Treaty of Sèvres (1920); World War, 1914-1918 -- Territorial questions -- Turkey; World War, 1914-1918 -- Turkey
Finally, though any communist conception is abhorrent to the Moslem
spirit, which is essentially individualist and so has an aristocratic
trend, and though Bolshevism, as we have already pointed out, is a
specific doctrine which suits only the Russian mind, the attitude of
the Western nations threatened to drive Islam towards Bolshevism,
or at least to create a suitable ground for its expansion. In spite
of the enlightened leaders of Islam, the attitude of the Powers
risked inducing the Moslem masses to lend a willing ear to Bolshevist
promises and to adopt Bolshevism in order to defend the Moslem creed
and customs. Besides, Bolshevism, which was undergoing an evolution,
and was growing more wily, less brutal, but all the more dangerous,
no longer required other nations to adopt its social ideal. In order
to serve a political purpose, it now turned its efforts towards the
Caspian Sea to communicate with Asia Minor and create disturbances in
Central Asia, while, on the other side, it advanced as far as Mongolia.
After the conclusion of the Anglo-Persian agreement forced by Great
Britain upon Persia, which, in spite of what was officially said to
the contrary, deprived Persia of her independence, Bolshevism saw what
an easy prey was offered to it by the English policy, and concentrated
its efforts on Asia Minor, where it could most easily worry England.
It carried on a very active propaganda in all Asiatic languages in
Turkistan and even in Afghanistan—the result being that the latter
country sent a mission of inquiry to Moscow.
According to the statement of a Persian reproduced in the _Journal des
Débats_ of April 4, 1920, the representatives of the Soviet Government
made advances to the Persian patriotic organisations and told them:
“England despises your rights. Your Government is in her hand. To
organise your resistance, you need a help. We offer it to you, and
ask for nothing in return, not even for your adhesion to our social
doctrine. The reason that urges us to offer you our support is a
political one. Russia, whether she is Bolshevist or not, cannot
live by the side of an England ruling over nearly the whole of the
East. The real independence of your country is necessary to us.”
Such suggestions could not but attract the attention of the Persians
at a time when, without even waiting for the opening of the Chamber
that had been elected under the influence of British troops in order to
sanction the Anglo-Persian agreement, some English administrators had
already settled in Teheran.
The same Persian, in agreement with the main body of Persian opinion,
went on:
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