line of demarkation separating them from other citizens.

My critic states that the Jew in Poland does not need or desire outside tuition as to the modern conception of religious practice. In reply let me once again quote Henry Morgenthau, who says:

They must be given schools of instruction. They must change their mode of life. It will take a year's intensive study to find out how to do it, but it would be a most creditable achievement for those Jews who have benefited by liberty in this country.

In substantiating the conclusions drawn in my article I can do no better than to

refer once more to the conclusion of Mr. Morgenthau's able report, which reads:

All citizens of Poland should realize that they must live together. They cannot be divorced from each other by force or by any court of law. When this idea is once thoroughly comprehended, every effort will necessarily be directed toward a better understanding and the amelioration of existing conditions, rather than toward augmenting antipathy and discontent. The Polish nation must see that its worst enemies are those. who encourage this internal strife. A house divided against itself cannot stand. There must be but one class of citizens in Poland, all members of which should enjoy equal rights and render equal duties.

To the Editor of Current History:

I have read Gershon Agronsky's article, Troubles of the Zionists in Palestine," in the October CURRENT HISTORY, with strong feelings of dissent and indignation. Well may the Zionists "concede that they have reached a searching time in their movement." The people of Palestine are thoroughly awake to the dangers of Zionism, and the world is beginning to question the motives of the apostles of this cult. The Zionists may be able to fool some people, but they can't fool all the people at least, not all the time. Truth, crushed to earth, shall rise again. Zionism is headed toward certain failure, because it is founded on the exploded doctrine that might makes right and feeds on the discarded idea of divine rights.

The author seems to be impatient over the fact that the mandate has not been approved yet. He desires the League of Nations to grant immediately, and without delay, the demands of the Zionists concerning Palestine-demands which cannot be supported by any principle of law or logic -without even giving the people of that country an opportunity to express their views upon the matter. He complains that the suspension of Jewish immigration is a concession to the Arabs. Is there any

greater arrogance than this, or do the Arabs need a better warning or more convincing evidence of what they may expect from Zionism if their country should fall into its clutches? But the immigration question in Palestine will be settled by the people of that country and not by Russian Jews.

By what right do the Zionists of Russia, or of America claim title to the Holy Land which is not their country, and has not been for over two thousand years? By what authority do they assume jurisdiction over that province and undertake to dictate to its people? Mr. Agronsky seems to proceed on the false supposition that Palestine belongs to the Zionists, but he does not tell us how he arrives at such conclusions. According to him, the inhabitants of that country must not ask for anything but what the Zionists, through generosity or charity, allow them to retain. He forgets that the case is just the other way round and that the present population of Palestine, who have inherited the land from generation to generation, are the only people who have any right to say who should come into it or what form of government it should have. This right is guaranteed to them by the League of Nations covenant. The Zionists have no more right to dictate

to the people of Palestine, or to meddle in their affairs, than you or I have to meddle in the internal affairs of Siam.

He even condemns those British officers in Palestine who still possess sufficient freedom of judgment to see that the natives are not being given a square deal. Because the leaders of the people cry out against Zionistic aggressions and try to defend their rights, he calls them " Arab agitators," but he quite overlooks the Zionist radicals. He admits, however, that the Zionists have tried to plant the seeds of labor troubles in the Holy Land. If any one doubts that many Zionists favor socialism, I can furnish sufficient evidence to satisfy any curious mind. The recent outbreaks in Palestine were caused by Jewish Bolshevist agitators and not by the peace-loving natives. people of Palestine, Arabs and Jews, lived in peace together for centuries, until the Zionists invaded the land. The Jew enjoyed cqual rights with his neighbors, the Mohammedans and Christians, until Russian radicals began to swarm into the country. Their attempt to divide the people,. however, has utterly failed, and instead of starting a "class war " it has served to strengthen the ties of union among the in

The

habitants. The seeds of radicalism cannot take root in the soil of Palestine. As for "the ordinary native," I can say on his behalf, just let him alone and don't force your services upon him, for he has not asked your assistance. When he appeals to you for help, you may go to his rescue, but until that time keep away from him.

Peace in Palestine is assured the moment the Zionist quits intriguing against that country. Peace cannot, however, be secured by having the League of Nations approve a mandate that carries any concessions to Zionism. This would be the sign for real trouble. The only way to restore peace and prosperity to the Holy Land is to abrogate the Balfour declaration, which cannot be defended on any ground whatsoever, and which amounts to the same proposition as if I attempted to dispose of your automobile without your knowledge or consent; to end the agitations of Zionists and their schemes to get possession of the country, and to recognize the indisputable right of the people to choose their own government and shape its course according to their own wishes. Until this is done the world will look in vain for peace and progress in the Holy Land.

To the Editor of Current History:

I note that Mr. Koudjoharoff, in the October CURRENT HISTORY, warns Americans against Greek-Macedonian propaganda. I am a Macedonian, and I know of no propaganda in behalf of Macedonia other than the Bulgarian propaganda. I invite Mr. Koudjoharoff to point to a single Greek Government organization here or abroad which is carrying on propaganda about Macedonia or any other portion of the Balkans. And in my turn I call his attention to the following Bulgarian propaganda agencies in America and abroad: (a) The Near East American, a weekly newspaper, published by Mr. Koudjoharoff and Mr. Poulieff, former Counselor of the Bulgarian Legation at Washington. This weekly is published at Washington anonymously in order to avoid being suspected as a Bul

garian organ. (b) The recent lectures and newspaper interviews given in this country by Irene Shismanova Stephanova, professor in the Royal University of Sofia. All her lectures are appeals for the Bulgarization of Macedonia and Thrace. (c) The appeals made by the Narodni Glass of Granite City, organ of the Bulgarian Committee of Sofia in America. This organ, to which Mr. Koudjoharoff is a regular contributor, announced a few days ago that the Central Committee at Sofia would send to the Bulgarians in the United States the program of activities here, and that the Bulgarian Minister, Mr. Panaretoff, who has made many friends here, would be able to exert great influence over the United States Government to secure autonomy for Macedonia and Thrace. (d) The Albanian newspaper, Dielli, announced in one of its issues of

September that the Bulgarian Bureau and the Albanian Bureau at Geneva, under the label of Bureau of Unredeemed Balkan Peoples, were doing beautiful work among the delegates of the League of Nations for the revision of treaties in a way to favor Bulgaria at the expense of Greece. (e) Mr. Koudjoharoff and Mr. Poulieff, as the official agents of the Central Committee of Sofia, presented a few days ago to the State Department a document in which they pretend that over 300,000 Bulgarians of Thrace have been driven out by the Greeks and are now refugees in Bulgaria. In this connection it is well to note that the Turkish statistics of 1908 put the total number of Bulgarians in Thrace at 107,843!

Mr. Koudjoharoff also shows a profound knowledge of Mr. Brailsford's book, " Macedonia and Her People." Mr. Brailsford's testimony, on page 57 of the work mentioned, sustains the contention of the author of an article in The Monitor that Macedonian nationalism, speaking of Macedonia as a whole, is an artificial creation of Balkan propagandists and komitadjis.

I feel, however, that the writer in The Monitor did not do justice to the Greek Macedonians. Greece received what is termed the extreme south of Macedonia. It is known even to grammar school readers of history, even in Bulgaria, that Saloniki, Kavalla, Serres, Xanthi, Castoria, Elassona, Katerini, have always been Greek cities and districts. The Bulgarians have never yet contested those wholly Grecophone districts. As to a number of districts bordering on the Serbo-Bulgarian frontiers, which are Slavophone, we might adduce the following incontestable evidences to show that those Slavophones had a Greek conscience as recently as the year 1912:

(a) In 1912 the Young Turks, having shown clear signs of desiring to Turkify Macedonia, the Bulgarian Exarchate and the Greek Patriarchate, acting in full accord with the Governments of Sofia and Athens, respectively, came to a solemn agreement. It was agreed that at the then impending Turkish elections the Greeks should elect six deputies from Macedonia and the Bulgarians only four. It is to be noted here that the Bulgarians recognized the Districts of Elassona and Kozani as

being so Greek that they were not included in the above-mentioned agreement.

(b) The Greek elections of 1915 brought into the Greek Parliament a large number of Turks and Jews from Macedonia, but not one single Bulgarian Deputy. And I challenge Mr. Koudjoharoff and all his Bulgarian agents, here or abroad, to produce reliable evidence proving that, while perfect liberty was accorded to the Turks, when Greece was at war with Turkey, to elect their own representatives for the Greek Parliament, such liberty was denied to the Bulgarian nationality in Greek Macedonia. Even Mr. Koudjoharoff will admit that the absence of a Bulgarian Deputy in the Greek Parliament is a conclusive proof of the absence of Bulgarians in Greek Macedonia.

Furthermore, taking into account that the Young Turks elected one Deputy for every 100,000 inhabitants, according to the agreement of 1912 between Bulgaria and Greece, for six Greek Deputies and four Bulgarians, there were in Macedonia at that time 600,000 Greeks. These numbers are sustained by the Italian ethnologist Amadori Virgili, who gives the total number of Greeks in Macedonia in 1908 as 592,302. Greek Macedonia today has a total population of 500,000. It is evident, then, that Greece has left to somebody in the Balkans a total Greek population of 100,000 and is quite willing to remain content with the Treaty of Bucharest as regards Macedonia.

As to the fiction of the undocumented declaration of a Greek officer that a Slavspeaking regiment in Macedonia was Bulgarian in soul, I need hardly advise Mr. Koudjoharoff that the readers of CURRENT HISTORY will receive it with that welcome accorded to invented, undocumented and ex parte propaganda.

I understand perfectly why there is a Bulgarian propaganda and why there is no Greek propaganda and no need of any. But what I cannot very well understand is the meaning of the outcry of Mr. Koudjoharoff agaist the imaginary Greek propaganda. I fear that he is quixotic in this case, or that he tries to justify the existence of Bulgarian propaganda by alleging the existence of Greek propaganda.

37 Batavia Street, Boston, Oct. 12, 1921.

To the Editor of Current History:

I wish to reply to the following contentions of Mr. Gregory in his letter in the October issue of your magazine:

(1) That Mr. Cassavetes did not convince him of the guilt of Constantine in regard to the violation of the Greco-Serbian Treaty. I believe that Mr. Cassavetes did not try to prove the guilt. He merely stated that it was established by the tribunal of mankind's foremost students of international agreements. That Constantine signed the decree for a general mobilization in 1915, with the explanation of Mr. Venizelos that Greece was treaty-bound to aid Serbia, should leave no doubt in the minds of the Greek royalists about the cowardly act of Constantine.

(2) That the cold-blooded assassination of French marines in the streets of Athens was, as Mr. Gregory agrees, perpetrated by Royalist Greeks, wearing the Greek uniform, but that they were not, forsooth, Greek soldiers. Very well. Where, then, were the Athenian police? How did the "mob" get the uniforms, the machine guns, and the Greek Army rifles? Could a mob have terrorized officers? And were the mob leaders punished?

(3) That Constantine surrendered Fort Rupel to the Germans in order to match the occupation of Saloniki by the Allies. This is what Mr. Cassavetes has contended. Saloniki was occupied at the invitation of the Greek Government with the assent of Constantine, who changed his mind only on the eve of the landing of the allied troops. Fort Rupel was surrendered to the Germans secretly with the avowed purpose of weakening the position of the Allies. Constantine was anxious to see the Germans

whip the Allies. In other words, he was pro-German. And that is exactly the contention of Mr. Cassavetes.

(4) That the largest and most intelligent cities of Greece voted against Mr. Venizelos. Here Mr. Gregory is lamentably in error. Athens, Volo, Saloniki, Patras, Pyrgos, Calamata, Piraeus, Jannina, Preveza, Cavalla, Rhodosto, Adrianople, Xanthi, Serres, Chania, the Islands of the Aegean, Thrace, Epirus, admittedly the most progressive portions of Hellenism, all went for Mr. Venizelos. The rural classes of Greece and the Jews and Turks of Macedonia voted against him.

Mr. Gregory writes: My object is not to defend the King of the Hellenes, but the good judgment of the Hellenes themselves." I do not know of a more remarkable method of reasoning than this. Mr. Gregory admits that he does not know whether Constantine is guilty of the moral crimes attributed to him by the entire allied world and by America; but he defends "the good judgment of the Hellenes," who brought Constantine back. I venture to suggest that Mr. Gregory's judgment would have been infinitely better if he had first made up his mind as to the culpability or innocence of Constantine. Then only would he have been in a position to give sound judgment on "the good judgment of the Hellenes," who voted for Constantine.

To the Editor of Current History:

In your August issue you published an article, "Czechoslovakia's Right to Statehood Assailed," written by Anthony Pessenlehner, in which the author held that the new Czechoslovak Republic has no right to Statehood from a historical, political, economical or ethnographical standpoint. This article was pure Magyar propaganda, intended to disunite the Slovaks from the Czechoslovak Republic. Slovakia is the solid basis upon which the Magyars economically depended, for it is rich in natural resources; it was to the Slovaks, therefore, that the Magyars preached the Roman freedom, and, from 1840 to 1914, the English freedom with a Mongolian spirit. Ever since the Magyar invasion of Hungary (in 896 A. D.) their object has been to Magyarize all who lived in Hungary; but they have failed because there was too large a population of Slavic nationalities.

Historically speaking, the ancestors of present Czecho-Slavs entered Hungary in the fifth century. The Moravian Empire existed in 861-894-the reign of Svatopluk of the Great Moravia. There is also proof that St. Methodius was created Archbishop of the Great Moravia and Pannonia by the Pope in 868.* So, also, there is historical proof that the "Pannonians were all Slavs." Again, there was the Czech Kingdom, whose independence was lost in 1620.‡

In 1844 the Magyars deposed the Latin language from its place as the official language of Hungary and substituted their own instead. But "in this struggle lay the germ of a conflict of races which was later to be most disastrous to the Magyars themselves; they were not willing to grant to others the rights which they had demanded

for themselves."S Louis Kossuth, who pushed the Magyars ahead, was of pure Slovak parentage, and Alexander Petori, the poet, was likewise of Slovak origin. "While the Slovaks thus presented the Magyars with two of their traditional heroes, they at the same time produced two men of the highest literary eminence who were destined to influence the entire Slav world."§§ These two men were Paul Safarik (Schafarik) and John Kollár.

Mr. Pessenlehner says that "until a few decades ago the Czechs were quite content with their lot within the confines of Austria," and that "the masses of the Slovak people remained loyal to Hungary." These statements are contrary to fact. In the World War the Czechoslovak soldiers everywhere proved that they were Czechoslovak in spirit-that they already had a national soul; later their republic was promptly recognized by the civilized world.

The Slovaks, Czechs, Moravians and Rusinians understand each other and their literature without any interpreters. It is too late for any Magyar propagandist to try to convince the world that they are aliens to each other.