was intended at least as much to liberate Turkey from Europe as from the old Sultan. As to their relations with Christian nationahties, I saw the chasm which existed between their idea of a united Ottoman Empire whose members should enjoy equal rights, and the firm decision of Christian subjects to preserve their separate national existence, their native habits, their inherited traditions, based on concessions given some hundreds of years ago by the early conquerors of Byzantium. No, Freeman was right: complete separation was the only possible solution of the problem. I left Turkey with the impression that her fate was sealed.
But who was to profit by the coming destruction of Turkey? The most natural answer was given already by Gladstone. "It will be in the first place the Balkan nations themselves." The Balkans were to be given to the Balkan nations. Well, that was not an anti-Russian solution. The only thing Russia claimed in the Balkans in case of the disappearance of Turkey was a narrow strip of land all along the Straits, with a comparatively mixed population. But it was beyond doubt an anti-Austrian solution, because it blocked for ever the way to Salonica, and an anti-German Solution, because it completely destroyed the scheme of Berlin to Bagdad. Germany did not fail, in the famous speech of the Chancellor Bethmann-Hollweg before the Reichstag, in April, 1913, to acknowledge that it was a "disadvantage" for her. "that the position in the balance of forces, which was occupied hitherto by European Turkey," began to be "filled in part by Slav States." The Chancellor pointed out, at this date, that such a state of things might bring about
