome any suggestions and advice which
Imperial naval and military authorities may deem it expedient to offer.
They are confident that a considerable force would be available for
service abroad, as under section sixty-nine of Canadian Militia Act the
active militia can only be placed on active service beyond Canada for
the defense thereof. It has been suggested that regiments might enlist
as Imperial troops for a stated period, Canadian Government undertaking
to pay all necessary financial provisions for their equipment, pay and
maintenance. This proposal has not yet been maturely considered here
and my advisers would be glad to have views of Imperial Government
thereon. Arthur”

This offer from Canada preceded similar offers from Australia, India,
South Africa and Egypt.

The response to this came in the following cable from His Majesty.

“London, August 4, 1914

Please communicate to your ministers following message from His Majesty
the king and publish:

‘I desire to express to my people of the Overseas Dominions with what
appreciation and pride I have received the messages from their
respective governments during the last few days. These spontaneous
assurances of their fullest support recalled to me the generous
self-sacrificing help given by them in the past to the Mother country.
I shall be strengthened in the discharge of the great responsibilities
which rest upon me by the confident belief that in this time of trial
my Empire will stand united, calm, resolute, and trusting in God.
George R.I. Harcourt”

Mr. Harcourt also cabled advising that although there was not
immediately need for an expeditionary force it would be advisable to
take all legislative and other steps necessary to the providing of such
a force in case it should be required later.

The declaration of the war by Great Britain was officially recognized
in Canada on August 5th, in a message from the Governor-General,
beginning:

“Whereas a state of war now exists between this country and Germany.”

On the following day came a call to the militia for active service and
Canada had gone on record as having accepted her responsibilities as an
integral part of the Empire. She was sending troops to help England not
as volunteers who were to become British soldiers, but as Canadian
soldiers, enlisted, clothed, armed, equipped and paid by Canadian
dollars.

Shortly after this came another cablegram from Mr. Harcourt gratefully
accepting the offer of the expeditionary force and requesting that it
be sent forward as quickly as possible. This cablegram was supplemented
by another suggesting one army division as a suitable composition for
this expeditionary force. The terms of enlistment were to be as
follows:

“(a) For a term of one year unless war lasts longer than one year, in
which case they will be retained until war is over. If employed with
hospitals, depots of mounted units, and as clerks, et cetera, they may
be retained after termination of hostilities until services can be
dispensed with, but such retention shall in no case exceed six months.

“(b) To be attached to any arm of service should it be required of
them.”

An army division of war strength consists of about 22,500 men composing
all branches of the service.

While the call to arms found Canada prepared morally and financially,
it found the country sadly unprepared from the standpoint of equipment.
It was necessary to buy or make rifles, uniforms, guns and equipment of
every description to increase the limited supply on hand to the
necessary point. The quantity and variety of supplies required by an
army division seems mountainous to the civilian. They ran the entire
gamut from shoe laces to motor trucks, and these had to be purchased at
the high prices caused by sudden demand wherever it was possible to
obtain them in quantities with the greatest speed.

In this great work of mobilization Canada’s fine railway organizations
played a great and necessary part. With their aid and that of many
prominent men in Canadian affairs the question of the gathering of
materials at selected points went ahead rapidly.

The matter of enlistments held equally important sway. An order in
council authorized an army of 22,218 officers and men and the
recruiting officers wasted no time in setting about their work. All
over the Dominion men had been drilling ever since the danger of war
became acute. The organized militia was hard at work. Volunteers were
being rapidly gathered and after a thorough medical examination were
put in charge of a drill sergeant. There was no difficulty in getting
men and the recruiting officers from the first were overwhelmed with
applications. Canada was going to the aid of the mother country, not
unwillingly, not with hesitancy, not with parsimony, but with a great
rush of enthusiasm to save the Empire, Our Empire!

THE GREAT CAMP AT VALCARTIER

The problem of concentrating this huge body of men soon became a real
one. A great mobilization camp was needed. A place not too far from the
Atlantic, with ample railroad facilities, large and roomy enough for
the maneuvering of large bodies of men as well as their housing in
tents, must be found. A further qualification was that this great camp
should be located in a position of strategic importance and one which
could be defended should the necessity arise.

Such a place was found at Valcartier, a small village some sixteen
miles from the City of Quebec on the line of the Canadian Northern
Railway.

When the war was declared the government did not own Valcartier and few
people had ever heard of it. Soon, however, the name began to grow more
familiar with the newspapers and in a day or two the place became
government property. For the purpose it proved ideal.

Great expanse of level country provided an ideal maneuvering ground.
The site of the camp itself was high enough for good drainage and the
Jacques Cartier River provided an abundance of good water.

But with the acquisition of the ground the work had just begun. It was
necessary to erect tents for the housing of 30,000 men. A commissary
for their subsistence must be provided. Stores and storehouses had to
be rushed to the spot and there was a huge amount of work of a more or
less permanent character in the shape of water works with many miles of
piping, shower baths, drinking troughs, an electric light plant and the
like. The engineers were called upon immediately to lay out the camp
and its many auxiliary features. A rifle range, the largest in the
world, was immediately planned and put in operation for the training of
the soldiers, for few men unacquainted with military life are able to
handle modern high-powered military rifles with any degree of success,
although the average man, under capable instructors, rapidly becomes
proficient. Artillery ranges in the Laurentian Hills were established
for the training of the field artillery. Here the big sixty-pounders,
which throw a shell for nearly five miles, first woke the echoes.

A great bridge-building record was made by the men of the Royal
Canadian Engineers under the direction of Major W. Bethune Lindsay of
Winnipeg. The Jacques Cartier River separates the main camp from the
artillery practice grounds at the base of Mounts Ileene and Irene.
Across this 350 feet of waterway the Royal Canadian Engineers built
within four hours a barrel-pier pontoon bridge capable of carrying
heavy batteries. The Major and his three hundred men worked with that
well-ordered efficiency which characterizes the efforts of the British
bred. The race for the record started with the Canadian Northern
Railway. The materials barrels, planking, etc. were freighted on to the
ground with remarkable dispatch. The casks were made watertight, the
timber was made ready, the twenty-foot bank cut down to provide an easy
grade for traffic, and the actual test was on.

There was never a hitch. One party of men lashed the barrels to the
heavy planks, and, as soon as that operation was complete, another
party lifted the pier and carried it down the bank. Another squad of
men conveyed it on to the water, where it was taken in charge by still
another party and floated out to the front line. The pier was drawn
quickly into position, and as many men as could work with freedom soon
had the flooring spiked down. The actual bridging commenced at eight
o’clock; the span was complete at ten minutes after twelve. The extra
ten minutes were accounted for by the fact that on one or two occasions
passing bodies of other troops necessitated a temporary cessation of
carrying operations.

Col. Burstall, Director of Artillery at the Camp, visited the work
during the morning and expressed his astonishment at the progress
effected. Ordinarily it is a good day’s work to throw a bridge of this
class across a three-hundred foot stream. Col. G. F. Maunsell, Director
General of Engineering Service in Canada, who is attached to
headquarters at Ottawa, also paid close attention to the task and was
vastly pleased with the result. Col. Morrison, Ottawa, of the Artillery
Service, hurried a gun across the bridge when completed, establishing
its efficiency at once. Without doubt the brother officers of Major
Lindsay, in all branches of the service, were extremely gratified at
the efficiency and despatch of the men making up the Royal Canadian
Engineers at the big camp.

Of course, the railway problem of moving the thousand or more troop
trains which were rushing from all parts of Canada to Valcartier was a
huge one. In this they had to cope with the great quantity of supplies
and equipment which was daily forwarded. At Valcartier it was necessary
for the Canadian Northern to form a loop for the rapid handling of
these trains so that a constant stream of trains was kept continually
moving in both directions without interruption.

Great hardships and inconveniences resulted in many cases from the lack
of proper equipment. It was colder down in Quebec than in many other
parts of the Dominion and a great many men were without sufficient
blankets to keep them warm. Uniforms were scarce and army shoes fit for
the work of drills and maneuvers even scarcer. Gradually, however,
these deficiencies were supplied, recruits began to show amazing
progress in the art of soldiering and little by little the great camp
lost its motley appearance and became an efficient military
organization in which rigid discipline and high efficiency prevailed.
In six weeks Valcartier’s 30,000 were ready, ready for England and the
final polish which was to fit them for the test of battle. They could
even have been sent to the front. It seemed that this was not yet
necessary.

THE CANADIAN EXPEDITIONARY FORCE

But it was decided that the time had come for this great body of troops
to leave. The original plan of sending a division of 22,500 men was
supplemented by the dispatch of the remaining 7,500 as a reserve to
prevent the delay in getting them to the front should the necessity
arise suddenly. Members of the government spoke of a possible second or
third contingent, as experience had taught them that it would be as
easy to raise 100,000 men as it had been to raise 30,000. At a given
time the evacuation of Valcartier began. Thirty-two transports lay in
the St. Lawrence prepared to take the division to England, and soon the
first contingent began to move toward the sea. The British fleet had
cleared the ocean of all but a few scattered German cruisers, and these
were amply guarded against by the warships which acted as escorts. And
so, on the second day of October Canada’s first great pledge of loyalty
left the shores of the Dominion to go to the defense of the Empire.

On October 15th the transports reached Plymouth, England, and were
received with greatest enthusiasm. An English newspaper, The Western
Morning News, spoke of the arrival the next morning in the following
terms:

“The arrival of the fleet of transports with the first contingent of
Canadian forces on board was an event of good augury for the future of
the war. These splendid men have come, some of them nearly 6,000 miles,
to testify to the unity of the Empire and take their share of the
burden which rests upon Britons the world over of being the stoutest
champions of justice and liberty. Even if their numbers were smaller we
should hail their arrival as a symbol of the solidarity of the British
race, but they come a large number in themselves, yet only the earnest
of many more to come if they are needed to help in defeating the
imposition of German tyranny and militancy on the world. The cheers
they raised for the old country as they steamed into the harbor
yesterday, and the splendid vigor and spirit they displayed, showed
they have both the will and the power to give a good account of
themselves at the front and prove worthy comrades of the dauntless band
of heroes who, under Sir John French, have won the unstinted admiration
of our French and Russian and Belgian allies and, indeed of the whole
world.”

Then followed long weeks of hard training on Salisbury Plains. At last
they were considered fit for the front and the contingent was
transported to France. Of their conduct there, under the baptism of
fire, the following letter from General French at Headquarters of the
British Army, dated March 3d, to His Royal Highness the Duke of
Connaught, is an ample testimonial.

“The Canadian troops having arrived at the front, I am anxious to tell
your Royal Highness that they have made the best impression on all of
us.

“I made a careful inspection of the division a week after they came to
the country, and I was very much struck by the excellent physique which
was apparent throughout the ranks. The soldierly bearing and the
steadiness with which the men stood in the ranks (on a bleak cold snowy
day) was most remarkable.

“After two or three weeks preliminary education in the trenches,
attached by unit to the Third corps, they have now taken their own line
on the right of that corps as a complete division and I have the utmost
confidence in their capability to do valuable and efficient service.

“The Princess Patricia’s Regiment arrived with the 27th Division a
month earlier and since then they have performed splendid service in
the trenches.

“When I inspected them (although in pouring rain), it seemed to me I
had never seen a more magnificent looking battalion Guards or
otherwise.

“Two or three days ago they captured a German trench with great dash
and energy and excellent results.

“I am writing these few lines because I know how deeply we are all
indebted to the untiring and devoted efforts your Royal Highness has
personally made to ensure the despatch in the most efficient condition
of this valuable contingent.”

The first contingent had evacuated Valcartier only a short time when
the second contingent began to move toward the great mobilization camp,
for a similar process of training to that followed in the first case.

When the second contingent sailed away from Canada to take its place
with the allies on the battlefields of Europe, it was accompanied by a
battery of the most complete and efficient armored motor car rapid-fire
machine guns ever devised. Indeed, they are, so far as is known, the
first motor car machine guns in the ranks of the allies in any way
comparing in point of up-to-dateness and efficiency with those now
being employed by the German army. For up till recently Germany was the
only power which had given any attention to armored motor car machine
guns. The Germans had been experimenting for several years upon this
latest development in field weapons, and when the present war broke out
they had a type of armored motor car rapid-fire gun that has enabled
them to do a kind of work that would not be done by any other sort of
artillery. Great Britain, France and Belgium began hurriedly
experimenting, and hastily put together a number of machine guns
mounted on armored motor cars. These were but tentative weapons,
however, quickly designed to meet an exigency for which the allies had
not, like the Germans, already prepared. It has remained for Canada to
evolve a type of armored motor car battery that is said to be the most
perfect and effective that has ever been constructed.

This ultra-modern battery of forty guns was a part of Canada’s
contribution to the Empire at war. Fifteen of the guns were made
possible by the patriotic generosity of Mr. J. C. Eaton, Toronto’s well
known millionaire department store owner, and were designated as the
Eaton Battery. They were completed right in Toronto, where both the
experimenting and designing were carried on, and the cars and guns put
together, under the supervision of Mr. W. K. McNaught, C.M.G., who
undertook the task of directing the work for the government. The corps
of officers and men who man the battery had a special course of
training under Capt. W. J. Morrison at Exhibition Camp.

It is only necessary to recall to mind certain pictures that have
appeared recently of motor car machine guns in action to realize with
what deadly effectiveness these weapons may be employed in present-day
warfare. They combine all the terrific killing power of the rapid-fire
machine gun with the swift mobility and tirelessness of the
gasoline-driven motor car. Protected behind almost impregnable steel
armor plate, the driver may dash ahead of the advancing lines and
enable the gunner, almost completely protected, to mow down the ranks
of the enemy with a sweeping stream of rifle bullets, played along a
line of men much as one would play a stream of water from a fire hose.
The car may be in motion all this time, or may stop only for an
instant, so that the enemy has no time to train its artillery upon it.
It may dash into what would be for infantry or cavalry or ordinary
gunners the jaws of death, distribute its deadly sting, and then dash
out again unscathed. Thus it may be of incalculable service in the
field. Or it may be used in a town where whole masses of defenders may
be driven back, and the streets completely cleared by the rapid sweep
of its bullets.

The armored motor car guns which were constructed in Toronto are built
on a motor truck chassis. The wheels are made of pressed steel, and
have heavy tires of solid rubber. All the rest of the car is
effectively covered with Harveyized steel plates, which were severely
tested. This armorplate was rolled in Canada by Canadian workmen, and
was made from iron ore mined in Nova Scotia.

The distinctive fighting feature of the car is the revolving turret of
this armor-plate in which the offensive apparatus is situated. This
turret rises above the four-foot armored body at about the center of
the car. In it is the new model Maxim rapid-fire gun, mounted very
strongly on an apparatus of steel and phosphor bronze, the invention of
Canadian engineers. This gun mount really carries the revolving turret
which surrounds it, and which revolves so easily on ball bearings that
a mere touch of the hand will move it. It can make a complete
revolution, so that the gun has a clear sweep. It can be locked by
means of a lever operated by the gunner. The gunner sits on a seat
fastened to the frame which supports the turret. The running machinery
of the car which comes below the floor, is, of course, protected by a
steel skirt, which extends around the car. The machine gun is aimed
through a loop-hole in the steel turret. It can fire from 300 to 600
rifle bullets a minute, and has an effective range of a mile and a
half. The bullets are held in a belt which runs through the gun
automatically. The armor-plate on the rear of the car is loop-holed so
that rifles can be used. Each of the machine guns has two extra
barrels, the reason for this being that with the bullets passing
through the barrel so rapidly it naturally becomes very hot, and so
must be changed frequently.

Another feature of the car is that it is protected overhead as well as
around the sides and front, and rendered immune from shrapnel fire,
missiles from aeroplanes, and dropping bullets, by the same kind of
armor-plate that is used on the sides. Thus the drivers and all the
fighting men are completely protected by armor-plate.

Each car, in addition to its fighting equipment, carries picks,
shovels, wire rope, repair tools and provisions. Attached to the
battery are two workshop cars, with turning lathes and repair machines
driven by motor spare parts, etc. These stay behind the firing line.
Each car carries a complement of five men, including the two men who
drive and the gunner who operates the machine gun. The extra two ride
in the rear and may use rifles through the loop-holes. But there is no
real specialization, for each man must be competent not only as a
soldier but as a chauffeur, machinist and gunner. If there is only one
man left in the car, he must be able to operate the machine gun, run
the car, and make repairs if necessary. And he must be a man who can
keep his head, observe intelligently, and plan for himself and his
regiment. Those in charge of the recruiting for the Eaton Battery
expressed themselves as well pleased with the type of men secured. Many
had seen service before; there were several expert telegraphers,
several expert signalers, and one an ex-lieutenant in the British navy.

POLITICAL EFFECT OF CANADA’S ACTION ON FUTURE OF DOMINION

As had been outlined in the early portion of this chapter, the World
War produced a result in the Dominion long sought by the British
government. From the position of a British Colony independent in all
but name and free to send or withhold military aid, Canada has
voluntarily advanced step by step in the direction of stronger
unification of the British Empire. In each of the wars fought by Great
Britain the part to be taken by Canadian soldiers has received more and
more formal recognition from the Dominion government, advancing from a
mere permission to volunteer, through various stages to the actual
enlistment, equipment and dispatch of a purely Canadian Contingent
under Canadian officers and Canadian pay to the support of the British
Empire.

Though each step had been in this direction few thought that Canada
would ever take such action. It has been admitted that if Canada
herself was attacked Canadians would, of course, defend themselves to
the last. It was even admitted that aid might be sent in case of an
attack on the British Isles, as a part of the Empire, but so far as to
raise an army to take part in a campaign in Europe seemed far beyond
the range of imagination.

Notwithstanding this, however, the Dominion has made the move without
hesitation and in so doing has established a precedent which is apt to
prove of huge importance in the future history of the Dominion.

Great Britain’s enemies must consider not merely a war on Great Britain
but a war on the British Empire, for Canada as well as Australia,
India, South Africa and Egypt, having once sent aid could not again
refuse it and make their position tenable. The Empire now presents a
solid front to the world and her strength is vastly increased hy the
loyalty and devotion of the Overseas Dominions.

This military unity must also produce results in other directions
tending toward a closer union between the Dominion and the Mother
country. We venture to predict that the future will witness a
strengthening of the bonds of loyalty, of commercial and educational
ties without the least abatement of the complete autonomy enjoyed by
the great Dominion.





*** End of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "A History of the Nations and Empires Involved and a Study of the Events Culminating in the Great Conflict" ***


Copyright 2023 LibraryBlog. All rights reserved.