CHAPTER XIX

ZIONISM A SURRENDER, NOT A SOLUTION[2]

Zionism is the most stupendous fallacy in Jewish history. I assert that

it is wrong in principle and impossible of realization; that it is

unsound in its economics, fantastical in its politics, and sterile in

its spiritual ideals. Where it is not pathetically visionary, it is a

cruel playing with the hopes of a people blindly seeking their way out

of age-long miseries. These are bold and sweeping assertions, but in

this chapter I shall undertake to make them good.

The very fervour of my feeling for the oppressed of every race and every

land, especially for the Jews, those of my own blood and faith, to whom

I am bound by every tender tie, impels me to fight with all the greater

force against this scheme, which my intelligence tells me can only lead

them deeper into the mire of the past, while it professes to be leading

them to the heights.

Zionism is a surrender, not a solution. It is a retrogression into the

blackest error, and not progress toward the light. I will go further,

and say that it is a betrayal; it is an eastern European proposal,

fathered in this country by American Jews, which, if it were to succeed,

would cost the Jews of America most that they have gained of liberty,

equality, and fraternity.

I claim to speak with knowledge on this subject. I have had occasion to

know the Jew intimately in all the lands where he dwells in numbers, and

to study his problems on his own ground, with the intensity and

sympathy which were required by my duty to help in each place to

formulate the plans for his immediate assistance. I was born among the

Jews of Germany, and by natural association with German Jews in New

York, and by repeated visits to Germany, am familiar with their life and

problems. As an American of fifty-five years’ residence, as a director

of the Educational Alliance and of Mt. Sinai Hospital, as president of

the Bronx House and the Free Synagogue for more than ten years, and as

one who has travelled on speaking tours from the Atlantic to the Pacific

and from Canada to New Orleans on behalf of the American Jewish Relief

Committee, I became thoroughly familiar with the American Jews. As

American Ambassador to Turkey, I came into daily official contact with

the Jews from all parts of the Near East, not only the Jews of Turkey

and of the Turkish Protectorate in Palestine itself, but also the Jews

of Egypt, Asia Minor, Greece, Roumania, and Bulgaria, to say nothing of

the accredited representatives of the Zionist Party in Constantinople.

As the head of President Wilson’s Commission, which was sent to

investigate the alleged pogroms of the Jews of Poland following the

Armistice in 1919, I spent several months on the ground in Poland and

Galicia, and talked with thousands of Jews in every walk of life in that

greatest centre of Jewish population in the world. They told me their

troubles; the indignities and the perils they endured; the hatred of

their neighbours because of their religion; the deliberate efforts that

were being made to stifle their economic life; the political

discriminations to which they were subjected; and the social barriers

which did not permit them to enjoy a full life as members of their

community.

I speak as a Jew. I speak with fullest sympathy for the Jew everywhere.

I have seen him in his poverty--despised, hated, spat upon, beaten,

murdered. My blood boils with his at the thought of the indignities and

outrages to which he is subjected. I, too, would find for him, for me,

the way out of this morass of poverty, hatred, political inequality, and

social discrimination.

But is Zionism that way? I assert emphatically that it is not. I deny

it, not merely from an intellectual recoil from the fallacy of its

reasoning, but from my very experience of life: as a seeker after

religious truth, as a practical business man, as an active participant

in politics, as one who has had experience in international affairs, and

as a Jew who has at heart the best interests of his co-religionists.

First, let me trace briefly the origins of Zionism. I shall not attempt

to give a complete résumé of these origins, but shall sketch only a

broad picture of the facts.

Zionism is based upon a literal acceptance of the promises made to the

Jews by their prophets in the Old Testament, that Zion should be

restored to them, and that they should resume their once glorious place

as a peculiar people, singled out by God for His especial favour,

exercising dominion over their neighbours in His name, and enjoying all

the freedom and blessings of a race under the unique protection of the

Almighty. Of course, the prophets meant these things symbolically, and

were dealing only with the spiritual life. They did not mean earthly

power or materialistic blessings. But most Jews accepted them in the

physical sense; and they fed upon this glowing dream of earthly grandeur

as a relief from the sordid realities of the daily life which they were

compelled to lead.

Zionism arose out of the miseries of the Jews. It was offered as a

remedy, a release, a plan of action which would provide a road to

happiness. This is the secret of its hold upon its adherents. The

promises which it offers are so dazzling that Jews everywhere have

rushed to embrace its faith without stopping to examine them closely or

to calculate whether they can be made good.

Zionism is not a new idea, but it gained a fresh impetus following the

outbreak of wholesale massacres in Russia beginning with Kiev and

Kishineff, and all through that ghastly trail of bloodshed following the

recrudescence of Anti-Semitism. The Jews, in their agony and peril,

sought afresh for a path toward safety. Zionism was then restated as the

remedy. Theodore Herzl gained new power as its fiery apostle, and Jews

the world over embraced the doctrine as a drowning man grasps at a

straw. This largely accounts for the present intense agitation of the

Zionists.

Let me now define Zionism more fully. To the average Jew, unread in

other histories than his own, ignorant of the great currents of world

progress in science, industry, and the art of government, it is a blind

and simple faith in the imminence of realization of the dream I have

just described of the reërection of Zion as an earthly Kingdom. By those

intellectual leaders of Jewish thought who have embraced this fallacy of

a panacea, Zionism is defined in more subtle and in more plausibly

rational terms. There are, first, those intellectual Jews who conceive

of “Zion” (that is, Jerusalem restored to the Jews) as being a physical

symbol of spiritual leadership, lifted up before their eyes and

inspiring them all to a common purpose; as a demonstration of Hebraic

civilization; a centre from which should proceed instruction and

exhortation to the Jews of all the world.

This analogy, however, is not complete. For these leaders conceive the

Jews to be, not merely a religious congregation, but, besides, a nation.

They think that not merely should spiritual power be centralized in

Zion, but temporal power as well. In their view, the discrimination

against Jews in other countries will greatly diminish, once there is

erected a Jewish state in Palestine.

This nation is to be, in their theory, not only the seat of a religion

and the fostering home of distinctive racial culture. It is to be, as

well, an actual political entity, with territorial boundaries and a

capital city, maintaining a temporal government with a ruler accrediting

ambassadors to foreign courts and capitals, dealing with other

governments on an equality as a sovereign state, and seeking to use the

familiar instruments of diplomatic pressure to redress the wrongs of its

citizens who happen to reside under the jurisdiction of “foreign”

nations.

I say that this _is_ the programme of the Zionists: perhaps I should say

_was_. It is true that they have, for the moment, altered the structure

of their dream, to accept the compromise held out to them by the Balfour

Declaration. They have stepped down from their plans for a sovereign

Jewish state in Palestine: they now accept the ideal of a “National Home

for the Jewish People”--to quote the words of that declaration. This is,

however, only a temporary compromise--a truce. Nothing short of the full

glory of their Zion will long content the ambitious apostles of Zionism.

It is worth while at this point to digress for a moment from my main

argument, to point out that the Balfour Declaration is itself not even a

compromise. It is a shrewd and adroit delusion.

The Balfour Declaration is: “His Majesty’s Government views with favour

the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people,

it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may

prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish

communities in Palestine, nor the rights and political status enjoyed by

Jews in any other country.”

The plain sense of these plain words has been woefully misunderstood by

some of the Zionist leaders, and wilfully distorted by others. They

contain no promise of a Jewish state: they offer no recognition of a

Jewish nation. They do, it is true, apply the obscure but pleasant name

of “Jewish Home Land” to the land which the Declaration then accurately

defines by its political name as “Palestine”; but it guarantees to the

Jews in their Home Land only those familiar assurances of security of

person and property which are the common possessions of British subjects

the world over.

I have been astonished to find that such an intelligent body of American

Jews as the Central Conference of American Rabbis should have fallen

into a grievous misunderstanding of the purport of the Balfour

Declaration. In a resolution adopted by them, they assert that the

Declaration says: “Palestine is to be a national home land for the

Jewish people.” Not at all! The actual words of the Declaration (I quote

from the official text) are: “His Majesty’s Government views with favour

the establishment _in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish

people_.” These two phrases sound alike, but they are really very

different. I can make this obvious by an analogy. When I first read the

Balfour Declaration I was making my home in the Plaza Hotel. Therefore I

could say with truth: “My home is in the Plaza Hotel.” I could not say

with truth: “The Plaza Hotel is my home.” If it were “my home,” I would

have the freedom of the whole premises, and could occupy any room in the

house with impunity. Quite obviously, however, I could not occupy the

rooms of any other of the guests of the hotel whose leases long

antedated mine.

These men would gladly entertain me as a visitor, but how they would

resent and legally fight so unjustifiable an attempt as my trying

forcibly to enter their premises and displace them and make their

quarters my home.

[Illustration: RABBI RUBENSTEIN

A leader of the Jewish community in Vilna, who took a very prominent

part in the incidents that arose when the Poles took possession of the

city.]

This is exactly the differentiation in meaning between the Balfour

Declaration and the claims of those Zionists who profess to see in it

British authority for claiming Palestine as the seat of a Jewish nation.

The Balfour Declaration very carefully says: “The British Government

favours the establishment of a home land for the Jewish people _in

Palestine_.” But this does not say that the Jews shall have the right to

dispossess, or to trespass upon the property of those far more numerous

Arab tenants whose right to their share in it is as good as that of the

Jews and, in most cases, of much longer standing.

Palestine is a country already populated, and the British Government has

no intention of evicting the Arab owners of the soil in favour of the

Jews. Nor, I may add in passing, have the Arab owners any intention of

selling their holdings to the Jews, for they are fully aware of the

Zionist programme, are very resentful of it, and intend to use every

means at their command to frustrate it.

In February, 1921, this obvious meaning of the Balfour Declaration was

made officially explicit, when the complete text of the mandate for

Palestine was first made public. After reiterating in the preamble the

language which I have above quoted, this official transaction of the

Council of the League of Nations proceeds to enumerate the specific

terms under which Palestine shall be governed as a mandatary of Great

Britain. The very first article of this mandate explodes completely the

theory that the Allied Powers had any idea of setting up a Jewish

nation. It reads: “His Britannic Majesty shall have the power to

exercise as mandatory all the powers inherent in the government of a

sovereign state save as they may be limited by the terms of the present

mandate.” In other words, not a government of Jews over a Jewish nation,

but His Britannic Majesty is declared to be the repository of “the

powers inherent in a sovereign state.”

To be sure, these powers are limited by certain specific terms

enumerated in the mandate. Space does not permit a quotation of them in

full, but I would advise those interested to secure a copy of the

mandate and to study it in the light of the claim of some Zionists that

the Balfour Declaration recognizes a Jewish State. These so-called

“limitations” do not really limit the sovereign power of His Britannic

Majesty. They are not limitations; they are statements of the direction

in which the British as mandataries pledge themselves to pay especial

attention to the interests of the Jews _as a part of the body of the

citizens of Palestine_. Except for these expressions of benevolent

intention specifically toward the Jews, every one of the twenty-seven

articles in the declaration is just as applicable to every other citizen

of Palestine, whether Jew or Gentile, Mohammedan, Arab, or Christian

Syriac. They are guaranties of civil liberty, freedom of conscience,

equality before the law, and the like.

It was a politic move of the British Government to name a Jew as the

first governing head of Palestine when the British began to function

under this mandate. But this appointment of Sir Herbert Samuel was only

politic, it was not political. It has no general significance.

As I have said, some of the Zionist leaders woefully misunderstood the

Balfour Declaration. The terms of the mandate now leave to them no room

for misunderstanding. Other Zionist leaders, however, wilfully

misrepresented it. They knew that it meant what it said, but they did

not dare to tell their followers what it meant. They chose rather to let

them think that it was only another phrasing of their original programme

of the erection of a Zionistic national sovereign state, or that it

would lead to it. These misleaders, being more vociferous than their

more honest colleagues, have had the ear of the great mass of Jews

throughout the world. This mass now believes that Zionism, as a

national ideal, is presently attainable, if, indeed, it is not actually

attained already. These Zionistic apostles are culpable, in that they

have failed to undeceive the masses of this error. Instead, they have

capitalized this credulous faith, and are collecting funds in America

and in Europe, ostensibly to finance what they call the establishment of

their dream, although really, as I believe, to finance further

propaganda for their unattainable ideal.

Having disposed of the fallacious assumption that Zionism has been, or

is about to be attained, let me now return to my main argument, namely,

that it never can be attained, and that it ought not to be attained.

Let us examine the pretensions of Zionism from three essential angles:

Is it an economic fallacy? Is it a political fantasy? Is it a spiritual

will-o’-the wisp?

First, its economic aspect. I assert positively that it is impossible.

Zionists have been working for thirty years with fanatical zeal, and

backed by millions of money from philanthropic Jews of great wealth in

France, England, Germany, and America; and the total result of their

operations, at the outbreak of the World War, was the movement of ten

thousand Jews from other lands to the soil of Palestine. In the same

period, a million and a half Jews have migrated to America.

The truth is that Palestine cannot support a large population in

prosperity. It has a lean and niggard soil. It is a land of rocky hills,

upon which, for many centuries, a hardy people have survived only with

difficulty by cultivating a few patches of soil here and there, with the

olive, the fig, citrus fruits and the grape, or have barely sustained

their flocks upon the sparse native vegetation. The streams are few and

small, entirely insufficient for the great irrigation systems that would

be necessary for the general cultivation of the land. The underground

sources of water can be developed only at a prodigious capital expense.

There are thirteen million Jews in the world: the Zionist organization

itself claims for Palestine only a maximum possible population of five

millions. Even this claim is on the face of it an extravagant

over-estimate. After careful study on the spot in Palestine, I prophesy

that it will not support more than one million additional inhabitants.

Palestine is in area about equal to the state of Massachusetts; and that

New England state, blest (as Palestine is not) with plentiful water,

ample water-powers, abundant forestation, and a good soil, supports only

four million people. This bald comparison, however, does not begin to

tell the story. Massachusetts is an integral part of a tremendously

prosperous nation of one hundred million souls. Distributed among

forty-eight states, between which there are no political boundaries to

protect, no fences to be maintained, no tariff discrimination, or

unfavourable exchanges to be considered, she enjoys all the advantages

of a highly industrialized community, and of established commercial

intercourse with the rest of the most progressive nations in the world.

If Massachusetts were situated as Palestine is situated, remote from the

great currents of modern economic life; without even one of those

absolutely indispensable prerequisites to commercial success, namely

natural ports; without its network of railways, bringing to it cheaply

the raw materials for its manufactures, and carrying from it cheaply and

quickly to rich markets its manufactured articles, Massachusetts would

support a population far less than its present numbers.

This is the condition of Palestine: not only must agriculture be pursued

under the greatest possible handicaps of soil and water, but it is

subject to the direct competition of far more favoured lands in the very

agricultural products for which it is distinctive. These are the citrus

fruits, almonds, figs and dates, grapes and wine. How can little

Palestine compete in these products with Italy, France, and Spain, and

their north African colonies, whose richer soil lies in the direct line

of the great march of commerce?

A great industrial Palestine is equally unthinkable. It lacks the raw

materials of coal and iron; it lacks the skill in technical processes

and the experience in the arts; and, above all, it is not in the path of

modern trade currents. What hope is there for Palestine, as an

industrial nation, in competition with America, Great Britain, and

Germany, with their prodigious resources, their highly organized

factories, their great mass-production, and their superb means of

transportation? The notion is preposterous.

I claim that the foregoing analysis demolishes the economic foundation

of Zionism.

What of its political foundations? Is Zionism a political fantasy? I

assert most emphatically that it is. The present British mandate over

Palestine is a recognition, by the great powers of the world, of the

supreme political interest of Great Britain in that region. It was no

mere accident that it was a British army which captured Jerusalem from

the Turks in the late war. The life-and-death importance of the Suez

Canal to the integrity of the British Empire has for more than half a

century made the destiny of Palestine as well as of Egypt a vital

concern of British statesmanship. So long as the Turk was in control,

the British had no cause to fear what that impotent and backward

neighbour might do to interrupt the life current that flows through this

jugular vein connecting India with the British Isles. But now that the

Turk is in process of being dispossessed of sovereignty, and the future

disposition of his territories in doubt, British statesmen can hold but

one opinion concerning either Egypt or Palestine, and this opinion is,

that no matter what else may befall, British influence must be

omnipotent on both sides of the Suez Canal. It may be politic for them

for the moment to coddle the aspirations of a numerically negligible

race like the Jews. But the notion that Great Britain would for one

instant allow any form of government in Palestine, under any name

whatever, that was not, in fact, an appanage of the British Crown, and

subservient to the paramount interests of British world policy, is too

fantastical for serious refutation.

I have just said that it may be politic for the British Government to

coddle the aspirations of the Jews. There are, however, profound reasons

why this coddling will not take the form of granting to them even the

name and surface appearance of a sovereign government ruling Palestine.

In the first place, Britain’s hold upon India is by no means so secure

that the Imperial Government at London can afford to trifle with the

fanatical sensibilities of the millions of Mohammedans in its Indian

possessions. Remember that Palestine is as much the Holy Land of the

Mohammedan as it is the Holy Land of the Jew, or the Holy Land of the

Christian. His shrines cluster there as thickly. They are to him as

sacredly endeared. In 1914 I visited the famous Caves of Machpelah,

twenty miles from Jerusalem; and I shall never forget the mutterings of

discontent that murmured in my ears, nor the threatening looks that

confronted my eyes, from the lips and faces of the devout Mohammedans

whom I there encountered. For these authentic tombs of Abraham, Isaac,

and Jacob are as sacred to them, because they are saints of Islam, as

they are to the most orthodox of my fellow Jews, whose direct ancestors

they are, not only in the spiritual, but in the actual physical sense.

To these Mohammedans, my presence at the tombs of my ancestors was as

much a profanation of a Mohammedan Holy Place as if I had laid

sacrilegious hands upon the sacred relics in the mosque at Mecca. To

imagine that the British Government will sanction a scheme for a

political control of Palestine which would place in the hands of the

Jews the physical guardianship of these shrines of Islam, is to imagine

something very foreign to the practical political sense of the most

politically practical race on earth. They know too well how deeply they

would offend their myriad Mohammedan subjects to the East.

Exactly the same political issue of religious fanaticism applies to the

question of Christian sensibilities. Any one who has seen, as in 1914 I

saw at Easter-tide, the tens of thousands of devout Roman Catholics from

Poland, Italy, and Spain, and the other tens of thousands of devout

Greek Catholics from Russia and the East, who yearly frequent the

shrines of Christianity in Palestine, and who thus consummate a lifetime

of devotion by a pilgrimage undertaken at, to them, staggering expense

and physical privation; and who has observed, as I have observed, the

suppressed hatred of them all for both the Jew and the Mussulman; and

who has noted, further, the bitter jealousies between even Protestant

and Catholic, between Greek Catholic and Roman--such an observer, I say,

can entertain no illusions that the placing of these sacred shrines of

Christian tradition in the hands of the Jews would be tolerated. The

most enlightened Christians might endure it, but the great mass of

Christian worshippers of Europe would not. They regard the Jew not

merely as a member of a rival faith, but the man whose ancestors

rejected their fellow Jew, the Christ, and crucified Him. Their

fanaticism is a political fact of gigantic proportions. A Jewish State

in Palestine would inevitably arouse their passion. Instead of such a

State adding new dignity and consideration to the position of the Jew

the world over (as the Zionists claim it would do), I am convinced that

it would concentrate, multiply, and give new venom to the hatred which

he already endures in Poland and Russia, the very lands in which most of

the Jews now dwell, and where their oppressions are the worst.

The political pretensions of Zionism are fantastic. I think the

foregoing paragraphs have demonstrated this.

Is Zionism a spiritual will-o’-the-wisp? I assert with all the vigour of

my most profound convictions that it is. Its professed spiritual aim is

the reassertion of the dignity and worth of the Jew. It is a mechanism

designed to restore to him his self-respect, and to secure for him the

respect of others. The means by which it proposes to accomplish this

have been described above. How pitifully inadequate these means are has

been demonstrated.

The effort of the Jews to attain their legitimate spiritual ambitions by

means of a political mechanism needs hardly further to be controverted

in the negative, or destructive, sense. I prefer to meet this issue on

positive and constructive grounds. My answer to the spiritual

pretensions of Zionism is the positive answer that the solution has

already been discovered--the way out has been found. The courageous Jew,

the intellectually honest Jew, the forward-looking Jew, the Jew who has

been willing to fight for his rights on the spot where they were

infringed, has won his battle, and has found all the glorious freedom

which Zionism so impractically describes. The brave Jews of England did

not surrender their cause. They did not seek a moral opiate in an

Oriental pipe-dream of retreat to a cloud-land Zion pictured by fancy on

the arid hills of Palestine. They stayed in England; they fought on

English soil for their rights as men. Their courage enlisted the

admiration of the nobler spirits among the English, and it allied to

them such Britons as Macaulay and George Bentinck, whose splendid

eloquence and political acumen assisted in the repeal of the Jewish

Disabilities in 1858. This epochal legislation gave the Jews every right

enjoyed in Britain by the Christians. It made possible the splendid

political career of Beaconsfield (for many years Prime Minister of Great

Britain), and the brilliant experience of Sir Rufus Isaacs (now Earl

Reading) who has progressed through the highest political honours of the

nation as Lord Chief Justice, Ambassador to America, and Viceroy of

India.

Do not forget that in this victorious struggle the Jew made no

compromise whatever with his conscience. He did not abandon his racial,

religious, or cultural heritage.

The courageous and wise Jews of France and Italy have fought this same

battle to this same victorious conclusion.

But this book will be read chiefly by Americans: such influence as it

may wield will be particularly upon American minds. Need I elaborate the

argument in its American setting? The facts lie upon the surface for the

dullest eyes to see them. Nowhere in the world has so glorious an

opportunity been offered to the Jew. Generous America has thrown wide

the doors of opportunity to him. The Jew possesses no talents of the

mind or spirit that cannot find here a free field for their most

complete expression.

Does he seek political office? Jews in this country have been or are

members of every legislature, including the Senate of the United States;

ambassadors representing the person of the President at foreign courts;

officers of the judiciary in every grade from justice of the peace to

justice of the Supreme Court of the United States.

Does he seek freedom of conscience? He may freely choose his mode of

worship, from the strictest of orthodox tabernacles to the most liberal

of free synagogues.

Does he seek a field for business talent? The evidence of opportunity in

this direction is so overwhelming that it need not here be wearyingly

recapitulated. The progress of Adolph S. Ochs from a printer’s devil in

Knoxville, Tenn., fifty years ago, to owner of the greatest newspaper in

the greatest city in the world, is characteristic of dozens of like

successful Jewish careers in this country; and it is emblematic of

hundreds of thousands of Jewish careers less spectacular but equally

momentous in their own degree.

Does he seek social position? Here, indeed, his path is made more

difficult. But the social barriers are not insurmountable. Where they

seem so, calm judgment will reveal that the social environment where

this irrational prejudice exists is not worthy of the entrance of the

Jew. Leave the intolerant to associate with their own kind. The Jew who

has raised himself to the highest level will have put himself beyond the

reach of prejudice, and he will find himself welcomed in the highest

Christian circles.

The enlightened Jews of America have found the true road to Zion. To

them Zion is no mere political mechanism existing by the political

sufferance of the greater Powers. It is not defined by geographical

boundaries, circumscribing an arid plot of ground which their ancestors

of two thousand years ago conquered from its aboriginal inhabitants and

occupied for a brief, though glorious, period before they, in turn, were

driven onward by a new conqueror. To them, Zion is a region of the soul.

To them, it is an inner light, set upon the hill of personal

consciousness, inspiring them as individuals to fight, each for himself,

the battle of life where he meets it; demanding in virtue of his own

worth the respect of those about him; winning through to the dignity and

position to which his native gifts and his self-developed character

entitle him. This is the only true Zion. All other definitions of it are

unreal.

The proudest boast of all these men, and my proudest boast, is: “I am

an American.” None of us would deny our race or faith. We are Jews by

blood. We are Jews, though of various sects, by religion. But as for me

(and here I am sure I speak for a vast body of Jews in the United

States), if I were pressed to define myself by any single appellation, I

would unhesitatingly select the one word _American_. Neither I nor the

humblest worshipper in the most orthodox congregation can hope for

anything from Zionism that is not already ours in virtue of our

participation in the freedom of America. And neither of us need make the

smallest compromise with any conviction that we hold dear. I have found

it more convenient (as well as quite within the approval of what I

regard as my somewhat more enlightened conscience) to cast off the other

symbols of the Hebraic faith, such as the Kosher observances, the

untouched beard, and the distinctive dress; but there are thousands of

Russian Jews in the United States to-day who retain these excrescences

of antiquity, with only a small inconvenience that is certainly very far

short of persecution. From observation and experience I know full well

that these same orthodox devotees will themselves become enlightened--if

not they, then certainly their children--and will perceive, as I and

others have perceived, that the Mosaic admonitions were purely temporal

devices, expedient truly for the age in which they were promulgated,

useful until modern sanitation and modern education did their work, but

now become empty of those first values.

Here lies the crux of my affirmative argument against Zionism. We

anti-Zionist Jews of America have found that the spiritual life, after

whatever formula of faith, in modern times can be most fully enjoyed by

those people who accept the beneficent progress which the world at large

has made in science, industry, and the art of government. We have

learned the folly of persisting in the sanitary regulations taught by

Moses, in this age when all civilized peoples have the benefit of the

more advanced sanitary knowledge of Lister, Pasteur, Metchnikoff, and

Flexner. We have learned the folly of persisting in a distinctive style

of clothing, beard, and locks (imposed upon the Jews extraneously as a

badge of slavery and oppression), and of ascribing a spiritual

significance to such a costume in this age when saints like Montefiore

and Baron Edmond de Rathschild, the great patrons of Palestine, have

found sanctity not incompatible with the ordinary dress of those about

them. We have come to see that the worship of the God of Israel, the

acceptable obedience to His will, is not contingent upon the Clothes one

wears, upon the meat one eats. His kingdom is the soul of man. In that

boundless temple He receives the priceless sacrifices of the true

believer. That time and place and mode are most acceptable to Him in

which the human spirit brings its richest offerings.

It follows, then, that the Jew everywhere (in Poland and Russia, as well

as in France and America) can acceptably serve the God of his fathers

and still enter fully into the life about him. We in America refuse to

set ourselves apart in a voluntary ghetto for the sake of old

traditional Observances.

I have often used a figure of speech--it was brought to my mind by

meeting the rug-makers in Turkey--as follows: The Jew has been content,

in most lands and down the ages, to be the fringe of the carpet, the

loose end over which every foot has stumbled, where every heel has left

its injuring impression on the disconnected individual strands. What the

Jew should do is, to become a part of the pattern of the carpet itself:

weave himself into the very warp and woof of the main fabric of

humanity; and gain the strength which comes from a coördinated and

orderly relation to the other strands of human society. His peculiar

beauties (his peculiar talents), which in the fringe are soiled and

hidden, take on new value when they become part of the main carpet; and

they find their glory in lending to the pattern a unique splendour and a

special lustre.

I, for one, will not forego this vision of the destiny of the Jews. I do

not presume to say to my co-religionists of Europe that they shall

accept my programme. But neither do I intend to allow them to impose

their programme upon me. They may continue, if they will, a practice of

our common faith which invites martyrdom, and which makes the

continuance of oppression a certainty. I have found a better way (and

when I say _I_, it is to speak collectively as one of a great body of

American Jews of like mind). In the foregoing pages I have given my

reasons for opposing Zionism. They make plain why I asserted at the

beginning of this chapter that Zionism is not a solution; that it is a

surrender. It looks backward, and not forward. It would practically

place in the hands of a few men, steeped in a foreign tradition, the

power to turn back the hands of time upon all which I and my

predecessors of the same convictions have won for ourselves here in

America. We have fought our way through to liberty, equality, and

fraternity. We have found rest for our souls. No one shall rob us of

these gains. We enjoy in America exactly the spiritual liberty, the

financial success, and the social position which we have earned. Any Jew

in America who wishes to be a saint of Zion has only to practice the

cultivation of his spiritual gifts--there is none to hinder him. Any Jew

in America who seeks material reward has only to cultivate the powers of

his mind and character--there are no barriers between him and

achievement. Any Jew in America who yearns for social position has only

to cultivate his manners--there are no insurmountable discriminations

here against true gentlemen. The Jews of France have found France to be

their Zion. The Jews of England have found England to be their Zion. We

Jews of America have found America to be our Zion. Therefore, I refuse

to allow myself to be called a Zionist. I am an American.

APPENDIX

REPORT OF THE MISSION OF THE UNITED STATES TO POLAND

AMERICAN COMMISSION TO NEGOTIATE PEACE,

MISSION TO POLAND.

_Paris, October 3, 1919._

_To the American commission to negotiate peace._

GENTLEMEN: 1. A mission, consisting of Mr. Henry Morgenthau, Brig. Gen.

Edgar Jadwin, and Mr. Homer H. Johnson, was appointed by the American

commission to negotiate peace to investigate Jewish matters in Poland.

The appointment of such a mission had previously been requested by Mr.

Paderewski, president of the council of ministers of the Republic of

Poland. On June 30, 1919, Secretary Lansing wrote to this mission:

It is desired that the mission make careful inquiry into all

matters affecting the relations between the Jewish and non-Jewish

elements in Poland. This will, of course, involve the investigation

of the various massacres, pogroms, and other excesses alleged to

have taken place, the economic boycott, and other methods of

discrimination against the Jewish race. The establishment of the

truth in regard to these matters is not, however, an end in itself.

It is merely for the purpose of seeking to discover the reason

lying behind such excesses and discriminations with a view to

finding a possible remedy. The American Government, as you know, is

inspired by a friendly desire to render service to all elements in

the new Poland--Christians and Jews alike. I am convinced that any

measures that may be taken to ameliorate the conditions of the Jews

will also benefit the rest of the population and that, conversely,

anything done for the community benefit of Poland as a whole will

be of advantage to the Jewish race. I am sure that the members of

your mission are approaching the subject in the right spirit, free

from prejudice one way or the other, and filled with a desire to

discover the truth and evolve some constructive measures to improve

the situation which gives concern to all the friends of Poland.

2. The mission reached Warsaw on July 13, 1919, and remained in Poland

until September 13, 1919. All the places where the principal excesses

had occurred were visited. In addition thereto the mission also studied

the economic and social conditions in such places as Lodz, Krakau,

Grodno, Kalisch, Posen, Cholm, Lublin, and Stanislawow. But automobiling

over 2,500 miles through Russian, Austrian, and German Poland, the

mission also came into immediate contact with the inhabitants of the

small towns and villages. In order properly to appreciate the present

cultural and social conditions, the mission also visited educational

institutions, libraries, hospitals, museums, art galleries, orphan

asylums, and prisons.

3. Investigations of the excesses were made mostly in the presence of

representatives of the Polish Government and of the Jewish communities.

There were also present in many cases military and civil officials and,

wherever possible, officials in command at the time the excesses

occurred were conferred with and interrogated. In this work the Polish

authorities and the American Minister to Poland, Mr. Hughes Gibson, lent

the mission every facility. Deputations of all kinds of organizations

were received and interviewed. A large number of public meetings and

gatherings were attended, and the mission endeavoured to obtain a

correct impression of what had occurred, of the present mental state of

the public, and of the attitude of the various factions toward one

another.

4. The Jews first entered Poland in large numbers during the twelfth and

thirteenth centuries, when they migrated from Germany and other

countries as the result of severe persecutions. Their language was

German, which subsequently developed into a Hebrew-German dialect, or

Yiddish. As prior to this immigration only two classes or estates had

existed in Poland (the owners and the tillers of the soil), the Jewish

immigrant became the pioneer of trade and finance, settling in the towns

and villages. As time went on it became generally known throughout

Europe that Poland was a place of refuge for the Jews, and their numbers

were augmented as a result of persecutions in western Europe. Still more

recently, as a result of the expulsion of the Jews from Russia, on

account of the enforcement of the pale of settlement, and of the May

laws of 1882, their number was further increased.

5. Notwithstanding the fact that Poland has been a place of refuge for

the Jews, there have been anti-Jewish movements at various times. The

present anti-Semitic feeling took a definite political form after the

Russian revolution of 1905. This feeling reached an intense stage in

1912, when the Polish National Democratic Party nominated an anti-Semite

to represent Warsaw in the Russian Duma and the Jews cast their vote for

a Polish Socialist and carried the election. The National Democratic

Party then commenced a vigorous anti-Semitic campaign. During the

German occupation this campaign was temporarily reduced. At the end of

the Great War the chaotic and unnatural state of affairs in which Poland

found itself gave good ground for a condition of social unrest, which,

together with the world-stimulated tendency toward national

self-determination, accentuated the feeling between Jewish and

non-Jewish elements. The chauvinistic reaction created by the sudden

acquisition of a long-coveted freedom ripened the public mind for

anti-Semitic or anti-alien sentiment, which was strongly agitated by the

press and by politicians. This finally encouraged physical

manifestations of violent outcroppings of an unbalanced social

condition.

6. When, in November, 1918, the Austrian and German armies of occupation

left Poland there was no firm government until the arrival of Gen.

Pilsudski, who had escaped from a German prison, and it was during this

period, before the Polish Republic came into being, that the first of

the excesses took place. (The mission has purposely avoided the use of

the word “pogrom,” as the word is applied to everything from petty

outrages to premeditated and carefully organized massacres. No fixed

definition is generally understood.) There were eight principal

excesses, which are here described in chronological order.

(1) Kielce, November 11, 1918.

Shortly after the evacuation of the Austrian troops from Kielce the Jews

of this city secured permission from the local authorities to hold a

meeting in the Polski Theatre. The purpose of this meeting was to

discuss Jewish national aspirations. It began shortly before 2 o’clock

and filled the theatre to overflowing. During the afternoon a small

crowd of Polish civilians, largely composed of students, gathered

outside of the theatre. At 6.30 p. m. the meeting began to break up, and

when only about 300 people remained in the theatre, some militiamen

entered and began to search for arms. A short while thereafter, and

while the militiamen were still in the building, a crowd of civilians

and some soldiers came into the auditorium and drove the Jews toward the

stairs. On the stairs there was a double line of men armed with clubs

and bayonets, who beat the Jews as they left the building. After the

Jews reached the street they were again beaten by a mob outside. As a

result of this attack four Jews were killed and a large number wounded.

A number of civilians have been indicted for participation in this

excess, but have not as yet been brought to trial.

(2) Lemberg, November 21-23, 1918.

On October 30, 1918, when the Austrian Empire collapsed, the Ukrainian

troops, formerly in the Austrian service, assumed control of the town. A

few hundred Polish boys, combined with numerous volunteers of doubtful

character, recaptured about half the city and held it until the arrival

of Polish reinforcements on November 21. The Jewish population declared

themselves neutral, but the fact that the Jewish quarter lay within the

section occupied by the Ukrainians, and that the Jews had organized

their own militia, and further, the rumour that some of the Jewish

population had fired upon the soldiery, stimulated amongst the Polish

volunteers an anti-Semitic bias that readily communicated itself to the

relieving troops. The situation was further complicated by the presence

of some 15,000 uniformed deserters and numerous criminals released by

the Ukrainians from local jails, who were ready to join in any disorder,

particularly if, as in the case of wholesale pillage, they might profit

thereby.

Upon the final departure of the Ukrainians, these disreputable elements

plundered to the extent of many millions of crowns the dwellings and

stores in the Jewish quarter, and did not hesitate at murder when they

met with resistance. During the ensuing disorders, which prevailed on

November 21, 22, and 23, 64 Jews were killed and a large amount of

property destroyed. Thirty-eight houses were set on fire, and owing to

the paralysis of the fire department, were completely gutted. The

Synagogue was also burned, and large numbers of the sacred scrolls of

the law were destroyed. The repression of the disorders was rendered

more difficult by the prevailing lack of discipline among the newly

organized Polish troops, and by a certain hesitation among the junior

officers to apply stern punitive measures. When officers’ patrols under

experienced leaders were finally organized on November 23, robbery and

violence ceased.

As early as December 24, 1918, the Polish Government, through the

ministry of justice, began a strict investigation of the events of

November 21 and 23. A special commission, headed by a justice of the

supreme court, sat in Lemberg for about two months, and rendered an

extensive formal report which has been furnished this mission. In spite

of the crowded dockets of the local courts, where over 7,000 cases are

now pending, 164 persons, 10 of them Jews, have been tried for

complicity in the November disorders, and numerous similar cases await

disposal. Forty-four persons are under sentences ranging from 10 days to

18 months. Aside from the civil courts, the local court-martial has

sentenced military persons to confinement for as long as three years

for lawlessness during the period in question. This mission is advised

that on the basis of official investigations the Government has begun

the payment of claims for damages resulting from these events.

(3) Pinsk, April 5, 1919.

Late in the afternoon of April 5, 1919, a month or more after the Polish

occupation of Pinsk, some 75 Jews of both sexes, with the official

permission of the town commander, gathered in the assembly hall at the

People’s House, in the Kupiecka Street, to discuss the distribution of

relief sent by the American joint distribution committee. As the meeting

was about to adjourn, it was interrupted by a band of soldiers, who

arrested and searched the whole assembly, and, after robbing the

prisoners, marched them at a rapid pace to gendarmerie headquarters.

Thence the prisoners were conducted to the market place and lined up

against the wall of the cathedral. With no light except the lamps of a

military automobile the six women in the crowd, and about 25 men, were

separated from the mass, and the remainder, 35 in number, were shot with

scant deliberation and no trial whatever. Early the next morning 3

wounded victims were shot in cold blood when it was found that they were

still alive.

The women and other reprieved prisoners were confined in the city jail

until the following Thursday. The women were stripped and beaten by the

prison guards so severely that several of them were bed-ridden for weeks

thereafter, and the men were subjected to similar maltreatment.

It has been asserted officially by the Polish authorities, that there

was reason to suspect this assemblage of bolshevist allegiance. This

mission is convinced that no arguments of bolshevist nature were

mentioned in the meeting in question. While it is recognized that

certain information of bolshevist activities in Pinsk had been received

by two Jewish soldiers, the undersigned is convinced that Maj.

Luczynski, the town commander, showed reprehensible and frivolous

readiness to place credence upon such untested assertions, and on this

insufficient basis took inexcusably drastic action against reputable

citizens whose loyal character could have been immediately established

by a consultation with any well known non-Jewish inhabitant.

The statements made officially by Gen. Listowski, the Polish group

commander, that the Jewish population on April 5 attacked the Polish

troops, are regarded by this mission as devoid of foundation. The

undersigned is further of the opinion that the consultation prior to

executing the 35 Jews, alleged by Maj. Luczynski to have had the

character of a court-martial, was by the very nature of the case a most

casual affair with no judicial nature whatever, since less than an hour

elapsed between the arrest and the execution. It is further found that

no conscientious effort was made at the time either to investigate the

charges against the prisoners or even sufficiently to identify them.

Though there have been official investigations of this case none of the

offenders answerable for this summary execution have been punished or

even tried, nor has the Diet commission published its findings.

(4) Lida, April 17, 1919.

On April 17, 1919, the Polish military forces captured Lida from the

Russian Bolsheviks. After the city fell into the hands of the Poles the

soldiers proceeded to enter and rob the houses of the Jews. During this

period of pillage 39 Jews were killed. A large number of Jews, including

the local rabbi, were arbitrarily arrested on the same day by the Polish

authorities and kept for 24 hours without food amid revolting conditions

of filth at No. 60 Kamienska Street. Jews were also impressed for forced

labour without respect for age or infirmity. It does not appear that

anyone has been punished for these excesses, or that any steps have been

taken to reimburse the victims of the robberies.

(5) Wilna, April 19-21, 1919.

On April 19 Polish detachments entered the city of Wilna. The city was

definitely taken by the Poles after three days of street fighting,

during which time they lost 33 men killed. During this same period some

65 Jews lost their lives. From the evidence submitted it appears that

none of these people, among whom were 4 women and 8 men over 50 years of

age, had served with the Bolsheviks. Eight Jews were marched 3

kilometers to the outskirts of Wilna and deliberately shot without a

semblance of a trial or investigation. Others were shot by soldiers who

were robbing Jewish houses. No list has been furnished the mission of

any Polish civilians killed during the occupation. It is, however,

stated on behalf of the Government that the civilian inhabitants of

Wilna took part on both sides in this fighting, and that some civilians

fired upon the soldiers. Over 2,000 Jewish houses and stores in the city

were entered by Polish soldiers and civilians during these three days,

and the inhabitants robbed and beaten. It is claimed by the Jewish

community that the consequent losses amounted to over 10,000,000

rubles. Many of the poorest families were robbed of their shoes and

blankets. Hundreds of Jews were arrested and deported from the city.

Some of them were herded into box cars and kept without food or water

for four days. Old men and children were carried away without trial or

investigation. Two of these prisoners have since died from the treatment

they received. Included in this list were some of the most prominent

Jews of Wilna, such as the eminent Jewish writers, Jaffe and Niger. For

days the families of these prisoners were without news from them and

feared that they had been killed. The soldiers also broke into the

synagogue and mutilated the sacred scrolls of the law. Up to August 3,

1919, when the mission was in Wilna, none of the soldiers or civilians

responsible for these excesses had been punished.

(6) Kolbuszowa, May 7, 1919.

For a few days before May 7, 1919, the Jews of Kolbuszowa feared that

excesses might take place, as there had been riots in the neighbouring

towns of Rzeszow and Glogow. These riots had been the result of

political agitation in this district and of excitement caused by a case

of alleged ritual murder, in which the Jewish defendant had been

acquitted. On May 6 a company of soldiers was ordered to Kolbuszowa to

prevent the threatened trouble. Early in the morning of May 7 a great

number of peasants, among whom were many former soldiers of the Austrian

Army, entered the town. The rioters disarmed the soldiers after two

soldiers and three peasants had been killed. They then proceeded to rob

the Jewish stores and to beat any Jews who fell into their hands. Eight

Jews were killed during this excess. Order was restored when a new

detachment of soldiers arrived late in the afternoon. One of the rioters

has since been tried and executed by the Polish Government.

(7) Czestochowa, May 27, 1919.

On May 27, 1919, at Czestochowa, a shot fired by an unknown person

slightly wounded a Polish soldier. A rumour spread that the shot had

been fired by the Jews, and riots broke out in the city in which Polish

soldiers and civilians took part. During these riots five Jews,

including a doctor who was hurrying to aid one of the injured, were

beaten to death and a large number were wounded. French officers, who

were stationed at Czestochowa, took an active part in preventing further

murders.

(8) Minsk, August 8, 1919.

On August 8, 1919, the Polish troops took the city of Minsk from the

Russian Bolsheviks. The Polish troops entered the city at about 10

o’clock in the morning, and by 12 o’clock they had absolute control.

Notwithstanding the presence in Minsk of Gen. Jadwin and other members

of this mission, and the orders of the Polish commanding general

forbidding violence against civilians, 31 Jews were killed by the

soldiers. Only one of this number can in any way be connected with the

bolshevist movement. Eighteen of the deaths appear to have been

deliberate murder. Two of these murders were incident to robberies, but

the rest were committed, to all appearances, solely on the ground that

the victims were Jews. During the afternoon and in the evening of August

8 the Polish soldiers, aided by civilians, plundered 377 shops, all of

which belonged to Jews. It must be noted, however, that about 90 per

cent. of the stores in Minsk are owned by Jews. No effective attempt was

made to prevent these robberies until the next morning, when adequate

officers’ patrols were sent out through the streets and order was

established. The private houses of many of the Jews were also broken

into by soldiers and the inhabitants were beaten and robbed. The Polish

Government has stated that four Polish soldiers were killed while

attempting to prevent robberies. It has also been stated to the mission

that some of the rioters have been executed.

7. There have also been here and there individual cases of murder not

enumerated in the preceding paragraphs, but their detailed description

has not been considered necessary inasmuch as they present no

characteristics not already observed in the principal excesses. In

considering these excesses as a whole, it should be borne in mind that

of the eight cities and towns at which striking disorders have occurred,

only Kielce and Czestochowa are within the boundaries of Congress

Poland. In Kielce and Kolbuszowa the excesses were committed by city

civilians and by peasants, respectively. At Czestochowa both civilians

and soldiers took part in the disorders. At Pinsk the excess was

essentially the fault of one officer. In Lemberg, Lida, Wilna, and Minsk

the excesses were committed by the soldiers who were capturing the

cities and not by the civilian population. In the three last-named

cities the anti-Semitic prejudice of the soldiers had been inflamed by

the charge that the Jews were Bolsheviks, while at Lemberg it was

associated with the idea that the Jews were making common cause with the

Ukrainians. These excesses were, therefore, political as well as

anti-Semitic in character. The responsibility for these excesses is

borne for the most part by the undisciplined and ill-equipped Polish

recruits, who, uncontrolled by their inexperienced and ofttimes timid

officers, sought to profit at the expense of that portion of the

population which they regarded as alien and hostile to Polish

nationality and aspirations. It is recognized that the enforcement of

discipline in a new and untrained army is a matter of extreme

difficulty. On the other hand, the prompt cessation of disorder in

Lemberg after the adoption of appropriate measures of control shows that

an unflinching determination to restore order and a firm application of

repressive measures can prevent, or at least limit, such excesses. It

is, therefore, believed that a more aggressive punitive policy, and a

more general publicity for reports of judicial and military

prosecutions, would have minimized subsequent excesses by discouraging

the belief among the soldiery that robbery and violence could be

committed with impunity.

8. Just as the Jews would resent being condemned as a race for the

action of a few of their undesirable coreligionists, so it would be

correspondingly unfair to condemn the Polish nation as a whole for the

violence committed by uncontrolled troops or local mobs. These excesses

were apparently not premeditated, for if they had been part of a

preconceived plan, the number of victims would have run into the

thousands instead of amounting to about 280. It is believed that these

excesses were the result of a widespread anti-Semitic prejudice

aggravated by the belief that the Jewish inhabitants were politically

hostile to the Polish State. When the boundaries of Poland are once

fixed, and the internal organization of the country is perfected, the

Polish Government will be increasingly able to protect all classes of

Polish citizenry. Since the Polish Republic has subscribed to the treaty

which provides for the protection of racial, religious and linguistic

minorities, it is confidently anticipated that the Government will

whole-heartedly accept the responsibility, not only of guarding certain

classes of its citizens from aggression, but also of educating the

masses beyond the state of mind that makes such aggression possible.

9. Besides these excesses there have been reported to the mission

numerous cases of other forms of persecutions. Thus, in almost every one

of the cities and towns of Poland, Jews have been stopped by the

soldiers and had their beards either torn out or cut off. As the

orthodox Jews feel that the shaving of their beards is contrary to

their religious belief, this form of persecution has a particular

significance to them. Jews also have been beaten and forced from trains

and railroad stations. As a result many of them are afraid to travel.

The result of all these minor persecutions is to keep the Jewish

population in a state of ferment, and to subject them to the fear that

graver excesses may again occur.

10. Whereas it has been easy to determine the excesses which took place

and to fix the approximate number of deaths, it was more difficult to

establish the extent of anti-Jewish discrimination. This discrimination

finds its most conspicuous manifestation in the form of an economic

boycott. The national Democratic Party has continuously agitated the

economic strangling of the Jews. Through the press and political

announcements, as well as by public speeches, the non-Jewish element of

the Polish people is urged to abstain from dealing with the Jews.

Landowners are warned not to sell their property to Jews, and in some

cases where such sales have been made, the names of the offenders have

been posted within black-bordered notices, stating that such vendors

were “dead to Poland.” Even at the present time, this campaign is being

waged by most of the non-Jewish press, which constantly advocates that

the economic boycott be used as a means of ridding Poland of its Jewish

element. This agitation had created in the minds of some of the Jews the

feeling that there is an invisible rope around their necks, and they

claim that this is the worst persecution that they can be forced to

endure. Non-Jewish labourers have in many cases refused to work side by

side with Jews. The percentage of Jews in public office, especially

those holding minor positions, such as railway employees, firemen,

policemen, and the like, has been materially reduced since the present

Government has taken control. Documents have been furnished the mission

showing that Government-owned railways have discharged Jewish employees

and given them certificates that they have been released for no other

reason than that they belong to the Jewish race.

11. Furthermore, the establishment of coöperative stores is claimed by

many Jewish traders to be a form of discrimination. It would seem,

however, that this movement is a legitimate effort to restrict the

activities and therefore the profits of the middleman. Unfortunately,

when these stores were introduced into Poland, they were advertised as a

means of eliminating the Jewish trader. The Jews have, therefore, been

caused to feel that the establishment of coöperatives is an attack upon

themselves. While the establishment and the maintenance of coöperatives

may have been influenced by anti-Semitic sentiment, this is a form of

economic activity which any community is perfectly entitled to pursue.

On the other hand, the Jews complain that even the Jewish coöperatives

and individual Jews are discriminated against by the Government in the

distribution of Government-controlled supplies.

12. The Government has denied that discrimination against Jews has been

practiced as a Government policy, though it has not denied that there

may be individual cases where anti-Semitism has played a part.

Assurances have been made to the mission by official authorities that in

so far as it lies within the power of the Government this discrimination

will be corrected.

13. In considering the causes for the anti-Semitic feeling which has

brought about the manifestations described above, it must be remembered

that ever since the partition of 1795 the Poles have striven to be

reunited as a nation and to regain their freedom. This continual effort

to keep alive their national aspirations has caused them to look with

hatred upon anything which might interfere with their aims. This has led

to a conflict with the nationalist declarations of some of the Jewish

organizations which desire to establish cultural autonomy financially

supported by the State. In addition, the position taken by the Jews in

favour of article 93 of the Treaty of Versailles, guaranteeing

protection to racial linguistic and religious minorities in Poland has

created a further resentment against them. Moreover, Polish national

feeling is irritated by what is regarded as the “alien” character of the

great mass of the Jewish population. This is constantly brought home to

the Poles by the fact that the majority of the Jews affect a distinctive

dress, observe the Sabbath on Saturday, conduct business on Sunday, have

separate dietary laws, wear long beards, and speak a language of their

own. The basis of this language is a German dialect, and the fact that

Germany was, and still is, looked upon by the Poles as an enemy country

renders this vernacular especially unpopular. The concentration of the

Jews in separate districts or quarters in Polish cities also emphasizes

the line of demarcation separating them from other citizens.

14. The strained relations between the Jews and non-Jews have been

further increased not only by the Great War, during which Poland was the

battle ground for the Russian, German, and Austrian Armies, but also by

the present conflicts with the Bolsheviks and the Ukrainians. The

economic condition of Poland is at its lowest ebb. Manufacturing and

commerce have virtually ceased. The shortage, the high price, and the

imperfect distribution of food, are a dangerous menace to the health and

welfare of the urban population. As a result, hundreds of thousands are

suffering from hunger and are but half clad, while thousands are dying

of disease and starvation. The cessation of commerce is particularly

felt by the Jewish population, which are almost entirely dependent upon

it. Owing to the condition described, prices have doubled and tripled,

and the population has become irritated against the Jewish traders, whom

it blames for the abnormal increase thus occasioned.

15. The great majority of Jews in Poland belong to separate Jewish

political parties. The largest of these are the Orthodox, the Zionist,

and the National. Since the Jews form separate political groups it is

probable that some of the Polish discrimination against them is

political rather than anti-Semitic in character. The dominant Polish

parties give to their supporters Government positions and Government

patronage. It is to be hoped, however, that the Polish majority will not

follow this system in the case of positions which are not essentially

political. There should be no discrimination in the choice of professors

and teachers, nor in the selection of railroad employees, policemen, and

firemen, or the incumbents of any other positions which are placed under

the civil service in England and the United States. Like other

democracies, Poland must realize that these positions must not be drawn

into politics. Efficiency can only be attained if the best men are

employed, irrespective of party or religion.

16. The relations between the Jews and non-Jews will undoubtedly improve

in a strong democratic Poland. To hasten this there should be

reconciliation and coöperation between the 86 per cent. Christians and

the 14 per cent. Jews. The 86 per cent. must realize that they can not

present a solid front against their neighbours if one-seventh of the

population is discontented, fear-stricken, and inactive. The minority

must be encouraged to participate with their whole strength and

influence in making Poland the great unified country that is required in

central Europe to combat the tremendous dangers that confront it. Poland

must promptly develop its full strength, and by its conduct first merit

and then receive the unstinted moral, financial, and economic support

of all the world, which will insure the future success of the Republic.

17. It was impossible for the mission, during the two months it was in

Poland, to do more than acquaint itself with the general condition of

the people. To formulate a solution of the Jewish problem will

necessitate a careful and broad study, not only of the economic

condition of the Jews, but also of the exact requirements of Poland.

These requirements will not be definitely known prior to the fixation of

Polish boundaries, and the final regulation of Polish relations with

Russia, with which the largest share of trade was previously conducted.

It is recommended that the League of Nations, or the larger nations

interested in this problem, send to Poland a commission consisting of

recognized industrial, educational, agricultural, economic, and

vocational experts, which should remain there as long as necessary to

examine the problem at its source.

18. This commission should devise a plan by which the Jews in Poland can

secure the same economic and social opportunities as are enjoyed by

their coreligionists in other free countries. A new Polish constitution

is now in the making. The generous scope of this national instrument has

already been indicated by the special treaty with the allied and

associated powers, in which Poland has affirmed its fidelity to the

principles of liberty and justice and the rights of minorities, and we

may be certain that Poland will be faithful to its pledge, which is so

conspicuously in harmony with the nation’s best traditions. A new life

will thus be opened to the Jews and it will be the task of the proposed

commission to fit them to profit thereby and to win the same

appreciation gained by their coreligionists elsewhere as a valued asset

to the commonwealths in which they reside. The friends of the Jews in

America, England, and elsewhere who have already evinced such great

interest in their welfare, will enthusiastically grasp the opportunity

to coöperate in working out any good solution that such a commission may

propound. The fact that it may take one or two generations to reach the

goal must not be discouraging.

19. All citizens of Poland should realize that they must live together.

They can not be divorced from each other by force or by any court of

law. When this idea is once thoroughly comprehended, every effort will

necessarily be directed toward a better understanding and the

amelioration of existing conditions, rather than toward augmenting

antipathy and discontent. The Polish nation must see that its worst

enemies are those who encourage this internal strife. A house divided

against itself can not stand. There must be but one class of citizens in

Poland, all members of which enjoy equal rights and render equal duties.

Respectfully submitted.

HENRY MORGENTHAU.

AMERICAN COMMISSION TO NEGOTIATE PEACE

_Warsaw, 10 August, 1919._

MY DEAR MR. PRESIDENT:

In compliance with your request to submit to you in writing the

suggestions I made to you last evening, I desire to state that the

interest of President Wilson and the citizenry of the United States was

not only to investigate the various occurrences during and after the

occupation of some of the cities in your country as well as the alleged

persecutions of the Jews, but also to ascertain the entire matter so

objectively, impartially, and disinterestedly, as to enable the

commission correctly to diagnose the difficulties and suggest a remedy.

Although our investigations are by no means completed, I have discovered

that some of the main causes of your troubles are the inevitable results

of conditions that your country has gradually drifted into, and are due

to the fact that the release of the various sections of your country

from them, to the objectionable rule by foreign potentates, came so

suddenly that it found them unprepared to face and successfully grapple

with the complicated problems resulting therefrom.

Poland, having at last had all her dreams realized, her ambitions more

than gratified, finds herself economically prostrate on her back, yet

too proud to ask for outside assistance. Her splendid pride has at all

times to be considered by anyone who wishes to be of any use to the

country. I feel that Poland possesses great resiliency, and has much

latent potentiality, and all she requires is to be given some confidence

in herself, and to be shown how to “help herself.” The new, proud Polish

republic not only requires personal liberty, but as much freedom as

possible from obligations to others for the exercise of the same. I

firmly believe that when she is enabled to do this, she will

ungrudgingly grant to her minorities the same privilege.

I am anxious to show Poland how she can rise from her prostrate position

and discover that she has adequate strength, with very little propping,

to start a brisk walk toward the goal she is aiming for--self-reliant,

successful independence. It has occurred to me that if in her earliest

steps she will permit her good friends, the other members of the League

of Nations, to assist her with tender sympathy and unselfish, fraternal

feeling, that she will be astonished at the rapidity of her progress.

You need to have proclaimed for your government, your people, and the

world, that your associates believe in you and want you to become a

strong country, and are anxious to have you promptly develop that

strength, for reasons too obvious to mention.

It has occurred to me that what you require is a proper currency system,

and sufficient funds to enable you to secure adequate raw material and

fuel that will justify your factories in starting off at full speed and

not having to fear an early suspension of their activities. And you will

have to establish some institution that will restore confidence in your

population who, as I am reliably informed, are at present hiding, and

therefore not using, a substantial part of your liquid financial

resources.

A corporation should be organized with $150,000,000 capital, the right

to subscribe should be divided, one-third to Poland, one-third to the

United States, and one-third to England, France, Italy, etc. The stock

should be paid in in instalments, particularly as to those shares

subscribed for by Polish capital, as it is desirable that the Poles be

given sufficient time so as to secure personally the benefits of the

tremendous rise in the value of your marks which would result from the

creation of this company. For this purpose I suggest five or six

instalments, extending over a year or longer. The sum of $50,000 or

$60,000 should be spent for publicity for subscriptions in all of your

newspapers, and great stress should be laid on the fact that the mass of

your people is to receive the preference in the allotment of stock. A

systematic campaign something like our Liberty Loan campaigns, should be

organized so as to create the proper sentiment in the country, to

encourage rivalry between your various large cities, and rouse the

patriotism of all your citizens. Care should be taken in the

constitution of these committees so as to make them platforms for the

promotion of better feeling amongst your people. All subscriptions of

$100 or less should be allotted in full. This would satisfy your

population that it was to be a genuine Polish people’s institution.

After a dividend of six per cent. is paid on the stock, the balance of

the profits should be divided equally between the stockholders and the

State. The profits paid to the State to be in lieu of all taxes. This

would work both ways: it would satisfy the people that the State is to

have its share, and it would satisfy the investors that they could not

be subjected, in any possible changed form of government of Poland, to

excessive taxation.

The establishment of such a corporation would at once create a large

permanent credit for Poland. This corporation could assume the

responsibility of contracts for large quantities of cotton, wool and

produce, ships, and all necessary requirements for Poland’s resumption

of activities.

Branches of the corporation should be established in all the large

cities. I believe from conversations I have had with representative men

in Wilno that they would subscribe largely to the stock, because I told

them that although America would very likely be willing to participate

in the creation of a large central institution for Poland with its

headquarters at Warsaw and branches in the larger cities, it would

certainly not be interested in a local institution in Wilno. It has

occurred to me that cities like Wilno, Lemberg, Cracow and Lodz, etc.,

would vie with each other in subscribing to this institution if they

were told that the capital allotted to their district would depend upon

their subscriptions. It would be safe to say to them that there would be

two dollars of foreign capital for every dollar that they would

subscribe.

It seems highly important that England be interested in this

corporation, because if the United States suggests its organization we

must promptly assure all other countries, including the neutrals during

the recent war, that America expects no commercial advantage over any

other country in Poland.

I deem it very desirable that the stock owned by foreigners should

contain a provision that the Polish Government, or a syndicate of which

they would approve, would have the right at any time to buy the stock

from the owners at from $125 to $150 per share. This would serve a

double purpose: it would do away with any desire on the part of the

Poles to have control of the institution from the very start, because

they would know that at any time they could secure the same, and it

would enable them to feel that this important concern could be made

entirely Polish whenever their strength justified it; and the foreign

owners would, on the other hand, feel that they would receive a proper

compensation for their risk, and they would have rendered a fine

service, not only to Poland, but to the entire world in accelerating the

development of Poland’s economic strength.

I have carefully canvassed the available material in the United States

for the president of this institution, and suggest to you that we secure

Secretary of the Interior, Franklin K. Lane. There are few men in the

United States that more deservedly possess the admiration and approval

of all Americans. He is a man who is entirely free from any financial

alliances, and therefore cannot be criticized on that score.

Incidentally, it would be of the greatest service to your government to

have one of the greatest experts in the science of government accessible

to your cabinet and functionaries. As you no doubt remember, he has not

only successfully administered that great Department of the Interior,

but also was member and chairman of the Interstate Commerce Commission

of the United States. He was selected by President Wilson as one of the

commissioners that was sent to Mexico, and for other commissions. I have

every reason to feel that President Wilson, although reluctantly, would

consent to Secretary Lane’s responding to this call.

I think that the mere announcement of the contemplation of such an

institution will electrify your people, and will replace the present

pessimism with an optimism that will astound all of us.

If you and your associates in the government of Poland approve of the

suggestion, our commission is ready and anxious to help you and such

representatives of England, France, Italy, and other countries as you

may invite to join us, promptly to work out the details and make this

thought a living thing.

With kindest personal regards,

Yours very truly,

HENRY MORGENTHAU.

HON. IGNACE PADEREWSKI,

_President of the Council of Ministers, Warsaw_.

MANDATES OR WAR?[3]

WORLD PEACE HELD TO BE MENACED UNLESS THE UNITED STATES ASSUMES CONTROL

OF THE SULTAN’S FORMER DOMINIONS

I am one of those who believe that the United States should accept a

mandate for Constantinople and the several provinces in Asia Minor which

constitute what is left of the Ottoman Empire.

I am aware that this proposition is not popular with the American

people. But it seems to me to be a matter in which we do not have much

choice. Nations, like individuals, are constantly subject to forces

which are stronger than their wills. The responsibilities which nations

inherit, like the responsibilities to which individuals fall heir, are

frequently not of their own choosing. The great European conflict in

August, 1914, seemed to be a matter that did not immediately concern us.

In two years we learned that it was very much our affair. The impelling

forces of history drew us in, and led us to play a decisive part. If we

could not keep out of this struggle, it is illogical to suppose that we

can avoid its consequences.

One of the most serious of these consequences and the one that perhaps

most threatens the peace of the world is a chaotic Turkey. Unless the

United States accepts a Turkish mandate the world will again lose the

opportunity of solving the problem that has endangered civilization for

500 years.

The United States has invested almost $40,000,000,000 in a war against

militarism and for the establishment of right. We must invest three or

four billions more in an attempt to place on a permanent foundation the

nations to whose rescue we came. An essential part of this programme is

the expulsion of the Turk from Europe and the establishment as going

concerns of the nations which have been so long subject to his tyranny.

Unless we succeed in doing this we can look for another Balkan war in a

brief period, perhaps five years.

Another Balkan war will mean another European war, another world war. It

is for the United States to decide whether such a calamity shall visit

the world at an early date. If we assume the mandate for Constantinople

and the Ottoman Empire probably we can prevent it; if, as so many

Americans insist, we reject this duty, we shall become responsible for

another world conflagration.

Perhaps the most ominous phase of world politics to-day is that new

voices are interceding in behalf of the Sultan and his distracted

domain. The Government at Constantinople is making one last despairing

attempt to save the bedraggled remnants of its empire. It has

reorganized its Cabinet, putting to the fore men who are expected to

impress Europe favourably; but it is not punishing the leaders who sold

out to Germany and murdered not far from a million of its Christian

subjects. The new Sultan has given interviews to the press, expressing

his horror at the Armenian massacres, and promising that nothing like

them shall ever occur again. More ominous than these outgivings is the

fact that certain spokesmen in behalf of the Turk are making themselves

heard in the allied countries. Again it is being said that what Turkey

needs is not obliteration as a State, but reform.

Probably the financial interests which look upon Turkey as a field for

concessions are largely responsible for this talk; the imperialistic

tendencies of certain European countries are blamable to a certain

extent, for, strange as it may seem, there are still many people in

England, France, and Italy who urge that the Turk, bad as his instincts

may be, is better than the Oriental peoples whom he holds in subjection.

If we listen to these arguments, and to the fair promises of the Turkish

Government, we shall put ourselves into the position of a society which

fails to protect itself against the habitual criminal. Every civilized

society nowadays sees to it that constant offenders against decency and

law are put where they can do no harm. Yet the Turk is the habitual

criminal of history, the constant offender against the peace and dignity

of the world, and if we permit him to remain in Europe, and to retain an

uncontrolled sovereignty, it is easy to foresee the time when a

regenerated Russia will again be dependent on him for a commercial

outlet, so that the dangerous situation of the old world-order will be

duplicated and perpetuated. We cannot hope sanely for peace unless

America establishes at Constantinople a centre from which democratic

principles shall radiate and illuminate that dark region of the world.

If we look at the Near Eastern situation we perceive that Italy and

Greece are reaching out to such distances for territory and power that

both, if their ambitions are gratified, will find themselves not only

unable to govern the new lands they have acquired, but will be greatly

weakened at home through expenditures in the maintenance of troops and

governments in their colonies. The danger is not only that the Balkans

will be more Balkanized than ever, but that Russia, too, will be

Balkanized. The only safety lies in setting up a beneficent influence

through a strong government in Constantinople, which would counteract

the intrigues and contentions of embittered rivals.

A brief survey of the history of Turkey in Europe will suffice to make

clear the danger of accepting in this late day any promises of reform

from that quarter. I have always thought that the final word on Turkey

was spoken by an American friend of mine who had spent a large part of

his life in the East, and who, on a visit to Berlin, was asked by Herr

von Gwinner, the President of the Deutsche Bank, to spend an evening

with him to discuss the future of the Sultan’s empire. When my friend

came to keep this appointment he began this way:

“You have set aside this whole evening to discuss the Ottoman Empire. We

do not need all that time. I can tell you the whole story in just four

words: _Turkey is not reformable!_”

“You have summed up the whole situation perfectly,” replied Von Gwinner.

The reason why this conclusion was so accurate was that it was based,

not upon theory, but upon experiment. The history of Turkey for nearly a

hundred years has simply amounted to an attempt to reform her. Every

attempt has ignominiously failed. Up to fifteen years ago Great

Britain’s policy in the Near East had as its controlling principle the

necessity of maintaining the independence and integrity of the Ottoman

Empire. The folly of this policy and the miseries which it has brought

to Europe are so apparent that I propose to discuss the matter in some

detail, particularly as it is only by studying this attitude of the past

that we can approach the solution of the Turkish problem of the present.

From 1853 to 1856 Great Britain and France fought a terrible,

devastating war, the one purpose of which was to maintain the

independence of Turkey. At this time the British public had before them

the Turkish problem in almost the same form as that which it manifests

to-day. As now, the issue turned upon whether they should regard this

question from the standpoint of civilization and decency, or from the

standpoint of national advantage and political expediency.

The character of the Turk was the same in 1853 that it is now; he was

just as incapable politically then as he is to-day; his attitude toward

the Christian populations whom the accident of history had placed in his

power was identically the same as it is now. These populations were

merely “filthy infidels,” hated by Allah, having no rights to their own

lives or property, who would be permitted to live only as slaves of the

mighty Mussulman, and who could be tortured and murdered at will. All

European statesmen knew in 1852 that the ultimate disappearance of the

Ottoman Empire was inevitable; all understood that it was only the

support of certain European powers that permitted it to exist, even

temporarily.

It was about this time that Czar Nicholas I applied to Turkey the name

“sick man of the East,” which has ever since been accepted as an

accurate description of its political and social status. The point which

I wish to make here is that that phrase is just as appropriate to-day as

it was then. The Turk had long since learned the great resources of

Ottoman statesmanship--the adroit balancing of one European power

against another as the one security of his own existence.

Yet, there was then a school of statesmanship, headed by Palmerston,

which declared that the preservation of this decrepit power was the

indispensable point in British foreign policy. These men were as

realistic in their policies as Bismarck himself. Outwardly they

expressed their faith in the Turk; they publicly pictured him as a

charming and chivalrous gentleman; they declared that the stories of his

brutality were fabrications; and they asserted that, once given an

opportunity, the Turkish Empire would regain its splendour and become a

headquarters of intelligence and toleration. Lord Palmerston simply

outdid himself in his adulation of the Turk. He publicly denounced the

Christian populations of Turkey; the stories of their sufferings he

declared to be the most absurd nonsense; he warned the British public

against being led astray by cheap sentimentality in dealing with the

Turkish problem.

To what extent Palmerston and his associates believed their own

statements is not clear; they were trained in a school of statesmanship

which taught that it was well to believe what it was convenient to

believe. The fact was, of course, that the British public was under no

particular hallucinations about the Turk. But its mind was filled with a

great obsession and a great fear. The thing that paralyzed its moral

sense was the steady progress of Russia.

This power, starting as a landlocked nation, had gradually pushed her

way to the Black Sea. There was something in her steady progress

southward that seemed almost as inevitable as fate. That Russia was

determined to obtain Constantinople and become heir to the Sultan’s

empire was the conviction that obsessed the British mind. Once this

happened, the Palmerston school declared, the British Empire would come

speedily to an end. It is almost impossible for us of this generation to

conceive the extent to which this fear of Russia laid hold of the

British mind. It dogged all the thoughts of British statesmen and

British publicists. There appeared to be only one way of checking Russia

and protecting the British fireside--that was to preserve the Turkish

Empire. England believed that, as long as the Sultan ruled at

Constantinople, the Russian could never occupy that capital and from it

menace the British Empire.

Thus British enthusiasm for Turkey was merely an expression of hatred

and fear of Russia. It was this that led British statesmen to disregard

the humane principles involved and adopt the course that apparently

promoted the national advantage. The English situation of 1853 presented

in particularly acute form that question which has always troubled

statesmen: Is there any such thing as principle in the conduct of a

nation, or is a country justified always in adopting the course that

best promotes its interests or which seems to do so? As applied to

Turkey it was this: Was it Great Britain’s duty to protect the

Christians against the murderous attacks of the Mohammedans, or should

she shut her eyes to their sufferings so long as this course proved

profitable politically?

I should be doing an injustice to England did I not point out that the

British public has always been divided on this issue. One side has

always insisted on regarding the Turkish problem as a matter simply of

expediency, while another has insisted on solving it on the ground of

justice and right. The party of humanity existed in the days of the

Crimean war. Their leaders were Richard Cobden and John Bright--men who

formed the vanguard in that group of British statesmen who insisted on

regarding public questions from other than materialistic standpoints.

Cobden and Bright saw in the Ottoman question, as it presented itself in

1853, not chiefly a problem in the balance of power, but one that

affected the lives of millions of human beings. It was not the

threatened aggression of Russia that disturbed them; their eyes were

fixed rather on the Christian populations that were being daily tortured

under Turkish rule. They demanded a solution of the Eastern question in

the way that would best promote the welfare of the Armenians, Greeks,

Syrians, and Jews, whom the Sultan had maltreated for centuries. They

cared little for the future of Constantinople; they cared much for the

future of these persecuted peoples. They therefore took what was, I am

sorry to say, the unpopular side in that day. They opposed the mad

determination of the British public to go to war for the sake of

maintaining the Turkish Empire.

The greatest speech John Bright ever made was against the Crimean War.

“That terrible oppression, that multitudinous crime which we call the

Ottoman Empire,” was his description of the country which Palmerston so

greatly admired. Richard Cobden had studied conditions at first hand and

had reached a conclusion identically the same as that of my friend whom

I have already quoted--that is, that Turkey was not reformable. He

ridiculed the fear that everywhere prevailed against Russia, denied that

Russia’s prosperity as a nation necessarily endangered Great Britain,

declared that the Turkish Empire could not be maintained, and that, even

though it could be, it was not worth preserving.

“You must address yourselves,” said Cobden, “as men of sense and men of

energy to the question--What are you to do with the Christian

population? For Mohammedanism cannot be maintained, and I should be

sorry to see this country fighting for the maintenance of

Mohammedanism.... You may keep Turkey on the map of Europe, you may call

the country by the name of Turkey if you like, but do not think that you

can keep up the Mohammedan rule in the country.”

These were about the mightiest voices in England at that time, but even

Cobden and Bright were wildly abused for maintaining that the Eastern

question was primarily a problem in ethics. In order to preserve this

hideous anachronism England fought a bloody and disastrous war. I

presume most Englishmen to-day regard the Crimean War as about the most

wicked and futile in their national existence. When the whole thing was

over, a witty Frenchman summed up the performance by saying: “If we read

the treaty of peace, there are no visible signs to show who were the

conquerors and who the vanquished.” There was only one power which could

view the results with much satisfaction; that was Turkey. The Treaty of

Paris specifically guaranteed her independence and integrity. It shut

the Black Sea to naval vessels, thus protecting Turkey from attack by

Russia. Worst of all, it left the Sultan’s Christian subjects absolutely

in his power.

The Sultan did, indeed, promise reforms--but he merely promised them.

Despite experience to the contrary, the British and French diplomats

blandly accepted this promise as equivalent to performance. It is

painful to look back to this year 1856; to realize that France and

England, having defeated Russia, had a free hand to solve the Ottoman

problem, and that they refrained from doing so. That absurd

prepossession that this oriental empire must be preserved in Europe

simply as a buffer state against the progress of Russia entirely

controlled the minds of British statesmen--and millions of Christian

people were left to their fate.

What that fate was we all know. The Sultan’s promises of reform, never

made in good faith, were immediately disregarded. Pillage, massacre, and

lust continued to be the chief instruments used by the Sublime Porte in

governing its subject peoples. Again the Sultan maintained his throne by

playing off one European power against another. The “settlement” of the

Eastern problem which had been provided by the Crimean War lasted until

1876.

These twenty years were not quiet ones in the Ottoman dominions; they

were a time of constant misery and torture for the abandoned Christian

populations. Great Britain and France learned precisely what the

“integrity and independence of the Ottoman Empire” meant in 1876, when

stories of the Bulgarian massacres again reached Europe. Once more

Europe faced this everlasting question of the Turk in precisely the same

form as in 1856. Again the British people had to decide between

expediency and principle in deciding the future of Turkey. Again the

British public divided into two groups. Palmerston was dead, but his

animosity to Russia and his fondness for the Turk had become the

inheritance of Disraeli. With this statesman, as with his predecessor,

Turkey was a nation that must be preserved, whatever might be the lot of

her suffering Christians. The other part, that played by Cobden and

Bright in 1856, was now played by Gladstone.

“The greatest triumph of our time,” said Gladstone in 1870, “will be the

enthronement of the idea of public right as the governing idea of

European politics.” And Gladstone now proposed to apply his lofty

principles to this new Turkish crisis. Many of us remember the attitude

of the Disraeli Government in those days. We are still proud of the part

played by two Americans, McGahan, a newspaper correspondent, and

Schuyler, the American Consul at Constantinople, in bringing the real

facts to the attention of the civilized world.

Until these men published the results of their investigations the

Disraeli Government branded all the reports of Bulgarian atrocities as

lies. “Coffee-house babble” was the term applied by Disraeli to these

reports, while Lord Salisbury, in a public address, lauded the personal

character of the Sultan. But these two Americans showed that the

Bulgarian reports were not idle gossip. They furnished Gladstone his

material for his famous Bulgarian pamphlet, in which he propounded the

only solution of the Turkish problem that should satisfy the conscience

of the British people. His words, uttered in 1876, are just as timely

now as they were then.

“Let the Turks now carry away their abuses in the only possible manner,

namely, by carrying away themselves. Their Zaptiehs and their Mudirs,

their Bimbashis and their Yugbashis, their Kaimakans and their Pashas,

one and all, bag and baggage, shall, I hope, clear out from the province

they have desolated and profaned.”

Gladstone’s denunciation stirred the British conscience to its depths.

The finer side of the British character manifested itself; the public

conscience had made great advances since 1856, and the masses of the

British people began to see the Ottoman problem in its true light.

Consequently, when Russia intervened in behalf of the Bulgarians and

other persecuted peoples, England did not commit the fearful mistake of

1853--she did not go to war to prevent the intervention. British public

opinion at first applauded the Russian armies; when, however, the Czar’s

forces approached Constantinople, the old dread of Crimean days seized

the British public once more. Again Englishmen forgot the miseries of

the Christians and began to see the spectre of Russia seated at

Constantinople. Again Great Britain began to prepare for war; the

British fleet passed the Dardanelles and anchored off Constantinople.

England again declared that the safety of her empire demanded the

preservation of Turkey, and gave Russia the option of war or a congress

at which the treaty she had made with Turkey should be revised.

Russia accepted the latter alternative, and the Congress of Berlin was

the result. This Congress could have freed all the subject peoples and

solved the Eastern question, but again civilized Europe threw away the

opportunity. At this Congress England, in the person of Disraeli, became

the Sultan’s advocate, and again the Sultan came out victorious. Certain

territories he lost, it is true, but Constantinople was left in his

hands and a great area of the Balkans and the larger part of Asia Minor.

As for the Armenians, the Syrians, the Greeks, and the Macedonians, the

world once more accepted from Turkey promises of reform. Thus Gladstone

and the most enlightened opinion in England lost their battle, and

British authority again became the instrument for preserving that

“terrible oppression, that multitudinous crime which we call the Ottoman

Empire.”

Had it not been for the Congress of Berlin it is possible that we should

never have had the world war. The treaty let Austria into Bosnia and

Herzegovina and so laid the basis for the ultimatum of July 22, 1914. It

failed to settle the fate of Macedonia, and so made inevitable the

Balkan wars. By leaving Turkey an independent sovereignty, with its

capital on the Bosphorus, it made possible the intrigues of Germany for

a great Oriental empire. No wonder Gladstone denounced it as an “insane

covenant” and “the most deplorable chapter in our foreign policy since

the peace of 1815.”

“The plenipotentiaries,” he said, “have spoken in the terms of

Metternich rather than those of Canning.... It was their part to take

the side of liberty--as a matter of fact, they took the side of

servitude.”

The greatest sufferers, as always, were the Christian populations. The

Sultan treated his promises of 1878 precisely as he had treated those of

1856. It was after this treaty, indeed, that Abdul Hamid adopted his

systematic plan of solving the Armenian problem by massacring all the

Armenians. The condition of the subject peoples became worse as years

went on, until finally, in 1915, we had the most terrible persecutions

in history.

The Russian terror, if it ever was a terror, has disappeared. England no

longer fears a Russia stationed at Constantinople and threatening her

Indian Empire. The once mighty giant now lies a hopelessly crippled

invalid, utterly incapable of aggressive action against any nation. What

her fate will be no one knows. What is certain, however, is that the old

Czaristic empire, constantly bent on military aggression, has

disappeared for ever. When we look upon Russia to-day and then think of

the terror which she inspired in the hearts of British statesmen forty

and sixty-two years ago the contrast is almost pitiful and grotesque.

The nation that succeeded Russia as an ambitious heir to the Sultan’s

dominions, Germany, is now almost as powerless.

Moreover, the British conscience has changed since the days of the

Crimean and Russo-Turkish wars. The old-time attitude, which insisted on

regarding these problems from the standpoint of fancied national

interest, is every day giving place to a more humanitarian policy.

Gladstone’s idea of “public right as the governing idea of European

politics” is more and more gaining the upper hand. The ideals in foreign

policy represented by Cobden and Bright are the ideals that now control

British public opinion. There are still plenty of reactionaries in

England and Europe that might like to settle the Ottoman problem in the

old discredited way, but they do not govern British public life at the

present crisis. The England that will deal with the Ottoman Empire in

1919 is the England of Lloyd George, not the England of Palmerston and

Disraeli.

For the first time, therefore, the world approaches the problem of the

Ottoman Empire, the greatest blight in modern civilization, with an

absolutely free hand. The decision will inform us, more eloquently than

any other detail in the settlement, precisely what forces have won in

this war. We shall learn from it whether we have really entered upon a

new epoch; whether, as we hope, mediæval history has ended and modern

history has begun.

If Constantinople is left to the Turk; if the Greeks, the Syrians, the

Armenians, the Arabs and the Jews are not freed from the most revolting

tyranny that history has ever known, we shall understand that the

sacrifices of the last four years have been in vain, and that the

much-discussed new ideals in the government of the world are the merest

cant. Thus the United States has an immediate interest in the solution

of this problem. The hints reaching this country that another effort may

be made to prop up the Turk are not pleasing to us. We did not enter

this war to set up new balances of power, to promote the interests of

concessionaries, to make new partitions of territory, to satisfy the

imperialistic ambitions of contending European powers, but to lend our

support to that new international conscience that seeks to reorganize

the world on the basis of justice and popular rights. The settlement of

the Eastern question will teach us to what extent our efforts have

succeeded.

If this mistake of propping up the Sultan’s empire is not to be made

again, either that empire must be divided among the great powers--a

solution which is not to be considered for reasons which it is hardly

necessary to explain--or one of these great powers must undertake its

administration as a mandatory. The great powers in question are the

United States, Great Britain, France, Italy, and Japan. Of these only

the first two are capable of assuming this duty. Lord Curzon has told me

personally that for political and economic reasons Great Britain cannot

assume the Ottoman mandate. Lloyd George has said essentially the same

thing. And Stéphane Lauzanne, who speaks in a semi-official capacity for

France, said, in an interview, Nov. 1, with a correspondent of the

_Times_:

“In the offer of a mandate to her, America should see more than the

selfish desire of Europe to involve her in European affairs. It is true

she fears to be the centre of intrigues and difficulties. She fears

distant complications. However, the question is nobler and higher than

that. America is an admirable reservoir of energy. She holds the secret

of that which is best in our modern life--to build largely and to build

quickly. She has youth; she has power; she has wealth; she has that

which she calls efficiency. We in Europe are old, poor, enfeebled,

divided. It would be prodigiously interesting if America, after she has

given us of her power, of her money and her material, should give us

also an example.

“And what an example it would be if America were to accept the mandate

for Constantinople! Here is a city which is one of the marvels of Europe

and of the world, which is the jewel of the Orient, and which after

twenty centuries of European civilization remains the home of wickedness

and corruption. Every one disputes possession of its hills and harbours,

and no one tries to make of it a great modern city which, rid of

international intrigues and rid of politics, would be the shining pole

of Europe. Only America can transform Constantinople; only America can

establish herself there without suspicion of bad faith and without

jealousy; only America can civilize the capital of Islam.

“To do that America has no need of regiments of soldiers or of cannon.

She has need only of her workers and her constructors. A Hoover or a

Davison would be enough. And America is full of Hoovers and Davisons.”

* * * * *

I recognize the tremendous problems which confront us in our own

country. Those problems must and will be solved. But the day is past

when the individual citizen can permit absorption in his personal

affairs to exclude the consideration of the community’s or the nation’s

well-being. A new social conscience has manifested itself. And it is

equally true that the United States, as a member of the League of

Nations, must take an active and altruistic interest in world affairs,

however pressing our own problems may seem. The European situation,

indeed, is really a part of them. Our associates in the war cannot drift

into bankruptcy and despair without involving the United States in the

disaster. The losses we would suffer in money would be the least

distressing, should the world fall into the chaos which is threatening.

If we cannot solve our own problems and at the same time help Europe

solve hers we must be impotent indeed.

So much, then, for the general principles involved; what are the

practical details of such a mandate? Last May, William Buckler,

Professor Philip M. Brown, and myself joined in a memorandum to

President Wilson outlining briefly a proposed system of government for

the Ottoman dominions. This so completely embodies my ideas that I

reprint it here, with two slight omissions:

* * * * *

“The government of Asia Minor should be dealt with under three different

mandates, (1) for Constantinople and its zone, (2) for Turkish Anatolia,

(3) for Armenia. The reason for not uniting these three areas under a

single mandate is that the methods of government required in each area

are different. In order, however, to facilitate the political and

economic development of the whole country, these three areas should be

placed under one and the same mandatory power, with a single governor

in charge of the whole, to unify the separate administrations of the

three states.

“Honest and efficient government in the Constantinople zone and in

Armenia will not solve the problems of Asia Minor unless the same kind

of government is also provided for the much larger area lying between

Constantinople and Armenia, i. e., Turkish Anatolia. Constantinople and

Armenia are mere fringes; the heart of the problem lies in Anatolia, of

which the population is 75 per cent. Moslem.