French dissatisfaction with the distribution of the spoils in the Near
East and French fear of British imperial power and prestige—these
were factors in a new alignment of the diplomatic forces in Turkey
during 1920–1922. British imperialists were desirous of keeping Turkey
weak. A weak Turkey could never again menace Britain’s communications
in the Persian Gulf and at Suez; a weak Turkey could be of no moral
or material assistance to restless Moslems in Egypt and India. To
keep Turkey weak the Treaty of Sèvres had loaded down the Ottoman
Treasury with an enormous burden of reparations and occupation costs
(to which France could not object without repudiating the principle
of reparations); had taken away Turkish administration of Smyrna
and Constantinople, the two ports essential to the commercial life
of Anatolia; and had made possible a Greek war of devastation and
extermination in the homeland of the Turks. France, on the other
hand, would have preferred to see Turkey reasonably strong. A strong,
prosperous Turkey would the more readily pay off its pre-War debt,
of which French investors held approximately sixty per cent; payment
of this debt was more important to France than payment of Turkish
reparations. A strong Turkey, furthermore, might fortify the French
position in the Near East. As Germany had utilized Ottoman strength
against Russia and Great Britain, so France might utilize Nationalist
Turkey against a Bolshevist Russia which would not pay its debts or an
imperial Britain which might prove unfaithful to the Entente.[14]
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