Japan and the Pacific, and a Japanese View of the Eastern QuestionInagaki, Manjiro
History
Japan and the Pacific, and a Japanese View of the Eastern Question
Inagaki, Manjiro
Eastern question (Balkan); Europe -- History -- 1871-1918; Japan -- Politics and government
Constantinople was hardly mentioned in the Berlin Treaty, although it is
said that Lord Beaconsfield had suggested to General Ignatieff a Russian
occupation of the Bosphorus with an English one of Mitylene. Ignatieff
said, however, that “Mitylene was too near, as it was only two hours’
steam from the north of the Dardanelles.” Lord Beaconsfield did not,
therefore, press the discussion. The importance of Constantinople can be
explained in a few words.
By possession of the Straits Russia would be able to make the Black Sea
a second Caspian, whose coasts are left undefended, and it would become
a great Russian arsenal, for ten or fifteen thousand troops would be
sufficient to shut out an English fleet from the Straits, and by this
means quite two hundred thousand Russian troops could be withdrawn from
the Black Sea and turned to the Balkans, Asia Minor, or Central Asia.
_The Anglo-Turkish Convention._
Notwithstanding the fact that Austria has fulfilled her contract in
preventing Russian aggression through the Balkans, yet Russia could find
a way through Asia Minor, although her progress through Asia was stopped
by England at the Anglo-Turkish Convention.
By this treaty, however, England committed a still more grave and
serious breach of the Treaties of 1856 and 1871 than by this Berlin
Treaty. Yet although England and Russia had made a secret agreement
beforehand, still the Berlin Treaty was discussed and drawn up by the
Congress. Therefore England was only morally to blame. But the
Anglo-Turkish Convention was concluded between the two countries
themselves, and was never submitted for the consideration of the Great
Powers. Lord Beaconsfield sought to screen England by declaring that
Russia had concluded the San Stefano Treaty with Turkey without the
knowledge and consent of the Powers, and Russia herself, therefore, had
broken the principles of the 1856 and 1871 Treaties. Yet this did not
conceal the fact that England herself had not acted up to her tenets in
the Anglo-Turkish Convention.
The Porte ceded Ardahan, Kars, and Batoum, together with its port, to
Russia. England occupied Cyprus, and engaged to defend Asiatic Turkey,
Syria, Palestine, Assyria, Arabia, and Armenia, against Russian
invasion.
Has England performed her contract in Asiatic Turkey as Austria has done
in the Balkans? We will see. Cyprus is left almost in the same condition
as it was before our English occupation, and nothing has been done by
England for the defence of Asiatic Turkey, while only a few hundred
soldiers guard against a Russian invasion in Asia Minor. Surely this
cannot be a sufficient number of men to withstand a Russian army. What,
then, has become of the Anglo-Turkish Convention? Russia has taken
advantage of this, and is doing her utmost to bring about war in that
quarter.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account