BIBLIOGRAPHICAL AND EXPLANATORY NOTES
[1] Count L. Ostrorog, The Turkish Problem (Paris, 1915, English translation, London, 1919), Chapter II; Leon Dominian, The Frontiers of Language and Nationality in Europe (London, 1917); V. Bérard, Le Sultan, l’Islam, et les puissances (Paris, 1907), pp. 15 et seq.; E. Fazy, Les Turcs d’aujourd’hui (Paris, 1898); A. Vamberry, Das Türkenvolk (Leipzig, 1885); A. Geiger, Judaism and Islam (London, 1899). Regarding Arab nationalism, in particular, cf. N. Azoury, Le réveil de la nation arabe (Paris, 1905); E. Jung, Les puissances devant la révolte arabe (Paris, 1906). A fascinating tale of the Arab separatist movement during the Great War is that of L. Thomas, “Lawrence: the Soul of the Arabian Revolution,” in Asia (New York), April, May, June, 1920. Cf., also, H. S. Philby, The Heart of Arabia (2 volumes, New York, 1923).
[2] There is a wealth of material upon the problems of the Ottoman Empire during the reign of Abdul Hamid. In particular, consult the following: A. Vamberry, La Turquie d’aujourd’hui et d’avant quarante ans (Paris, 1898); C. Hecquard, La Turquie sous Abdul Hamid (Paris, 1901); G. Dory, Abdul Hamid Intime (Paris, 1901); Sir Edwin Pears, The Life of Abdul Hamid (London, 1917); W. Miller, The Ottoman Empire, 1801–1913 (Cambridge, 1913), Chapters XVI-XVIII; N. Verney and G. Dambmann, Les puissances étrangères dans le Levant, en Syrie, et en Palestine (Paris, 1900); Baron von Oppenheim, Von Mittelmeer zum persischen Golfe (2 volumes, Berlin, 1899–1900); Lavisse and Rambaud, Histoire Générale (12 volumes, 1894–1901), Volume XI, Chapter XV; Volume XII, Chapter XIV; R. Davey, The Sultan and His Subjects (London, 1897); V. Cardashian, The Ottoman Empire of the Twentieth Century (Albany, N. Y., 1908).
[3] The texts of the various treaties of capitulation may be found in G. E. Noradounghian (ed.), Recueil d’actes internationaux de l’Empire ottoman, 1300–1902 (4 volumes, Paris, 1897–1903), Volume I, documents numbers 153, 170, 196, 201, etc., ad lib., Volume II, numbers 499, 593, etc., ad lib.; also Recueil des traités de la Porte ottomane avec les puissances étrangères, 1536–1901 (10 volumes, Paris, 1864–1901), passim; E. A. Van Dyck, Report on the Capitulations of the Ottoman Empire, Forty-seventh Congress, Special Session, Senate Executive Document No. 3, First Session, Senate Executive Document No. 87 (Washington, 1881–1882); G. Pelissie du Rausas, Le régime des capitulations dans l’Empire ottoman (2 volumes, Paris, 1902–1905); A. R. von Overbeck, Die Kapitulationen des osmanischen Reiches (Breslau, 1917); W. Lehman, Die Kapitulationen (Weimar, 1917); P. M. Brown, Foreigners in Turkey, Their Juridical Status (Princeton, 1914).
[4] For an account of the establishment, functions, and operation of the Ottoman Public Debt Administration, cf. George Young (ed.), Corps de droit ottoman—Recueil des codes, lois, réglements, ordonnances, et actes les plus importants du droit intérieur, et d’études sur le droit coutumier de l’Empire ottoman (7 volumes, Oxford, 1905–1906), Volume V, Chapter LXXXV; A. Heidborn, Manuel de droit public et administratif de l’Empire ottoman (2 volumes, Vienna, 1912), Volume II; C. Morawitz, Les finances de Turquie (Paris, 1902); A. du Velay, Essai sur l’histoire financière de la Turquie (Paris, 1903), Parts V and VI; L. Delaygue, Essai sur les finances ottomanes (Paris, 1911).
[5] There were a few factories erected in Turkey by foreign capitalists, notably those of the Oriental Carpet Manufacturers, Ltd., the American Tobacco Company, and the Deutsche-Levantischen Baumwollgesellschaft. In general, however, the factory and the factory town were not common phenomena in Asiatic Turkey. An interesting account of the effects of the Industrial Revolution upon economic conditions in Turkey is that of Talcott Williams, Turkey a World Problem of Today (Garden City, 1921), pp. 268 et seq.; W. S. Monroe, Turkey and the Turks: an Account of the Lands, Peoples and Institutions of the Ottoman Empire (London, 1909), Chapter X; M. J. Garnett, Turkish Life in Town and Country (London, 1904).
[6] J. E. Spurr (ed.), Political and Commercial Geology (New York, 1921), pp. 109, 115–116, 172–173, 184–185; Anatolia, No. 17 in a series of handbooks published by the Historical Section of the Foreign Office (London, 1920), pp. 88–90.
[7] Spurr, op. cit., pp. 358–359; Armenia and Kurdistan, No. 62 of the Foreign Office Handbooks, p. 60; L. Dominian, “The Mineral Wealth of Asia Minor,” in The Near East, May 26, 1916, p. 91; E. Banse, Auf den Spuren der Bagdadbahn (Weimar, 1913), pp. 140–145; L. de Launay, La Géologie et les richesses minerales de l’Asie (Paris, 1911); R. Fitzner, Anatolien, Wirtschaftsgeographie (Berlin, 1902); P. Rohrbach, Die wirtschaftliche Bedeutung Westasiens (Halle, 1902); G. Carles, La Turquie économique (Paris, 1906); E. Mygind, “Anatolien und seine wirtschaftliche Bedeutung,” in Die Balkan Revue, Volume 4 (1917), pp. 1–6.
[8] L. Dominian, “Fuel in Turkey: an Analysis of Coal Deposits,” in The Near East, June 23, 1916, pp. 186–187; J. Kirsopp, “The Coal Resources of the Near East,” ibid., October 10, 1919, pp. 393–394.
[9] F. Maunsell, “The Mesopotamian Petroleum Field,” in the Geographical Journal, Volume IX (1897), pp. 523–532; L. Dominian, “Fuel in Turkey: Petroleum,” in The Near East, July 14, 1917; Mesopotamia, No. 63 of the Foreign Office Handbooks, pp. 34, 85–86; Syria and Palestine, No. 60 of the Foreign Office Handbooks, p. 111.
[10] Parliamentary Papers, 1921, Cmd. 675; The Near East, October 26, 1917, p. 516.
[11] Die Bagdadbahn (1903), pp. 26–28.
[12] Parliamentary Papers, 1921, Cmd. 675. For some reason or other this option was allowed to lapse.
[13] H. Woodhouse, “American Oil Claims in Turkey,” in Current History (New York), Volume XV (1922), pp. 953–959.
[14] Report of the Department of Agriculture in Mesopotamia, 1920 (Bagdad, 1921); The Cultivation of Cotton in Mesopotamia (Bagdad, 1922); “Cotton Growing in Mesopotamia,” in the Bulletin of the Imperial Institute, Volume 18 (1920), pp. 73–82.
[15] Rohrbach, op. cit., pp. 30–46.
[16] Quoted in The Near East, October 6, 1916, pp. 545–546. For an elaboration of the views of Sir William Willcocks see the following of his books and articles: The Recreation of Chaldea (Cairo, 1903); The Irrigation of Mesopotamia (London, 1905, and Constantinople, 1911); “Mesopotamia, Past, Present and Future,” in the Geographical Journal, January, 1910, pp. 1–18. For further works on the economic resources of Turkey-in-Asia consult, also, the following: K. H. Müller, Die wirtschaftliche Bedeutung der Bagdadbahn (Hamburg, 1917); L. Blanckenhorn, Syrien und die deutsche Arbeit (Weimar, 1916); L. Schulmann, Zur türkischen Agrarfrage (Weimar, 1916); A. Ruppin, Syrien als Wirtschaftsgebiet (Berlin, 1917).
[17] W. von Pressel, Les chemins de fer en Turquie d’Asie (Zurich, 1902), pp. 4–5, 52–59, etc. ad lib. For statements of the importance of von Pressel in the development of railways in Turkey cf. André Chéradame, La question d’Orient: la Macédoine, le chemin de fer de Bagdad (Paris, 1903), pp. 25 et seq.; C. A. Schaefer, Die Entwicklung der Bagdadbahnpolitik (Weimar, 1916), p. 13.
[18] Corps de droit ottoman, Volume IV, pp. 62–64.
[19] Sir H. P. Caillard, Article “Turkey” in the Encyclopedia Britannica, eleventh edition, Volume 27, p. 439; Reports of the Ottoman Public Debt (London, 1884 et seq.), passim.
[20] In Turkey all Mussulmans over 20 years of age were liable to military service for a period of 20 years, 4 of which were with the colors in the regular army. Residents in the outlying territories, notably the Arabs and the Kurds, constantly avoided military service and went unpunished because of the inability of the Government to send punitive expeditions into these regions. Railways would have produced satisfactory bases of operations for such expeditions and would have shortened their lines of communication. The Statesman’s Year Book, 1903, pp. 1168–1170.
[21] The Hedjaz Railway was a great national enterprise which indicated the strength of Moslem feeling in Turkey and which proved the desire of the Ottoman Government to construct national railways as far as capital and technical skill could be obtained. So far as Abdul Hamid was concerned, the railway was an attempt to gain prestige for his claim to the Caliphate, as well as a move to strengthen his political position in Syria and the Hedjaz. In April, 1900, the Sultan announced to the Faithful his determination to construct a railway from Damascus to the holy cities of Medina and Mecca. An appeal was issued to Mohammedans the world over for funds to carry out the work. The Sultan headed the list with a subscription of about a quarter of a million dollars, and by 1904 over three and a half million dollars had been collected. The only compulsory contributions were the levies of 10% on the salary of every official in the civil and military service of the empire. It is estimated that the contributions eventually amounted to almost fifteen million dollars. The engineers in charge of the construction were Italians, although the great bulk of the work was done by the army and the peasantry. Nearly seven hundred thousand persons were employed on the construction work at one time or another, the non-Moslems being replaced as quickly as Mussulmans could be trained to take their places. On August 31, 1908, the thirty-second anniversary of the accession of Abdul Hamid, the railway was completed to Medina, where construction was halted temporarily because of the Young Turk Revolution and the international complications which followed it. Corps de droit ottoman, Volume IV, pp. 242–244; A. Hamilton, Problems of the Middle East (London, 1909), pp. 273–292; Annual Register, 1908, pp. 328–329.
[22] Quoted by Hamilton, op. cit., pp. 274–275.
[23] Via the Bagdad Railway and the Syrian system Turkish troops could have been transported to a point less than 200 miles from Suez. A successful attack on the Canal, of course, would have severed British communications with the East. In addition, it would have given the Sultan an opportunity to attack, and assert his suzerainty over, Egypt. Dr. Rohrbach made a great point of this alleged menace to the British position in Egypt. Cf. Die Bagdadbahn, pp. 18–19; German World Policies, pp. 165–167. This program, however, would have been an altogether too ambitious one for the military strength of the Ottoman Empire, which had such far-flung frontiers to defend. In any event, British statesmen seemed to realize that the Sinai Peninsula was a formidable natural defence against an attack on the Suez Canal and that such an expedition would be merely a pin-prick in the imperial flesh. Parliamentary Debates, House of Lords, fifth series, Volume 7 (1911), pp. 601 et seq. The termination in a fiasco of the Turkish drive of 1914–1915 against the Canal confirmed this prophecy.
[24] Infra, p. 83; Kurt Wiedenfeld, Die deutsch-türkische Wirtschaftsbeziehungen (Leipzig, 1915), p. 23; Report of the Bagdad Railway Company, 1908, pp. 4–5.
[25] Cf., e.g., K. Helfferich, Die deutsche Türkenpolitik, p. 22.
[26] Persia and the Persian Question, Volume I, p. 634.