Great Britain -- Foreign relations -- Russia; Russia -- Foreign relations -- Great Britain; Russia -- Social life and customs
The contention of Russia has never been better expressed than by
Gladstone in a letter to me dated January 2, 1877, in which he wrote:
"A guarantee dependent on the Turk for its execution becomes thereby no
guarantee at all." Again, on February 6, he wrote: "The real issue, so
far as I can see, will arise when the question shall assume this form:
Is Russia to be left alone to execute the will and work of Europe?"
This is exactly what Russia did in 1876, unless it be contended that
the "will of Europe" sanctioned the wholesale massacre of {148}
harmless citizens by the very power ordained to protect them--the
Ruling Power.
The Sublime Porte has been as consistent as the Concert of Europe in
evading its responsibilities, and it is needless to say that it as
carefully refrained from carrying out its undertaking with regard to
Armenia as the Powers on their part did from insisting on the reforms.
Possibly the argument of the Concert was that, as there were no
"ameliorations and reforms" on the part of the Sublime Porte, there was
no opportunity for them to "superintend their application."
None of us who knew the Turk had any doubts as to the truth of the
atrocities at Sassoun. These things were too common. The scale
differed, the crime was always the same. And what was it?
The crime was the establishment--or the re-establishment--of Turkish
Mussulman authority over a Christian race. If that were the crime, who
were the criminals? On that point I should like to be allowed to say
some plain truths, hoping that my English friends will tolerate the
candour in others which they never hesitate to practise themselves.
The real criminals who were responsible for the atrocities which
horrified the civilised world were not the Kurds--who at first got all
the blame. The criminals who perpetrated the massacre were Turkish
regular troops, commanded by Turkish officers acting in direct
obedience to explicit orders from the Turkish Government.
But although the direct complicity of the "Sublime" Porte in these
hideous crimes was not disputed even by the Pashas of Stamboul, it was
{149} not with them that the responsibility of these horrors originally
lay.
The crime at Sassoun lay primarily at the door of Disraeli. It was one
of the many disastrous results of that "peace with honour" which Mr.
Gladstone had the courage to describe as a peace that was no peace,
with the honour that prevailed among thieves.
That may seem to be a hard saying to those who do not know the facts.
To those who do it will be a mere truism.
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