Germany, Turkey and Zionism, 1897-1918 PDF
Preview Germany, Turkey and Zionism, 1897-1918
G E R M A N Y , T U R K E Y , A N D Z IO N IS M 1897— 1918 GERMANY, TURKEY, AND ZIONISM I 8 9 7 — I 9 I 8 ISAIAH FRIEDMAN OXFORD AT THE CLARENDON PRESS 1977 Oxford University Press, Walton Street, Oxford 0x2 top OXVOID LONDON OLASOOW NIW TOOK TORONTO MELBOUINB WELLINGTON IBADAN NAIROBI DAI VSALAAM LUSAKA CAPETOWN KUALA LUMPUR SINGAPORE JAKARTA HONG KONG TOKYO DELHI BOMBAY CALCUTTA MADRAS KARACHI © Oxford University Press 1977 A ll rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in anyf orm or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or other wise, without the prior permission of Oxford University Press Published with the assistance of the Alexander Kohut Memorial Foundation of the American Academy for Jewish Research British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data Friedman, Isaiah Germany, Turkey, and Zionism, 1897-1918 i. Jews in Palestine 2. Zionism—Germany 3. Germany—Foreign relations— 1888-1918 I. Tide 956.94 004 924 ISBN O-I9-822528-8 Printed in Great Britain at the University Press, Oxford by Vivian Ridler Printer to the University TO BARBARA AND JONAH Preface T his work is an expansion of my doctoral dissertation, ‘Germany and Zionism, 1897-1917*, presented to the University of London in 1964. Although urged to publish it in its original form, I felt, rightly or wrongly, that not until I had exhausted all the material available should the work appear in print. My ambition was to present a comprehensive and definitive study, but I was not aware of the price I would have to pay. The difficulty was compounded further when, in the course of writing, I became involved in another study which subsequently appeared under the title The Question of Palestine, 1914-1918: British-fevpish-Arab Relations (London, New York, 1973). Thus for a number of years I was pregnant with twins, unable to forecast which of the two would be bom first, if at all. According to the rules, Germanyy Turkey, and Zionism should have been the first-bom, but The Question of Palestine usurped the right of primogeniture. The reception accorded it by scholars and critics in all parts of the world reassured me that the child did not come into the world unwanted, but to all those who were eagerly await ing the appearance of Germanyy Turkey, and Zionism I owe an apology. The two books are complementary. To appreciate the phenomenal rise of Zionism as a factor on the international scene during the First World War, one should study simultaneously the political processes taking place on both sides of the fence. It was the competition of the belligerent powers to win the goodwill of world Jewry that put Zionism on the map. Inevitably a comparative study invites a re assessment of accepted views and stereotyped notions. Heretofore the spotlight in history books was directed on to the British Zionists, and on Weizmann and Sokolow in particular. Having studied the archival material, I felt that a correction of this imbalance was long overdue and that the German Zionists deserved to be rescued from the obscurity into which they had fallen. Had it not been for their skilful diplomacy and persistent efforts in rallying the support of the American, but primarily of the German, Government, the Yishuv viii Preface would not have survived the war. In a judenrein Palestine the Balfour Declaration would have been of little consequence. That the Germans should have emerged as the saviours of the Jews and the Zionists’ chief protectors may startle the reader as it startled me. Yet the frequency of communications—literally tens of thousands of dispatches and cables were exchanged between Berlin, Constantinople, and Jerusalem—is sufficient proof that this was no casual aspect of German policy. The German Government had a stake in the Yishuv’s survival. Propaganda apart, they discovered in Zionism an instrument for the solution of the Jewish problem in Eastern Europe in the aftermath of the war, and a means to advance their own interests in the Orient. When writing The Question of Palestine I had the benefit of Leonard Stein’s masterful The Balfour Declaration, though the documents I used were new and my conclusions different. But with Germany y Turkey, and Zionism I had no similar advantage. I had no predecessors and the material on which I was working was virgin soil for research. It was an exacting and time-consuming task to read well over 20,000 microfilmed frames, but many fine gems were discovered. The official German records, when collated and cor roborated with documents from the Zionist archives as well as with contemporary diaries and memoirs, offered a wealth of data, with the help of which it was possible to construct a comprehensive story. Among the published sources I am particularly indebted to Richard Lichtheim’s memoirs She'ar Yashuv (Tel Aviv, 1953) in Hebrew, and Rückkehr (Stuttgart, 1970) in German. Verification and com parison with the German and Zionist documents proved them to be most accurate. The numerous original letters reproduced there add particular weight to Lichtheim’s book. The same qualities of re liability characterize the Herzl Diaries. Their spontaneous nature, compelling frankness, and the fact that Herzl had no opportunity to re-edit or correct them substantiate our credence. I have limited myself specifically to the diplomatic history of German-Zionist relations in the given period and have brought other Powers into the picture only when I thought it was necessary. Turkey figures prominently in my book and this was why I finally decided to mention her in the title. I regret that I was unable to study the Ottoman archives, an omission for which, I hope, the readers will forgive me. It would have made the book too long and postponed its publication ad infinitum. The Ottoman documents require a Preface IX special study which, I understand, is currently being carried out by a scholar at the Hebrew University, Jerusalem. In the method of handling the material I have followed the well-trodden path of other scholars, especially of my distinguished teachers at the London School of Economics. The documents have been meticulously tested, collated, corroborated, and only then was the whole body of evidence integrated and narrated. I had no preconceived opinions. My approach was pragmatic and my views were formed in the course of the study; facts alone determined my conclusions. Whenever there was no conflicting evidence I considered it more appropriate to pass judgement, rather than to remain non committal. I do not claim infallibility, and the reader is at liberty to accept or ignore my opinions, but the last thing of which I can be accused is omission or conscious suppression of any data which do not fit into my thesis or seem to me unpalatable. With the horrors of the holocaust under the Nazi regime still fresh in our minds, it is practically impossible for our generation to approach any subject dealing with German-Jewish relations with the required composure and detachment. But passions were never a good guide in historio graphy. As a humble student of history I acknowledge the wisdom of my Alma Mater's motto: Rerum Cognoscere Causas.
The list of books you might like
