Treaty of Sèvres (1920); World War, 1914-1918 -- Territorial questions -- Turkey; World War, 1914-1918 -- Turkey
In the debate which took place on Wednesday, February 25, 1920,
in the House of Commons regarding the retention of the Turks in
Constantinople, after a question of Lord Edmund Talbot, Sir Donald
Maclean, who spoke first, urged that if the Turks were not expelled
from Constantinople all the worst difficulties of the past would occur
again, and would endanger the peace of the world.
“The decision of the Peace Conference was a great surprise to most
people. We owed nothing to the Turks. They came into the war gladly
and without any provocation on our part. They became the willing
and most useful ally of Germany. If the Turks were left in the
gateway of the world, they would be at their old game again.”[16]
Sir Edward Carson said just the reverse:
“It was suggested that we should drive the Turks out of
Constantinople.... If the Allies wanted to drive the Turks out of
Constantinople, ... they would have to commence another war, and
it would not be a small war. You must not talk of cutting down the
Army and the Navy, and at the same moment censure the Government
because they had not settled the question of driving the Turks
out.”[17]
Mr. Lloyd George, speaking after them both, began thus:
“This is not a decision, whichever way you go, which is free from
difficulty and objection. I do not know whether my right hon.
friend is under the impression that if we decided to expel the
Turk from Constantinople the course would be absolutely clear.
As a matter of fact, it is a balancing of the advantages and the
disadvantages, and it is upon that balance and after weighing very
carefully and for some time all the arguments in favour and all
the arguments against, all the difficulties along the one path
and all the difficulties you may encounter on the other, and all
the obstacles and all the perils on both sides, that the Allied
Conference came to the conclusion that on the whole the better
course was to retain the Turk in Constantinople for achieving a
common end.”
Then he explained that the agreement concerning the substitution of
the Russians for the Turks in Constantinople had become null and void
after the Russian revolution and the Brest-Litovsk peace, and that
at the present date the Bolshevists were not ready to assume such a
responsibility, should it be offered to them.
“I will deal with two other pledges which are important. My right
hon. friend referred to a pledge I gave to the House in December
last, that there would not be the same gate-keeper, but there would
be a different porter at the gates.... It would have been the
height of folly to trust the guardianship of these gates to the
people who betrayed their trust. That will never be done. They will
never be closed by the Turk in the face of a British ship again....
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