Treaty of Sèvres (1920); World War, 1914-1918 -- Territorial questions -- Turkey; World War, 1914-1918 -- Turkey
“You can get the great power of Constantinople from its
geographical situation. That is the main point. It is the main
point for two reasons. The first is, when you consider the future
possibilities of the Black Sea. You have there six or seven
independent communities or nations to whom we want access. It
is essential that we should have a free road, a right-of-way to
these countries, whatever the opinion of the Turk may be. His
keeping of the gates prolonged the war, and we cannot have that
again. Therefore, for that reason, it is coming to an end. The
second reason why the guardianship of the gates is important is
because of its effect upon the protection of minorities. How do
we propose that that should be achieved? Turkey is to be deprived
entirely of the guardianship of the gates. Her forts are to be
dismantled. She is to have no troops anywhere within reach of these
waters. More than that, the Allies mean to garrison those gates
themselves.... I was going to say that we have been advised that,
with the assistance of the Navy, we shall be able to garrison the
Dardanelles and, if necessary, the Bosphorus, with a much smaller
force because of the assistance to be given by the Navy for that
purpose. Turkey will not be allowed a navy. What does she want with
a navy? It was never of the slightest use to her when she had it.
She never could handle it. That is the position in regard to the
Straits.
“What is the alternative to that proposal? The alternative to
that proposal is international government of Constantinople and
the whole of the lands surrounding the Straits. It would mean
a population of 1,500,000 governed by the Allies—a committee
representing France, Italy, Great Britain, and, I suppose, some
day Russia might come in, and, it might be, other countries.
America, if she cared to come in. Can anyone imagine anything more
calculated to lead to that kind of mischievous intriguing, rivalry,
and trouble in Constantinople that my right hon. friend deprecated
and, rightly, feared? How would you govern it? Self-government
could not be conferred under those conditions. It would have to
be a military government.... It would require, according to every
advice we have had, a very considerable force, and it would add
very considerably to the burdensome expenditure of these countries,
and it would be the most unsatisfactory government that anyone
could possibly imagine.
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