The Age of Imperialism (1900-1914)

452 Pages·2020·3.033 MB·English

by  Vladimir Moss

THE AGE OF IMPERIALISM
(1900-1914)

Volume VIII
of
AN ESSAY IN UNIVERSAL HISTORY
From an Orthodox Christian Point of View

Vladimir Moss
© Copyright: Vladimir Moss, 2020. All Rights Reserv
1
Land of Hope and Glory, Mother of the Free,
How shall we extol thee, who are born of thee?
Wider still and wider shall thy bounds be set;
God who made thee mighty make thee mightier yet…
Sir Edward Elgar, “Coronation Ode” (1902).

I reject the omnipotence of the secular state because I see it as a tyranny: others reject it
because it is not their tyranny… We made the French Revolution. Our fathers thought it was
to free themselves. Not at all: it seems it was only to change masters… We have guillotined
the King: long live the state King!.. We have dethroned the Pope: long live the state Pope!.. I
know the state. It has a long history, full of murder and blood… The state is by its nature
implacable: it has no soul, no entrails, it is deaf to pity.
Georges Clemenceau, Prime Minister of France (1903).

What is the glory of Rome and Jerusalem where all nations and races come to worship and
look back, compared with the glory of America, where all races and nations come to labour and
look forward!
Israel Zangwill, The Melting Pot (1908).

We will glorify war – the world’s only hygiene.
The Futurist Manifesto (1909)

Russia, if you fall away from your faith, as many intelligenty have already done, then you
will no longer be Russia or Holy Rus’. And if there is no repentance in the Russian people,
the end of the world is near. God will remove the pious tsar and send a whip in the persons of
impious, cruel, self-appointed rulers, who will drown the whole earth in blood and tears.
St. John of Kronstadt (1905).
The earthly fatherland with its Church is the threshold of the Heavenly Fatherland. Therefore
love it fervently and be ready to lay down your life for it, so as to inherit eternal life there.
St. John of Kronstadt (1905).

The supreme power in a pure, true monarchy is unlimited, but not absolute, for it is limited
morally by the content of its ideal.
Hieromartyr John Vostorgov (+1918).

There is no law beyond do what thou wilt; every man and woman is a star; the word of sin is
restriction.
Aleister Crawley, The Book of the Law (1904).

Socialism is the last stride in the great rebellion of mankind and at the same time the result of
its total exhaustion - the complete spiritual impoverishment of the prodigal son in the long
centuries of his wandering far from his father's home and wealth.
Semyon Ludwigovich Frank (1909).

Man’s minds were out of balance. This explained everything and, by explaining it, condoned it. The
penchant of psychology to explain the world solely in terms of the mind now received full play.
Cruelty and sexual perversion were natural outlets for frustration induced by the suppression of the id
by the ego.

2
George L. Mosse, The Culture of Western Europe (1988).

Monarchy can easily be ‘debunked;' but watch the faces, mark the accents of the debunkers.
These are the men whose tap-root in Eden has been cut: whom no rumour of the polyphony,
the dance, can reach - men to whom pebbles laid in a row are more beautiful than an arch. Yet
even if they desire equality, they cannot reach it. Where men are forbidden to honour a king
they honour millionaires, athletes or film-stars instead: even famous prostitutes or gangsters.
For spiritual nature, like bodily nature, will be served; deny it food and it will gobble poison.
C.S. Lewis.

The destiny of the Tsar is the destiny of Russia. If the tsar rejoices, Russia will rejoice. If the
tsar weeps, Russia will weep, while if there is no tsar, there will be no Russia. Just as a man
with his head cut off is no longer a man, but a stinking corpse, so Russia without a tsar will
be a stinking corpse.
St. Anatoly of Optina (1916).

In view of the prevailing, all-encompassing movement of universal apostasy, let your hand
not rise in the attempt to stop its elemental flow and progression. It is allowed by God because
of human sinfulness to overshadow Christendom and is far beyond our meagre attempts to do
something about it. Instead, ‘acquire the spirit of peace, and thousands around you will be
saved!’
St. Ignaty Brianchaninov.

May the merciful Lord defend the remnant which still believes in Him. But this remnant is
small, and getting smaller.
St. Ignaty Brianchaninov.

Nicholas II was not stupid. Nor was he nearly as weak as is commonly thought. The
dilemmas of ruling Russia were vast and contradictory, and it was an illusion to think that
simply by agreeing to become a constitutional monarch Nicholas could have preserved his
dynasty and empire.
Dominic Lieven.

Family, society, state, civilization is not a goal in itself. All this is just…, to a greater or lesser
extent, a means of achieving the main goal, the sole purpose of saving the soul.
St. Nikolai Velimirovich (+1956).

Aristocrats… legitimize themselves by a notion of quality which runs counter to the
despotism of egalitarian democracy.
Henry Kissinger.

Everyone has stopped talking: instead they importunately DEMAND that their lives must
improve, that the working day should be reduce and wages raised, and they demand this AT
ONCE. They also demand the introduction of a democratic republic AT ONCE. Russia has
become a madhouse… it’s like an epidemic of plague or cholera.
Ivan Zabelin (1905).

3
INTRODUCTION
  6

I.
 THE
 WEST:
 “LA
 BELLE
 EPOQUE”
  7

1.
 AMERICAN
 IMPERIALISM
  8

2.
 PARIS
 AND
 THE
 SYMBOLISTS
  21

3.
 THE
 DREYFUS
 AFFAIR
  25

4.
 THE
 FOUNDING
 OF
 ZIONISM
  30

5.
 FIN
 DE
 SIÈCLE
 RELIGION
  41

6.
 THE
 PSYCHOLOGISTS’
 ASSAULT
 ON
 RELIGION
 AND
 MORALITY
  46

7.
 THE
 FALL
 OF
 THE
 CHINESE
 EMPIRE
  61

8.
 THE
 BOER
 WAR
 AND
 THE
 CRISIS
 OF
 BRITISH
 IMPERIALISM
  69

9.
 AFRICAN
 GENOCIDE
  80

10.
 BRITAIN
 AND
 EUROPE
  83

11.
 WALL
 STREET,
 THE
 FEDERAL
 RESERVE
 ACT
 AND
 THE
 PRESIDENCY
  94

12.
 GLOBALIZATION
 AND
 ANTI-­‐GLOBALIZATION
  97

13.
 GERMANY,
 NIETZSCHE
 AND
 THE
 FIRST
 WORLD
 WAR
  102

II.
 THE
 EAST:
 SOWING
 THE
 WIND
  114

14.
 THE
 BOLSHEVIK/MENSHEVIK
 SCHISM
  115

15.
 THREE
 RUSSIAS:
 PETERSBURG,
 KISHINEV
 AND
 SAROV
  118

16.
 PROTO-­‐ECUMENISM
 AND
 THE
 ORTHODOX
 CHURCHES
  128

17.
 TOLSTOY
 VERSUS
 ST.
 JOHN
 OF
 KRONSTADT
  140

18.
 PEASANTS
 AND
 SOLDIERS
  151

19.
 REGICIDE
 IN
 SERBIA
  166

20.
 THE
 RUSSO-­‐JAPANESE
 WAR
  172

21.
 SAINT
 NICHOLAS
 OF
 JAPAN
  178

22.
 THE
 PRESS
 AND
 THE
 LIBERALS
  181

23.
 BLOODY
 SUNDAY
  187

24.
 THE
 STRIVING
 FOR
 CHURCH-­‐STATE
 SYMPHONY
  198

25.
 THE
 OCTOBER
 MANIFESTO
  207

4
26.
 THE
 JEWS
 IN
 THE
 1905
 REVOLUTION
  212

27.
 THE
 CHURCH
 IN
 THE
 1905
 REVOLUTION
  218

28.
 THE
 CRUSHING
 OF
 THE
 1905
 REVOLUTION
  223

29.
 RASPUTIN
  229

30.
 THE
 PRECONCILIAR
 CONVENTION
 AND
 GEORGIAN
 AUTOCEPHALY
  241

31.
 RUSSIA
 RECUPERATES
  248

32.
 ANGLO-­‐RUSSIAN-­‐GERMAN
 RELATIONS
  261

33.
 THE
 STOLYPIN
 REFORMS
  268

34.
 SIBERIA,
 THE
 FUTURE
 OF
 RUSSIA
  274

35.
 THE
 FALL
 OF
 STOLYPIN
  279

36.
 THE
 NATIONALITIES
 POLICY:
 (1)
 THE
 SLAVIC
 MAJORITY
  286

37.
 THE
 NATIONALITIES
 POLICY:
 (2)
 THE
 NON-­‐SLAVIC
 MINORITIES
  294

38.
 YOUNG
 TURKS
 AND
 YOUNG
 BOSNIANS
  304

39.
 NAME-­‐WORSHIPPERS,
 SYMBOLISTS
 AND
 OCCULTISTS
  313

40.
 VEKHI:
 THE
 ROOTS
 OF
 THE
 REVOLUTION
  323

41.
 THE
 ACTORS
 IN
 THE
 REVOLUTION:
 (1)
 THE
 JEWS
  331

42.
 THE
 ACTORS
 IN
 THE
 REVOLUTION:
 (2)
 THE
 FREEMASONS
  335

43.
 THE
 ACTORS
 IN
 THE
 REVOLUTION:
 (3)
 THE
 CHRISTIANS
  340

44.
 THE
 BEILIS
 TRIAL
  346

45.
 THE
 BALKAN
 WARS
  358

46.
 RUTHENES
 AND
 RUSYNS
  374

47.
 THE
 LAST
 YEARS
 OF
 PEACE
  382

48.
 DURNOVO’S
 MEMORANDUM
  393

49.
 GUCHKOV’S
 PLOT
  412

50.
 SARAJEVO
  418

CONCLUSION.
 EUROPE’S
 HUBRIS
 AND
 NEMESIS
  442

5
INTRODUCTION

This book is the eighth volume of my Essay in Universal History. It describes the
zenith of the power of the global European powers, which now included Germany,
Japan and the United States, the fall of the oldest empire, China, the beginning of the
reaction against imperialism in the oldest and largest of the empires, Britain, and the
complex of antagonisms between the European nations that led finally to their
reaping the whirlwind, the First World War. But the main focus is on the Russian
empire, the last major outpost of true Christianity in the world, and its titanic
struggle with the liberal and socialist revolutions, which came to a first climax in the
abortive revolution of 1905. The factors leading to the First World War and the
Russian revolution are discussed in detail: the coming catastrophe is seen as God’s
judgement on nearly 900 years of western apostasy, and over 300 years of eastern
backsliding, from the true faith, that is, Orthodox Christianity.

Through the prayers of our Holy Fathers, Lord Jesus Christ, have mercy on us!

6
I.
 THE
 WEST:
 “LA
 BELLE
 EPOQUE”

7
1. AMERICAN IMPERIALISM

Russia and America were exceptional among the empires - Russia because she
rejected the democratic ethos of the others in favour of Autocracy, and America
because she rejected the very idea of empire. In fact, she was so anti-imperial that
"when Santo Domingo (the future Dominican Republic) effectively offered itself up
for annexation in 1869, the proposal was defeated in Congress."1 And yet George
Washington had called America an “infant empire”, and that is what she was in all
but name. And in 1836 America supported Texas’ secession from Mexico, and in 1846
defeated Mexico in her first imperialist war. In the treaty that followed, “the United
States acquired half the territory of Mexico, composing the future states of New
Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, Utah and California.”2

Essentially, America was the same type of liberal empire as the British, the world's
major "anti-imperial empire", or “empire of good intentions” (Simon Schama). Like
the British, the Americans’ main motivation was commercial gain. But – again like
the British – they claimed to bring civilization and Christianity to the pagans. As
Ezra Stiles, president of Yale University, said as early as 1783: “Navigation will carry
the American flag around the globe itself, and display the Thirteen Stripes and New
Constellation at Bengal and Canton… and with commerce will import the wisdom
and literature of the east… A time will come when six hundred millions of the
human race shall be ready to drop their idolatry… should American missionaries be
blessed to succeed in the work of Christianizing the heathen, in which the
Romanists and foreign Protestants have very much failed…”3

By the later part of the nineteenth century the Americans had even overtaken the
British in industry, thanks to the techniques of standardization of parts and mass
production. "In 1870," writes Landes, "the United States had the largest economy in
the world, and its best years still lay ahead. By 1913, American output was two and a
half times that of the United Kingdom or Germany, four times that of France.
Measured by person, American GDP surpassed that of the United Kingdom by 20
percent, France by 77, Germany by 86."4

The distribution of wealth in America was very unequal. “In its distribution of
wealth and income,” writes Robert Tombs, “Victorian England was probably
comparable with Germany, but much less unequal than Russia and America, where
both new and inherited wealth reached unique heights: in 1900 the richest American
had at least twelve times as much money as the richest Englishman.”5

The only major way in which the Americans differed from the British (apart from
pretending that they didn’t have an empire) was their refusal to accept the gospel of
Free Trade. “Between 1846 and 1870,” writes Martin Wolf, “liberalization spread
from the United Kingdom to the rest of Europe. Protectionism, which had never

1 Ferguson, Colossus: The Rise and Fall of the American Empire, London: Allen Lane, 2004, p. 41.
2 M.J. Cohen and John Major, History in Quotations, London: Cassell, 2004, p. 616.
3 Stiles, in Cohen and Major, op. cit., p. 619.
4 Landes, The Wealth and Poverty of Nations, London: Abacus, 1999, p. 307.
5 Tombs, The English and their History, New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2014, pp. 487-488.
8
waned in the United States, returned to continental Europe after 1878 and reached
its peak in the 1930s.”6

Only in Britain did the dogma of free trade still rule – although there was a
furious debate over it in the early twentieth century, with the Conservative Joseph
Chamberlain arguing that some protectionism was useful in order, first, to
consolidate the empire in a single free trading block (“imperial preference”), and
secondly to allow the income gained from tariffs to be spent on welfare. But he lost
the argument, allowing the Liberals to gain a landslide victory in 1906.

For their further development, however, it was essential that the Americans settle
scores with the British; for the two nations had twice warred against each other in
the past, and the British with their powerful navy remained the only power that
could seriously contest American domination in the Western Hemisphere. In 1846
they agreed that their frontier in the disputed north-west should be the 49th parallel,
which became the longest undefended border in the world. British non-intervention
in the American Civil War had the important consequence of initiating a growing
reconciliation between the two nations that had often warred against each other in
the past, a process facilitated by marriages between American heiresses and English
aristocrats (as between Winston Churchill’s parents, and between Lord Curzon and
his wife), and by the Anglophilia of great American writes such as Henry James.

“Until 1865,” writes Dominic Lieven, “London believed with reason that it could
defend its position in the Western Hemisphere by force if necessary and thereby
sustain a balance of power in the region.”7 Indeed, as late as 1890, writes Henry
Kissinger, “the American army ranked fourteenth in the world, after Bulgaria’s, and
the American navy was smaller than Italy’s, a country with one-thirteenth of
America’s industrial strength. As late as the presidential inaugural of 1885, President
Grover Cleveland described American foreign policy in terms of detached neutrality
and as entirely different from the self-interested policies pursued by older, less
enlightened states. He rejected ‘any departure from that foreign policy commended
by the history, the traditions, and the prosperity of the Republic. It is the policy of
independence, favored by our position and defended by our known love of justice
and by our power. It is the policy of peace suitable to our interests. It is the policy of
neutrality, rejecting any share in foreign broils and ambitions upon other continents
and repelling their intrusion here.’

By the end of the century America was beginning to translate her economic power
into military might and diplomatic clout. That clout was displayed in 1895, when, as
David Cannadine writes, “President Grover Cleveland sent to Congress what was in
effect an ultimatum to the British government concerning another long-standing
border dispute in the western hemisphere, that between British Guiana and
Venzuela. Invoking the Monroe Doctrine, which had declared that no European
powers should intervene in the affairs of the Americas, Cleveland peremptorily
insisted that a United States commission would decide on the contested boundary,
and that their decision would be accepted and indeed imposed, by force if needs be,
regardless of how the British government might respond. This was a serious

6 Wolf, “Will the Nation-State Survive Globalization?’ Foreign Affairs, January/February, 2001, p. 183.
7 Lieven, Towards the Flame. Empire, War and the End of Tsarist Russia, London: Allen Lane, 2015, p. 23.
9
challenge to the United Kingdom’s transatlantic position and possessions. Cleveland
duly appointed his commission, with which the Salisbury administration, having no
alternative, deemed it prudent to co-operate. As on previous occasions, the issue was
referred to international arbitration; and as it turned out, the principal British claims
were confirmed when the award was finally promulgated in October 1899.”8

The American Secretary of State was blunt in telling the British what the new
calance of power in the Western Hemisphere was. “To-day the United States is
practically sovereign on this continent, and its fiat is law.” America’s “infinite
resources combined with its isolated position render it master of the situation and
practically invulnerable as against any or all other powers.”

“America was now a major power, no longer a fledgling republic on the fringes of
world affairs. American policy no longer limited itself to neutrality; it felt obliged to
translate its long-proclaimed universal moral relevance into a broader geopolitical
role. When, later that year, the Spanish Empire’s colonial subjects in Cuba rose in
revolt, a reluctance to see an imperial rebellion crushed on America’s doorstep
mingled with the conviction that the time had come for the United States to
demonstrate its ability and will to act as a great power, at a time when the
importance of European nations was in part judged by the extent of their overseas
empires…”9

As a result of the Spanish-American War that then took place, America vaulted
herself into the ranks of the major powers. The British chose not to contest this.
Indeed, in 1899, on the occasion of the Americans’ annexation of the Philippines,
Rudyard Kipling wrote a famous poem, “passing on the baton”, as it were, from one
liberal empire to another:

Take up the White Man's burden —
Send forth the best ye breed —
Go bind your sons to exile
To serve your captives' need;

Britain was glad to pass on “the White Man’s burden”, not only because it was
heavy in itself, but also because, as Lieven writes, by 1900 “Britain faced an
increasing number of competitors at a time when it had long ceased to be the only
industrial economy in the world. In these circumstances, any confrontation with the
United States would be a disaster. In the twenty years around the turn of the century,
Britain conceded hegemony in the Western Hemisphere to the United States,
appeasing the Americans by giving way on a series of issues concerning competing
interests in Brazil, Venezuela, and Panama. German observers noted sourly but
correctly that the British tolerated behavior and rhetoric from the Americans that
would have led to furious protests and even war had they come from continental
Europeans. Although British wooing of the Americans was by no means always
reciprocated on the other side of the Atlantic, the Germans knew that in a
competition for American goodwill the English had many advantages, beginning but
by no means ending with their shared language.

8 Cannadine, Victorious Century. The United Kingdom, 1800-1906, London: Viking, 2017, p. 434.
9 Kissinger, World Order, London: Penguin, 2015, pp. 245-246.
10