of all countries, in one form or another, to a larger or smaller extent,
providing it above all with intelligent leaders, arms and pecuniary
means, the so-to-say international side of our revolutionary movement
becomes perfectly clear, and at the same time reveals those forces which
the Imperial Government must combat, as well as the factors of State and
public life abroad, on which it must rely in this struggle.
Starting from the idea set out above, namely, that our revolutionary
movement is being actively supported and partly directed by the forces
of universal Jewry, we also discover with great probability the
organising and intellectual centre where the main supports and feeding
organs of the militant hostility to the Government in Russia are hiding
themselves. That is the famous pan-Jewish universal union established in
the year 1860, the "Alliance Israélite Universelle," with a Central
Committee in Paris, which possesses gigantic pecuniary means, disposes
of an enormous membership, and is supported by the Masonic lodges of
every description (according to some reports, they have again been
carried into Russia in recent years), which represent the obedient
organs of that universal organisation.[61][E] The principal aim of the
"Alliance Israélite Universelle"--the all-round triumph of
anti-Christian and anti-monarchist Jewry (which has already taken
practical possession of France) by means of Socialism which is to serve
as a bait for the ignorant masses--could not but find the State system
of Russia--a land of peasants, Orthodoxy and monarchism--an obstacle in
its path. Hence the fight against the existing Government, which was
started with consummate calculation at the very moment of our greatest
weakness brought about by the Japanese war. That is also why the chief
watchword of this inexorable campaign at the present moment is
universal, equal, direct and secret suffrage; that is to say, it fights
for a principle which if recognised by the Government would bring about
immediately, even before the meeting of the State Duma, the complete
removal of the existing historical-legal impediments to the triumph of
Jewry in Russia, though their complete abolition is not likely to be
welcome to the future chosen men of the Russian land either.
The said factors, which support the fight of the revolutionary elements
against the Imperial Government from abroad, also afford on the other
hand the opportunity of recognising those forces by whose joint work a
favourable soil for a successful struggle with international
revolutionary Socialism might be created. As a matter of fact, there can
be no doubt that, in accordance with the main considerations set out
above, the universally organised international revolutionary Jewry must
be confronted by other enemies, apart from Russia, who by that alone
must become the friends and allies of the Imperial Government.
Anti-monarchist Jewry, sustained by money, cannot help undermining in
every way the Monarchical German Empire, sustained by its material
power. On the other hand, owing to a tradition centuries old, the
universally organised anti-Christian Judaism cannot help seeing an
irreconcilable enemy in the only Christian community that is likewise
organised on a universal and centralised basis, viz. the Roman Catholic
Church.
It seems, therefore, that the friendly relations which have recently
been brought about so happily between the Imperial Government and the
German Empire,[F] as well as the Holy See, are destined to exercise a
very beneficent influence with regard to the anti-monarchical and
anti-Christian revolutionary movement in Europe.
As for the Vatican, it must be remembered first of all that the
Protestant Government of Germany has recognised long ago the full
importance of the Holy See for the defence of the traditional
foundations of European culture. While in its internal policy, it is
leaning on the Catholic Centre-party, it has necessarily arrived at a
friendly accord with the Pope in its foreign policy as well. As for
Russia, the friendly assistance of the Vatican might likewise prove to
be of supreme importance just in the sense indicated above. Even apart
from the authoritative influence of the Holy See, through the medium of
the local clergy, especially in our Polish affairs--in this respect, the
latest Encyclical of the Pope to the Bishops of Poland presents a
significant step in meeting the wishes of the Russian Government--the
Vatican could render us an invaluable service by communicating
matter-of-fact data on the dissolving Jewish freemasonry organisation
and its branches, whose threads converge in Paris--an organisation about
which our Government is unfortunately but little informed, whereas the
Vatican is sure to watch its activity in the most attentive manner.
As for Germany, on the other hand, any further approach of its
Government towards Russia--and one of a still closer nature than the
agreement founded on the Protocol of March 1st, 1904, on combating
Anarchism--would meet with unqualified sympathy at Berlin, since it
cannot be overlooked that, next to Russia, Germany is undoubtedly the
first State that will have to sustain the struggle with the
Social-Revolutionary party. Both the Government and Society in Germany
already take note at the present moment with the greatest apprehension
of the indubitable effect of the Russian events on the Social-Democratic
and Labour question, not to mention the movement of specific hostility
to the Government in the Provinces of Prussian Poland.
Indeed, the West-European Socialists of various nationalities do not
consider it any longer necessary to make a secret of their intention to
inaugurate in this very month of January 1906, a movement hostile to the
Government of Germany--which is to reach its highest development on the
1st of May 1906--and has already started it in Prussia and in Saxony
with the self-same watchword of "Universal Suffrage." It could hardly be
doubted that behind this movement--which they intend to organise, in
accordance with the resolutions passed by the Socialist Congresses held
at Jena and Breslau, by the same means as in Russia--there stand in
reality the above indicated international aims and considerations of
principle, that is to say, the same anti-Christian and anti-monarchical
factors which had likewise been and are still in operation in the
Russian revolutionary movement. At any rate, according to an observation
by the _Deutsche Tageszeitung_, which has made it its special aim to
organise the fight against the impending general European revolution,
the more candid publicists of Social-Revolutionary tendencies are
already expressing unceremoniously their hope that the Russian movement
of hostility to the Government only presents a prelude to that general
European upheaval which, among other things, is to destroy utterly the
monarchical order of contemporary Europe. When one places oneself on
this standpoint, one cannot help perceiving in everything said above
nothing else but partial manifestations of a general revolutionary
scheme the menace of which is not confined to Russia, and which,
according to the formula of the well-known Liebknecht, consists
essentially in realising a Republic in politics, Socialism in economics,
and Atheism in the domain of religion.
In view of the considerations set forth above, no doubt can remain as to
the absolute necessity of a confidential and sincere exchange of views
on our part, in the sense indicated above, with the leading spheres both
at Berlin and Rome. It could become the foundation of a most useful
joint action, first, for the purpose of organising a vigilant
supervision, and then also for an active joint struggle against the
common foe of the Christian and monarchical order of Europe. As a first
step in the said direction, and for the purpose of elucidating the main
principles for a future programme of joint action, it seems to be
desirable to confine ourselves for the present to a quite confidential
exchange of views with the German Government.
(Signed) COUNT LAMSDORF.
Negotiations must be entered into _immediately_. }
I share entirely the opinions herein expressed. } Endorsement in the
} Tsar's handwriting.
TSARSKOYE SELO, }
_January 3rd (O.S.) 1906_. }
(Translated from the Russian text in vol. vi. of "Secret Documents,"
published by the Soviet Commission of Foreign Affairs.)
* * * * *
NOTES.
[A] _Supra_, p. 56 (note).
[B] How these pogroms were organised by the Russian Secret Police will
be found described from authentic documents in Semenoff: _The Russian
Government and the Massacres_.
[C] This is not quite accurate. The object of the Committee was to
assist the Self-Defence groups of Russian Jews in resisting the pogroms.
No arms were exported to Russia, as the groups in question, and indeed
the Russian Revolutionists themselves, found it quite easy to purchase
arms from the Imperial Russian magazines.
[D] This also is quite untrue, as the published accounts of the Funds
show.
[E] Freemasons will be able to judge of the accuracy of this statement.
It will suffice to say here that it is as untrue as it is ludicrous. The
same remark applies to the absurd reference to the Alliance Israélite.
[F] This is clearly a reference to the Bjoerkoe interview and shows that
M. Izvolsky was in error when he stated that the Agreement resulting
from the interview was disapproved by Count Lamsdorf. (See interview
with M. Izvolsky in _Le Temps_, September 15, 1917.)
III. INTERVENTIONS BY RIGHT.
(_a_) STATUS OF JEWS IN FOREIGN COUNTRIES.
Not all the diplomatic interventions on behalf of Jews have proceeded on
humanitarian grounds. Through the political assimilation of the Jews
with the populations among whom they dwell, and more particularly
through their emancipation in the various countries of Western Europe
and America, they have acquired the same rights in foreign countries
under International Law and treaties as their Christian fellow-citizens.
Unfortunately this has not been universally recognised, and it has
frequently happened that, when they travelled into countries where
Jewish disabilities still lingered, they were held liable as Jews to
ill-treatment from which their Christian fellow-countrymen were free.
The question of the legality of this ill-treatment arose at an early
date.
In 1556, the Jews in the Papal States suffered a terrible persecution at
the hands of the fanatical Pope Paul IV. This culminated in the
imprisonment of all the Marranos or Crypto Jews of Ancona, and their
sentence to the stake. At that time the most influential Jews in Europe
were the Mendes or Nasi Family of Portugal and the Low Countries, the
head of which was the famous Donna Gracia Nasi. Her son-in-law, who
afterwards became Duke of Naxos in the service of the Porte, for whom he
conquered Cyprus, was the Rothschild as well as the Disraeli of his
day.[62] The Italian Jews sent piteous appeals to Donna Gracia, who was
then settled in Constantinople. She at once addressed herself to the
reigning Sultan, Solyman the Magnificent, and entreated his
intervention, on the ground that the Marrano Jews in Ancona were for the
most part Turkish subjects. The appeal was well conceived, for the
Sultan was outraged by the idea that subjects of his could be maltreated
by a foreign potentate. He promptly responded (March 9, 1556) by sending
an ultimatum to the Pope, demanding the immediate release of his
unjustly accused lieges, under pain of reprisals on the foreign
Christians within his own dominions.[63] The Turk in those days was not
in the habit of treating Christian States with an excess of ceremony,
and the Pope realised the wisdom of complying with the ultimatum. He
revenged himself, however, by burning those of the prisoners who could
not be shown to be Turkish subjects.[64]
This incident is of peculiar interest for its bearing on the still much
debated question of the political status of Jews in the lands of their
"Dispersion." The Turkish Jews in 1556 seem to have had no doubt that
they were full nationals of the Ottoman Porte and as such entitled to
the protection of the Turkish Sultan. The precedent, however, was far
from decisive. In other circumstances other views have prevailed. Thus
in 1655, when the Commonwealth declared war on Spain, and an order was
issued for the confiscation of the property of Spaniards in England,
some of the Spanish Crypto Jews, then resident in London, appealed
against the order on the ground that their national status was that of
Jews and not that of Spaniards. This plea was allowed by the Admiralty
Commissioners, to whom it was referred, and they discharged the orders
made against the appellants.[65]
The question slumbered for a century and a half, and when it reappeared
the Turk was again on the side of the light. In 1815, there was a
dispute on this subject between Austria and Turkey. At that time the
Jews of Turkey were treated better than the Jews of Austria. Austria
applied to Turkish Jews visiting her territories the disabilities
imposed upon her own Jews. Turkey protested on the ground that,
according to the treaties--mainly the Treaty of Carlowitz--in force
between the two powers, Austria had no right to make any distinction
between Turkish Jews and other subjects of the Ottoman Porte. This
contention was held to be valid by the Austrian Government, and the
incident was terminated by the issue of an instruction to the police of
Lower Austria, where the disabilities complained of were in force,
ordering them to treat all Turkish subjects alike without distinction of
race or creed.
The Treaty of Carlowitz by which this case was governed left very little
option to the Austrian Government,[66] inasmuch as the reciprocity for
which it stipulated was not based, as in other treaties, on what is
known as "National treatment," that is to say that the nationals of each
contracting party visiting the territories of the other shall be treated
on the same footing as the nationals of the territories they visit. The
reason, no doubt, was that the racial and religious heterogeneity of
both Empires, and the differential treatment to which it gave rise in
their respective internal administrations, could not be recognised
internationally without grave risk of friction and controversy. The
lesson was not lost on other States, especially those which desired to
maintain their differential treatment of Jews as against the doctrine of
undenominational Nationality which was chiefly championed by France. The
result was a strengthening of the "National treatment" clause of
commercial treaties, and this, with the progress of religious liberty,
led to a succession of fresh international disputes.
For many years, curiously enough, the chief offender was the democratic
Swiss Confederation, the Federal constitution of which was exclusively
Christian, while the Cantonal legislation was in many cases frankly and
even aggressively anti-Semitic. Until 1827 the Swiss Commercial Treaties
contained no hint of religious differentiation, but in that year,
availing themselves of the reactionary and clerical sympathies of the
government of Charles X, the Federal Authorities negotiated a Treaty
with France containing a "National treatment" clause, under which the
powers of the separate Cantons to deal as they pleased with Jews were,
in effect, reserved. But this was not all. Lest the clause should be
misinterpreted, the French Minister at Berne was authorised to address a
secret Note to the President of the Swiss Diet acknowledging that it
implied the desired restriction, on "the Jewish subjects of the
King."[67] The transaction was obviously one which could not stand the
light of the Revolution of 1830, and when three years later the
Government of the Canton of Basle applied the Treaty in all its rigour
to French Jews, the Duc de Broglie, then French Minister for Foreign
Affairs, issued an Ordinance suspending the operation of the Treaty in
regard to the offending Canton, and followed this up by severing
diplomatic relations and by placing a military cordon on the
frontier.[68] The King himself approved the action of his Minister in an
energetic speech to a deputation of the Consistoire Israélite. However,
in 1835 the Ordinance was withdrawn, and until 1850 the peace was more
or less preserved by a tacit _modus vivendi_.
The resistance of France was rendered difficult, partly by perplexities
of general politics, but more immediately by the fact that the question
was a larger one than it had at first appeared. In February 1840 a
French Jew had been refused a _permis de séjour_ by the police of
Dresden on the ground that Jews were not permitted to reside in the
city. The case was precisely similar to that of Switzerland, and M.
Guizot, who was then Foreign Minister, hesitated to take up a strong
attitude as he was afraid that the precedent might involve him in
complications with other countries.[69] Nevertheless, French public
opinion was aroused, and the Chamber, after a lively debate, called upon
the Government to make suitable representations to Saxony.[70] In 1850 a
Commercial Treaty between the United States and Switzerland was signed
at Berne, but the American Senate, on the advice of the President,
refused to ratify it because it discriminated against
non-Christians.[71] This was followed almost immediately by a revival of
the anti-Semitic activity of the Basle police, chiefly at the expense of
French Jews resident in the Canton. The French Government again
protested energetically and insisted on the withdrawal of the police
measures. The demand was sulkily complied with, the Cantonal Government
reserving what they called "the principle."[72]
In 1855 a new phase of the conflict was opened by the negotiation of two
further Commercial Treaties with Switzerland--one by Great Britain and
the other by the United States--in both of which the invidious
reservations, substantially as in the French Treaty of 1827, were
retained.[73] Some mystery attaches to the circumstances in which these
treaties were signed and ratified,[74] but the probable explanation is
that the Swiss negotiators promised in effect that there should be no
discrimination. This conjecture is confirmed by the action of the
Federal Assembly in the following year, in proposing a modification of
the Constitution by which equal rights should be accorded to the Jews in
all the Cantons. Unfortunately not all the Cantons agreed,[75] and in
1857 American public opinion became much excited at the discovery that
in the Canton of Neufchatel American citizens of the Jewish faith could
not be protected by American passports.[76] From this time until 1861
the United States took the place of France as the champion of Religious
Liberty in Switzerland, and was strongly supported by Great Britain.[77]
Her efforts, however, were not successful, and it was still reserved for
France to settle the question.
The opportunity presented itself when in the early sixties, under the
influence of Cobden and Chevalier, France denounced all her Commercial
Treaties. In negotiating the new Treaty with Switzerland she resolutely
set her face against all discriminations, or possibilities of
discrimination, between French citizens on the score of religion. The
result was that she obtained in her new Treaty (June 30, 1864) a form of
article without precedent in instruments of the kind.[78] In place of
"National treatment," French citizens in Switzerland "without
distinction of creed" were assured the same treatment as was accorded to
"Christians."[79] This striking victory was speedily followed by the
abolition of all Jewish disabilities throughout the Confederation.[80]
A series of more formidable cases of the same kind arose at a later
period out of the disabilities imposed on Jews in Russia. The Powers
mainly affected were the United States and Great Britain. Both had
Treaties of Commerce with Russia, the American Treaty having been
concluded in 1832 and the British in 1859. Both Treaties contained, in
substantially the same form, articles guaranteeing reciprocal "National
treatment" to the subjects of the High Contracting parties. There is,
however, an extraordinary contrast in the interpretation of these
Treaties by the British and American Governments respectively.
The question first came up for consideration in 1862. Certain British
Jews resident in Warsaw complained that the disabilities imposed upon
native Jews were also imposed upon them, and they appealed to Her
Majesty's Government for protection. Lord John Russell held that the
articles of the Treaty of 1859, by which British subjects in Russia and
Russian subjects in England were to be treated on an equal footing with
the nationals of those countries, did not mean that British Jews in
Russia should be treated as British subjects, but that they should only
have equal treatment with their oppressed co-religionists. He
accordingly declined to seek any relief for the petitioners.[81] The
case gave rise to no controversy, not only because the British and
Russian Governments were at one in their interpretation of the Treaty,
but because the facts were not made public at the time. It proved,
however, a fatal and humiliating precedent. In 1880 a terrible era of
persecution was inaugurated for the Jews of Russia, and it soon reacted
on their foreign brethren visiting the country. Towards the end of the
year a naturalised British Jew named Lewisohn was expelled from St.
Petersburg because he was a Jew, and he invoked the protection of his
Government. Lord Granville, who was then Foreign Secretary, was at first
disposed to regard the expulsion as a violation of the Treaty,[82] but
later on he became acquainted with the precedent of 1862, and he
declined to depart from it.[83] In 1890, at the instance of the Jewish
Conjoint Committee, Lord Salisbury submitted the question to the Law
Officers of the Crown, with the result that the precedent set by Lord
John Russell was confirmed on its merits and not--as in the case of Lord
Granville--_quâ_ precedent only.[84] The last occasion on which an
effort was made to obtain a reversal of this decision was in 1912. The
Conjoint Committee addressed to the Secretary of State, Sir Edward Grey,
an elaborate Memorandum reviewing the history and legal aspects of the
question.[85] The reply was in effect a reaffirmation of the previous
decisions, but the grounds on which it was rested were different. Sir
Edward Grey did not discuss the reasonableness of the established
interpretation, but he pleaded that any departure from it would only
lead to the termination of the Treaty, and that this would serve neither
British nor Jewish interests.[86]