Austria Is Envious Of Servia's Success.

New York Times 100 years ago today, January 5, 1913:
Fears Effect of Her Sudden Rise to Power on the Serbs of the Dual Kingdom.
PROF. PUPIN EXPLAINS WHY
Calls Her Fears of a Struggle Between the Eastern and Western Churches Preposterous.
BY PROF. M. I. PUPIN.
    In my article, "The Balkan Revolution and Austria," published in The New York Times of Dec. 8, I pointed out that the Balkan Federation is the climax of the South Slavonic movement far National emancipation which started in the Serbo-Croatian Republic of Ragusa during the sixteenth century, and, in spite of Austria's fierce opposition, gradually spread over Croatia, Servia, and Bulgaria.
    Austria's repressive policy against the national aspirations of the Southern Slavs, as I pointed out and as everybody versed in European politics knows well, is in perfect harmony with her present attitude toward the Balkan allies, and it cannot be otherwise if her greedy policy of expansion toward the Aegean Sea, her well-known "Drang nach Osten," is to be carried out.
    But now comes Mr. Alexander Konta, who, in The New York Times of Dec. 22, gives an entirely different and extremely strange interpretation of Austria's present attitude. He introduces himself as a man who enjoys the highest confidence of the Austrian Foreign Office, and I must assume that he is its mouthpiece. He says: "On the morrow of the annexation of Bosnia and 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."
    I rejoice that my article induced Mr. Konta to come out with the following fantastic and most remarkable tale which "that bold and successful statesman, the late Count Aehrenthal." confided to him. Said the great statesman, according to Mr. Konta:
    "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 the civilization they have created."
    Having divulged this latest brainstorm product of the Austrian Foreign Office, Mr. Konta exclaims dramatically: "Here, indeed, is food for thought." Yes, there is, indeed, a great deal of "food for thought" if one could only be bold enough to swallow it.
    There was a time when Panslavism was offered by the Austrian Foreign Office as a carefully prepared "food for thought," but Europe soon discovered that the Panslavism offered by the Austrian Foreign Office was not the same article as that conceived by some of the noblest Slavonic intellects, like Palatzky and Rieger of Prague. Their Panslavism was an intellectual union and co-operation between the Slavs, whereas the Panslavism of the Austrian office was an Eastern peril, threatening to swallow up not only Austria, but the whole of Europe and Asia, and so the poor Bohemians and Slovaks, and, in fact, all the Slavs in Austria, had to suffer for their alleged Panslavism, as Austria defined it, very much as the early Christians had to suffer for their Christianity as pagan Rome defined it.
    But the game soon played out; Austria saw that Europe would not swallow this "food for thought" as Austria cooked it because it was adulterated, and so it was struck off the menu of the Viennese cuisine. Mr. Konta does not offer it even as a side dish.
    Five years ago, when Austria violated the treaty of Berlin by annexing Bosnia and Herzegovina, the cooks of the Austrian Foreign Office invented a new dish, which was to be served as "food for thought" to the enlightened world. It was the South Slavonic conspiracy against the Austrian Empire. It originated in Servia, so they asserted in Vienna, and threatened to involve all the Southern Slavs.
    The clever cooks in the Ballplatz cuisine produced State documents to prove that their new dish was genuine and really great stuff. But it was proved in court that these documents were forged by the chefs of the Viennese cuisine, Baron Forgach and Count Aehrenthal, and everybody saw plainly that this alleged diabolical "food for thought" was served for the purpose of reconciling the world to Austria's violation of the Treaty of Berlin and to Austria's brutal and fierce attack upon Servia and upon many most prominent Southern Slavs. Mr. Konta avoids most carefully every reference to this notorious Austrian "food for thought."
    Panslavism and the alleged South Slavonic conspiracy having failed as "foods for thought," Mr. Konta recommends now a new dish prepared by the resourceful chefs of the Ballplatz cuisine. It is called the "struggle between the Eastern and the Western Churches." Mr. Konta represents himself as an expert sampler of new "foods for thought" prepared in the Austrian Foreign Office cuisine, and here is his clever recommendation of it:
    "The Czar is the spiritual head of the Eastern Church, which is the implacable enemy of Roman Catholicism and Protestantism and the Hebrew faith. * * * 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 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."
    In other words, the Czar and his host of 200,000,000 of orthodox fanatics in Russia, Servia, Bulgaria, Rumania, Greece, Montenegro, and Austria, are, according to Mr. Konta and the Austrian Foreign Office, threatening the destruction of Western civilization, and Austria has put on her shining armor, being in the first line of defense against the many-headed modern Hydra, ready to strike and cut off at once one of its horrible heads — Servia.
    This, then, is Austria's strange argument against Servia's retention of the little Adriatic harbor of Durazzo! This is the "food for thought" which she offers to the mental directness and hard common sense of the American people!
    I am afraid that this latest product of the Viennese cuisine will be even less popular than Austria's phantom Panslavism and the mythical South Slavonic conspiracy.
    Servia opposes to this fantastic Austrian argument only this:
    She needs, and has always needed, an outlet to the sea for economic development and economic emancipation. She has historical claims to Durazzo and to several other harbors on the Adriatic, and she has won them back from the Turks in a fair and square fight.
    Mr. Konta calls this Servia's swelled head. Let the world judge on whose side is sincerity and right.
    There is, however, one part of our population — I mean our Jewish fellow-citizens — who might find in Mr. Konta's menu some "food for thought." They have, as it is well known, a holy horror of Russia and the Russian Church. The mere mention of these subjects to them is like shaking a red rag at a bull. Mr. Konta is evidently aware of that, and he skillfully handles his subject of the "Eastern Church peril" so as to mislead the followers of the Hebrew faith into accusing every orthodox church, including the orthodox churches of Servia, Bulgaria, Montenegro, and so forth, of the same crimes of which they long ago accused the Russian Church.
    I am not acquainted with matters in Russia and cannot say what weight should be attached to these charges against the Russian Church. I can speak, however, with considerable authority on the subject of the orthodox churches in Servia, Bulgaria, Montenegro, and Austria. They are absolutely independent of the Church of Russia and of each other. The Czar of Russia is not their spiritual head, as one who is not particularly cautious might infer from Mr. Konta's inspired essay.
    Servia, Bulgaria and Montenegro are truly constitutional and democratic kingdoms, in which the people enjoy perfect religious freedom. Jew, Moslem, Catholic, and Protestant have exactly the same privileges as the orthodox. Race prejudice is smaller in these countries than anywhere else in the world. For 500 years the Southern Slavs have been listening to the sermons of the South Slavonic minstrel, the Gouslar, who recited to them their famous folk songs in which was preached the gospel of struggle against the Turk for the "honored cross and golden liberty."
    When the Southern Slav finally succeeded in establishing a government of his own in the Balkans, he interpreted the Gouslar's gospel of the "honored cross and golden liberty" as meaning perfect religious liberty and political freedom for all. I challenge anybody to cite a single case of religious persecution in Servia, Bulgaria, or Montenegro. An incident which occurred a short time ago will be mentioned here, because it throws much light upon this subject.
    A young Belgrade Jew, an officer in the Servian army, distinguished himself in the battle of Koumanovo. He was sent later with his company of soldiers to occupy an Albanian village which had stuck out a white flag and surrendered arms. But in the dead of night, when all were asleep, the treacherous Albanians brought out their hidden arms, crawled up like hungry hyenas and murdered every one of the brave soldiers and their distinguished Jewish officer. The officer's body was brought to Belgrade and buried with great military honors. All Belgrade, Orthodox and Hebrew, joined the funeral procession, and the bells of the Orthodox Cathedral at Belgrade accompanied the hymn of praise which the Jewish Choral Society of Belgrade was singing as they followed the dead Jewish officer to his heroic grave.
    Did the bells of St. Stephan's Cathedral in Vienna ever perform a function of this kind? Please, Mr. Konta, answer this question!
    Mr. Konta ridicules Servia's leadership in the South Slavonic movement. He maintains that the Austro-Hungarian Serb looks upon the Serb in Servia as his backward relation of whom he is not proud, and that even the Serbs in Bosnia and Herzegovina are far in advance of the Serbs in Servia in material prosperity, security, and education. This is absolutely contrary to fact. There is no real poverty in Servia, and that is shown in a measure by the fact that there is no emigration from Servia. There are not more than 500 immigrants in this country from Servia; whereas, poverty has driven nearly 3,000,000 Southern Slavs from Bosnia, Herzegovina, Dalmatia, Croatia, Carniola, and the southern parts of Hungary, to the United States. Emigration to America has actually created many maleless villages in these provinces.
    The Moslem feudal system is still in existence in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Austria has not yet touched the great agrarian problem in these provinces, and why should she, when feudalism is still rampant in some of her largest old provinces, like Hungary? Servia, as well as Bulgaria, solved this problem as soon as the Moslem rule was abolished in these countries. Material prosperity of the people is possible, and actually exists in these two democratic kingdoms; it does not and cannot, exist in semi-feudal Austria-Hungary.
    As for security, alas, there is a great deal of that in Bosnia and Herzegovina, if Mr. Konta means by that the numerous gendarmes and the omnipresent soldiers which Austria keeps there, in order to terrorize the population and prevent them from expressing freely their wishes and their desires for the unalienable rights of man.
    That kind of security is security for the Government officials, who are there to enforce the Government imposed upon the poor Bosnians and Herzegovinians against their own will and in spite of their most bitter protests. But there cannot be any talk of personal security in provinces full of intrigue and espionage, where fifty-three respectable Serbs can be imprisoned and kept there for two years and ruined, physically and financially, all on account of a fictitious conspiracy which was based upon forged documents of the Austrian Foreign Office.
    In her educational administration of Bosnia and Herzegovina Austria has failed completely. Prof. Pvijich, a recognized authority of world-wide reputation, shows by reference to Austrian official documents that these two unfortunate provinces not only cannot be compared with Servia and Bulgaria in educational matters, but that they are far behind even Macedonia. His essay on the annexation of Bosnia and Herzegovina and that of Dr. Baerenreiter, a pro-Austrian authority, show clearly the lamentable condition of these provinces in educational matters. In other South Slavonic provinces the educational conditions are similar. Illiteracy among the South Slavonic immigrants from Austria to this country is too well known to need any further discussion.
    The national movement, kept alive and intensified by Austria's iniquitous rule, has stirred the soul of the Austrian Southern Slav to its deepest depths. He knows that the Serb in Servia and Montenegro is the natural leader of this movement and he accepts him as such most enthusiastically. Austria knows that, too, and it is this knowledge which makes her hysterical at the sight of Servia's and Montenegro's sudden glorious rise to power.
    There is no necessity, Mr. Konta, to drag in Russia and the Czar as the head of the fanatical Orthodox Church threatening Western civilization. This kind of game has been played too often by the Austrian Foreign Office, and while it may be suitable for the nursery to scare little children and make them behave, it is really silly to address it to the intelligence of the civilized world.