During the Great War these views were given wide publicity by Prince
Lichnowsky, former German ambassador to Great Britain. In a memorandum,
written for a few friends but subsequently published broadcast in
Europe and America,[35] the Prince vehemently denounced the _Drang nach
Osten_ as the greatest of German diplomatic mistakes and as one of the
principal causes of the Great War. “We should have abandoned definitely
the fatal tradition of pushing the Triple Alliance policies in the
Near East,” he said; “we should have realized that it was a mistake
to make ourselves solidary with the Turks in the south and with the
Austro-Magyars in the north; for the continuance of this policy ...
was bound in time, and particularly in case the requisite adroitness
should be found wanting in the supreme directing agencies, to lead
to the collision with Russia and the World War. Instead of coming to
an understanding with Russia on the basis of the independence of the
Sultan; ... instead of renouncing military and political interference,
confining ourselves to economic interests in the Near East, ... our
political ambition was directed to the attainment of a dominant
position on the Bosporus. In Russia the opinion arose that the way
to Constantinople ran _via_ Berlin.” This was the “fatal mistake, by
which Russia, naturally our best friend and neighbor, was driven into
the arms of France and England.” Furthermore, maintained the Prince,
a policy of Near Eastern expansion is contrary to the best commercial
and industrial interests of the empire. “‘Our future lies on the
water.’ Quite right”; therefore it does not lie in an overland route to
the Orient. The _Drang nach Osten_ “is a reversion to the Holy Roman
Empire.... It is the policy of the Plantagenets, not that of Drake
and Raleigh.... Berlin-Bagdad is a blind alley and not the way into
the open, to unlimited possibilities, to the universal mission of the
German nation.”[36]
There may have been another reason for the opposition of Prince
Lichnowsky to the Bagdad Railway. As the owner of large Silesian
estates he was agrarian in his point of view. If it were true, as was
maintained, that after the opening of Mesopotamia to cultivation,
the Railway would be able to bring cheap Turkish grain to the German
market, the results would not be to the liking of the agricultural
interests of the empire. As Herr Scheidemann informed the Reichstag,
there was something anomalous in the Conservative support of the
Bagdad Railway on this score, because it was “in most violent
contrast to their procedure in their own country, where they have
artificially raised the cost of the necessaries of life by incredibly
high protective tariffs, indirect taxation, and similar methods.”[37]
Perhaps Prince Lichnowsky was somewhat more intelligent and far-sighted
than his land-owning associates!
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account