[23] Die grosse Politik der europäischen Kabinette, 1871–1914 (Berlin, 1922 et seq.), Volume VI, pp. 360–361. (A compilation of documents from the files of the Foreign Office, edited by a non-partisan commission appointed by the Government of the German Republic.) Of Bismarck’s policy in the Near East the Ex-Kaiser writes, “Bismarck spoke quite disdainfully of Turkey, of the men in high position there, and of conditions in that land.– I thought I might inspire him in part with essentially more favorable opinions, but my efforts were of little avail.... Prince Bismarck was never favorably inclined toward Turkey and never agreed with me in my Turkish policy.” W. von Hohenzollern, My Memoirs, 1878–1918 (New York, 1922), p. 27.
[24] Diplomatic and Consular Reports, No. 2950 (1902), p. 20.
[25] For information regarding the appointment of Baron Marschall to Constantinople the author is indebted to Dr. Arthur von Gwinner, who believes that the Baron was being sentenced to political exile when he was detailed to the Sublime Porte, but that his opponents overlooked the possibilities of the embassy at the Ottoman capital. Wile, op. cit., Chapter XVIII, gives a short biographical account of Baron Marschall.
[26] Cf. E. Lamy, “La France du Levant: Voyage de l’Empereur Guillaume II,” in Revue des deux mondes, Volume 150 (1898), pp. 880–911, Volume 151 (1899), pp. 315–348; E. Lewin, The German Road to the East (New York, 1917), pp. 105 et seq.; C. S. Hurgronje, The Holy War, Made in Germany (New York, 1915), pp. 70–71; The All Highest Goes to Jerusalem, being an English translation of a series of articles published in Le Rire (Paris) during 1898 (New York, 1917). In Germany the royal pilgrimage was intended to be taken seriously. Herr Heine, of the Munich Simplicissimus, was convicted of lèse majesté and imprisoned for six months for having published humorous cartoons of the Kaiser and his party on their travels. The Annual Register, 1898, pp. 255–258.
[27] The author found some difference of opinion in Germany regarding the connection between the Kaiser’s visit and the pending Anatolian and Bagdad concessions. Dr. von Gwinner denies that there was any such purpose behind the Emperor’s trip to the East—or, at least, if there was, that it was unsolicited by the promoters and not looked upon with favor by them. Dr. Helfferich, on the other hand, is convinced that His Majesty was directly concerned with the desirability of obtaining additional railway concessions for German financiers. The Kaiser himself agrees with Dr. Helfferich. Cf., My Memoirs, 1878–1918, p. 86.
[28] Cf. foreign correspondence in The Times (London), October 25, 1898, and days immediately thereafter.
[29] For an analysis of this situation see The Manchester Guardian, July 31, 1899, which took the stand that “for no sort of mercantile gain would a nation be justified in making friendly advances to the blood-stained tyrant of Armenia.”
[30] In this connection see Leonard Woolf, Economic Imperialism (London and New York, 1920), Chapter I; Ramsay Muir, The Expansion of Europe (New York, 1917), Chapter I; J. E. Spurr (editor), Political and Commercial Geology (New York, 1920), Chapter XXXII, entitled “Who Owns the Earth?”; Aspi-Fleurimont, “La Question du coton,” in Questions diplomatiques et coloniales, Volume 15 (1903), pp. 429–432; J. A. B. Scherer, Cotton as a World Power (New York, 1922). In addition, for the wider aspects of imperialism, consult H. N. Brailsford, The War of Steel and Gold (New edition, London, 1915), Chapter II; F. C. Howe, Why War? (New York, 1916), passim; Walter Lippman, The Stakes of Diplomacy (New York, 1915); J. A. Hobson, Imperialism: A Study (London, 1902).
[31] W. H. Dawson, The Evolution of Modern Germany (New York, 1908), Chapter XII. P. Rohrbach, Deutschland unter den Weltvölkern, p. 17.