The Attitude Of Austria In The Eastern Question.

New York Times 100 years ago today, December 22, 1912:
She Is Making Every Effort to Check Russia's Progress to the Adriatic Through the Balkan Allies, Says Alexander Konta.By Alexander Konta.
    HISTORY in the making is strangely written down. Just now, to listen to the spokesmen of the Servian propaganda in this country, and to their American sympathizers, the Balkan problem will be settled definitively if only Servia is allowed to take Durazzo on the Adriatic, and she and her allies receive a free hand in dividing the peninsula to suit themselves, which, by the way, would be a far easier matter than dividing it to suit each other. In all this argument for the historic rights of Serb nationalism, history itself — five centuries of its work — is ignored in its main, significant outlines, and quoted only in so far as certain phases of it favor present aspirations. Strangest of all in this strange writing — and orating — of history in the making is the studied avoidance, and probably the genuine ignorance, of all these busy enthusiasts of the real Eastern question in its modern aspect. The practical disappearance of the Turk from Europe will not settle the Balkan problem. It will merely enter upon a new and far more serious phase.

The Old Eastern Question.
    Europe has always had an Eastern question, a danger from the Orient. There was an Eastern question when Xerxes led his troops to Thermopylae and sent his fleets to destruction at Salamis. There was an Eastern question when Rome trembled before Hannibal at her gates. There was an Eastern question when Charles Martel smashed the conquering Moors at Tours. The question antedated Christianity; it will still vex Europe after Islam has been eliminated from it altogether. The threat of the East has thus far always yielded to the determination, the valor of the West. The struggle may have been decided in a single battle; it may have gone on for centuries; the result thus far has always been the same. From John Sobieski before Vienna to Ferdinand of Coburg before the Tchataldja forts there is a stretch of more than two centuries. The Turk was but the latest incarnation of this danger from the East; he will not be the last.
    So fast did this once formidable threat to Europe dwindle, once its advance had been stopped, that statesmen began to make it a safe pawn on the chessboard of their politics. The Great Frederick did not scruple to seek an offensive alliance with the Sultan when sorely beset in the Seven Years' war. The Great Catharine forced Austria to turn anew her watchful eyes toward Constantinople; the rôle played by Turkey in European diplomacy during the nineteenth century is familiar to all. Cross and Crescent were forgotten, the Eastern question became in the councils of Europe a purely diplomatic one, to be kept in status quo, for further use and always deferred settlement.
    To keep that status upright, England, to use Lord Salisbury's words, "backed the wrong horse," and, allied with France, fought a bloody war for Turkey against Russia. The net result was that the astute Cavour, by participating in this struggle, gave to the little kingdom of Sardinia standing among the great powers of Europe. The "Sick Man," having learned the ins and outs of this status quo game, became unspeakable and intolerable once more; Russia punished him, divided his dominions, gave to Bulgaria the lion's share, and was stopped in her hidden move toward the Mediterranean at the Congress of Berlin. Since that day the diplomatic intrigues for predominance at Constantinople went on more assiduously than ever. Germany entered the field, ousted England and Russia, and held it until Italy embarked on its Tripolitan adventure. It was the beginning of the end — not of the Eastern question, but of its latest, its Turkish form.
    The sudden sweep southward of the Balkan principalities was a magnificently planned coup, kept secret till the last moment, then carried out with a courage and dash that well deserve the admiration they have won. The great powers were taken by surprise. Those wards of Europe, hitherto "consulted about and without," exploded in a brief campaign the military prestige of Turkey, still further exposed the hollowness of the threat of a holy war, an exposure; that the Italian "campaign" had begun, and were ready to discuss peace terms before the Triple Alliance and the Triple Entente had time to come to a clear understanding regarding their action in the matter.
    They have won, the Bulgarians, the Servians, and Greeks and Montenegrins; they have won, but at such great sacrifice and by so narrow a margin that it is doubtful if they could hold what they have gained if Turkey were to refuse their peace terms and to resume the war. Still, the Turkish Eastern question may be assumed to have become a part of the past. It cannot be revived once more in its nineteenth-century form.

The New Eastern Question.
    To the casual observer, his sympathies enlisted with the daring conquerors in their sudden burst of heroism, it may appear that nothing remains now to be done except to allow the victors to divide the spoils, and thus to end a long and bloody chapter in the history of Europe. Interference with their plans and aspirations by the great powers seems to him an injustice that cries to Heaven, to be protested against, to be prohibited by public opinion the world over. As a matter of fact, the Eastern question is European, not local, now as much and even more than ever. The international interests involved are too great, and they are growing greater and more complicated from day to day.
    It was in 1903, if I remember aright, that my friend Noury Bey, Secretary General of the Foreign Minister, told me that the Young Turk movement would be sure to win in the end, but that the change of régime would produce an interregnum of chaos that might in some way or other involve dangers so great that he preferred not to speculate upon them. That he was thinking of what has come to pass I do not believe for a moment; rather did he seem to look toward Tripoli, and to the advance of Russia in Asia Minor, if not from the north. Certain it is that he attempted to send his daughter's out of the country; Abdul Hamid stopped them at the frontier and invited him to drop in for a friendly cup of coffee. Noury Bey died quite suddenly. I have forgotten the diagnosis of his ailment.
    To return to the present juncture of affairs, however, to the Serb propaganda in this country, and to the condition that confronts the rulers of the Balkan principalities in the hour of their triumph. With all respect for the vaunted ability of King Peter of Servia, it is the astute Coburg at Tchatalja who is the dominant, the guiding figure in the situation. He alone appears to understand clearly that in this Eastern question, in the new phase of it on which it is about to enter, only two courses are open to him and his allies if they would survive — subserviency to Russia or the assurance of being left in peace by adherence to the central European powers. The rumors that he and, before him, the King of Rumania have taken steps toward joining the Triple Alliance have this basis of truth, that they are sound politics, in the best interests of their respective countries.
    I have already pointed out that the Balkan question, the Turkish question, long ago ceased to be a religious one. I will now add that the very elimination of Islam from the eternal problem will, paradoxically enough, once more make it a religious one. And for this statement I have the authority of that bold and successful statesman, the late Count Aehrenthal.

Aehrenthal's Words.
    On the morrow of the annexation of Bosnia-Herzegovina, in January, 1909, I was in Vienna at the request of the Ballplatz, as the Austro-Hungarian Foreign Office is usually called. I had a long interview with Count Aehrenthal, who did me the honor of taking me into his confidence, not in the diplomatic, but in what I might call the historico-philosophical sense of the word. He summed up the gist of the matter in a few sentences, so pregnant with meaning, so enlightening of the future, in view of the past, that they impressed themselves indelibly upon my memory. Said the great statesman:
    "The Eastern question will continue to exist after the Turk has been driven from Europe. Its new phase is already overshadowing the old one, but western Europe does not yet see it as clearly as we do here, and America may be long in discerning it. To call it a new Eastern question would be incorrect, for it is in reality the revival of a struggle older than that between Christianity and Islam. I mean the struggle between the Eastern and the Western Churches, between the reactionary, tyrannical, unprogressive Russian Orthodox Church and Roman Catholicism and Protestantism and civilization they have created."
    Here, indeed, is food for thought, and the explanation of Austria-Hungary's intemperately denounced attitude in the present juncture of affairs in the Balkans, it throws light upon much recent history in the making, upon so much history made in the recent past. The Czar is the spiritual head of the Eastern Church, which is the implacable enemy of Roman Catholicism and Protestantism and the Hebrew faith, the merciless persecutor of all non-conformity, of religious liberty in every form, the real power behind the Russian throne, far stronger than the bayonets which it directs and commands at will. Its energies it directs in self-preservation, and the lust of conquest against the civilization of the West in all its forms, material, intellectual and spiritual — the West from which the Russian "intelligenzia" draws its inspiration and its gospel of better things. This Greek Orthodox Church keeps the moujik in his millions devout, devoted, and so ignorant that the men who would labor for his betterment are as strangers to him, speaking a strange tongue, preaching treason to the Little Father for whom he prays. To this Church all means are good. It appeals to Panslavism, it cultivates the Greek Orthodox Churches in Rumania, Bulgaria, Servia, and Greece; it seeks to surround Austria-Hungary from the south as it already surrounds it from the east and the north, for against the advance of this new Eastern danger, as against the old, the Dual Monarchy stands in the first line of defense. Hence Austria's determined stand on the question of the control of the Eastern shore of the Adriatic. She will not, she cannot afford to be outflanked. And Servia in Durazzo would mean Russia in disguise.
    This determination, not to be hemmed in from the south, is not an act of wanton enmity, an arbitrary abuse of power — it is a political necessity, a measure of self-defense. Servia would never have taken its defiant stand if Russia had not encouraged it for her own steady, undeviating purpose. It is well known in Europe that the Czar's Minister at Belgrade has encouraged King Peter and his councillors in the course they have taken with lavish promises of support. Russian diplomacy never hesitates to disown its agents when the complications of the hour require it. So we may learn at any time that the representative in question has been recalled for grossly exceeding his instructions.
    Russia will not go to war for Servia, but the turmoil in the Balkans will serve for some time longer to distract attention from her proceedings in Mongolia. Moreover, Austria-Hungary might have yielded. But the dual monarchy stands firm, and so, for the moment, and not for the first time, Servia will be left to her fate. Her real interest lies with Austria-Hungary — with the Triple Alliance — as the rulers of Rumania and Bulgaria already know, but in the present state of her nationalistic exaltation she cannot see this. Neither can her supporters abroad.
    "The history of Russia in the Balkans is one long betrayal. She is young, she can wait; there is no need to take great risks. To-morrow she can try again. So, if she fails, she leaves her tools in the lurch for the moment, to resume her intrigues at a more favorable moment She abandoned Servia to Turkey's mercy, she did not even make terms for her, when she concluded a hasty peace with the Porte as Napoleon crossed the Niemen just a century ago. She rewarded her ally, Rumania, who had saved her from defeat in 1877, by robbing her of Bessarabia. She tried to ruin Bulgaria when she could no longer rule her, but Servia has not yet learned her lesson.
    The future of the young nationalities of the Balkans lies with the West, not with the East. To-morrow Russia will be to them what Turkey was in centuries gone by — the ruthless conqueror — unless they see the light.

About the Serbs.
    But for the moment Austria is being denounced in unmeasured terms for her oppression of brave little Servia, for her opposition to the rightful aspirations of a race, for her determination not to allow Russia to hem her in on the Adriatic under cover of the Servian flag. To add picturesqueness and effectiveness to the pro-Servian propaganda in this country, Servia has been represented as a smaller Japan, lifted to the American level of civilization, imbued with American ideals by her returned immigrants. And, to make the case against Austria blacker still, those good old stand-bys, the Jesuits, have been dragged into the matter as the sinister instigators of it all. It is very simple: The Jesuits rule the Ballplatz; the Ballplatz will not let Servia hold Durazzo; therefore the Jesuits do not want the Servians there. Q.E.D. How patient the Ballplatz has been under it all remains still to be told. Last of all, the infamous accusation has been made in all seriousness that Greek atrocities in Macedonia have been systematically instigated by Austrian agents!
    Let us take a look at these Macedonian atrocities, through one of those impassive, phlegmatic, slightly bored publications denounced by Bismarck as incompatible with practical politics — a British Government Blue Book. I quote at random from hundreds of reports to Sir Edward Grey:

    Panayot Lascari, a Greek, in charge of a Turkish farm, was murdered by Greeks for his too friendly attitude toward the Bulgarians. A Greek band attacked the Bulgarian village of Zihovo, burnt several houses and barns, killed sixteen villagers, wounded four, and carried off six others, who are believed to have been killed.
    The Greek schoolmaster, Dimitri Nikolaon, was murdered at Boriovo by Bulgarians.
    At Kotchinovo seven villagers, including two women, were murdered by a Bulgarian band.
    Resho Yorghevitch, a Servian teacher of Chucher, was murdered by two Albanians.
    A Servian band burnt three Bulgarian houses in the village of Belakovtsa. The Bulgarians in retaliation burned a Servian house.

    Except for the massacre at Karadja Keuy, the Greek bands have shown a decreasing activity. The Bulgarians have maintained their expectant attitude except in the Uskub district, where they have been provoked to reprisals by the Servian bands.
    No wonder that eye-witnesses described the excesses of Greeks and Bulgars on the night of the surrender of Salonika as "a good imitation of St. Bartholomew's Night" and a "huge pogrom," for, of course, the moment the Jew passed out of the protection of the Turk under the power of Orthodox Greek Christians, brethren in faith of the Russians, his safety of life and
    goods reached an end. This orgy of lust and blood and arson and plunder, it should be added, was the work not of the regular troops but of the Greek and Bulgarian "Macedonian bands," accompanying both armies as irregulars. No war has been more carefully censored than this one. The facts are only now coming to light by mail, often in necessarily circuitous ways.
    No doubt Austria's agents were responsible for the horror at Salonika, too. According to a statement made in this city, every Austrian Consul in the Balkans was an agent provocateur of this stamp. This accusation may be needed later as an explanation, if not as an excuse, of the ill-treatment, the mutilations of some Austrian Consuls by the Servians, the details of which are openly discussed in the dual monarchy but have been officially suppressed by the Government. They are, indeed, unprintable, and plainly prove that the Serb lived with the Turk for many centuries. Yes, Austria has been a model of patience in the face of wanton provocation.
    And now fur a few plain facts about the Servian and his civilization. Up to a few weeks ago the Austrian and Hungarian Serbs looked upon their ethnic brethren in the little kingdom as backward relations. They certainly were not proud of them then, whatever they are now. In Bosnia-Herzegovina, too, the Serbs were, and still are, far in advance of the Servians in material prosperity, security, and education. Here, too, vague, general accusations of cruel oppressions have been made against Austria, but in reality Baron Kallay, the Governor of these provinces for many years, was a just and able, as well as a firm, administrator. When he died those expert judges of great pro-consuls, the English, were unanimous in their praise of what he had achieved and established on a durable basis. But to-day the backward Servians, their hands dripping Macedonian blood, the unspeakable details of their murders of Alexander and Draga still unforgotten and unatoned for, would pose as the leaders and liberators of their poor, oppressed brethren in Austria and Hungary!

Austria-Hungary's Services.
    This is not the first occasion on which I have pointed out the services rendered by the dual monarchy to the Servian principality in the past. It was Austria-Hungary which counteracted Russian intrigue under the reigns of Milan and his son, for the latter of whom St. Petersburg plotted to substitute one of its Grand Dukes. Austria-Hungary stopped Alexander of Bulgaria after his victory at Slivitza. She bore with equanimity the aggressive defiance of Servia at the time of the annexation of Bosnia-Herzegovina. To-day she is waiting with almost superhuman patience until the "swelled head" of Belgrade returns to its normal size, until its eyes are opened to the Russian danger and its real interests, perhaps by its Bulgarian ally and his Rumanian neighbor. Meanwhile Servian officers are advocating "a straight. march" on Vienna, openly boasting at the same time of bands of Slavs, organized on the Macedonian plan, all the way from the frontier to Vienna!
    Let us look back a little further still into the history of the Balkans for some more of those facts about which current writers and speakers on Servian wrongs are so carefully silent, or so profoundly ignorant. In the early struggles of Christianity with Islam Hungary bore the brunt of the battle. Pressed by the Germans in the West, attacked by the Czechs in the North, she stood alone in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries against the conquering Turk. Then would have been the time for the Servian race to assert itself, but the little principalities into which its once powerful empire had broken up preferred to pay tribute to Constantinople. It was, by the way, the Hungarians who laid the foundations of Belgrade; it was one of their greatest fighters, the famous John Hunyadi, who made it a stronghold of the first rank against the invaders from the South. Servian nobles were always found in great numbers fighting in the Hungarian armies, but the race as a whole remained supine.
    In the eighteenth century the number of these revolted exiles had become so great that they often formed the backbone of the Austrian troops in Turkish campaigns. But all this, both the sins of National omission and the acts of individual brave service against the common enemy under Austrian and Hungarian leadership, is forgotten to-day or passed over in silence. The Serbs in the dual monarchy shared its increasing safety and prosperity after having shared its hardships and dangers. The Servians, having let many a chance to assert themselves go by between the break-up of their empire and the beginning of the nineteenth century, fell behind them in all the arts and privileges and rewards of civilization. None doubts their courage to-day or refuses to pay it homage, but as leaders of a national renascence they are, to those who know them well, as yet decidedly immature, to put it very, very mildly.
    As for Panslavism, it is a useful word for Russia's purposes. That Austria has played poor politics at home by encouraging particularism, all kinds of nationalisms, on the principle of divide et impera; that she has played the same shortsighted game in Hungary, there can be no doubt. But the fact remains that, with all the international disorders his course has caused, the Austro-Hungarian Slavs, whether they be Poles or Czechs, Slovaks or Croats or Serbs, will not hesitate a moment when confronted with the choice between Austro-Hungarian "oppression" and the liberal, enlightened rule of the self-constituted leader of their cause — Russia. And perhaps Servia, like Bulgaria and Rumania, will come to take the same view, even though it should have to reduce its claim on Durazzo to practically equivalent but less resplendent commercial advantages and guarantees.