Papers of the War Cabinet's Eastern Committee [‎250v] (500/544)

4
a
h
<
ANNEX.
Shorthand Notes of a Meeting of the Committee held in Lord Curzon s Room at the
Privy Council Office, on Monday, December 23, 1918, at 11*30 a.m.
THE FUTURE OF CONSTANTINOPLE.
LORD CURZON : The Committee has had circulated to it papers which, I am
afraid, everybody has not had time to read, from the Foreign Office, written by Sir
Eyre Crowe, from the War Office,']' and from the Admiralty,J and two papers§ placed in
our hands this morning from the India Office The department of the British Government to which the Government of India reported between 1858 and 1947. The successor to the Court of Directors. and the Foreign Secretary of the Govern
ment of India. j| Perhaps it may help matters a little, and place our discussion in the
proper focus, if, having read all these papers rather carefully, I preface our discussion
by a brief statement on the lines of the statements that I have made here before.
We may start, I think, by two axiomatic propositions which nobody will be
concerned to dispute. The first of these is the enormous strategical and political
importance given to the Power that holds Constantinople. That is demonstrated by
the historical argument in the paper of the General Staff; and one need only refer in a
sentence to the two or three occasions in the past on which the possession of
Constantinople has deflected the entire history of the world.
The first was when the Roman Empire moved to Byzantium, with its incalculable
results on the fate not only of the Roman Empire, but of the whole Eastern world.
The second was when the Turks, crossing the Bosphorus and establishing themselves in
Constantinople, practically altered the history of mankind for the next five centuries.
The third was the prodigious effect that has been exercised upon our own policy by the
presence of the Turks in Constantinople, which was reallv the basis of the entire old
Eastern policy of Great Britain. It was, in the main, because the Turk was at
Constantinople that we fought the Crimean War. It was for the same reason that we
interfered to tear up the Treaty of San Stefano. Indeed, up to the last twenty years,
when Lord Salisbury first hazarded a doubt as to whether we had not put our money
on the wrong horse, the whole orientation of our Eastern policy has been determined by
the position of the Indian Empire at one end, and the position of the Turk astride of
the Straits at the other.
I need not waste more time upon that.
The second axiomatic proposition is that the presence of the Turks in Europe has
been a source of unmitigated evil to everybody concerned. I am not aware of a single
interest, Turkish or otherwise, that during nearly 500 years has benefited by that
presence. They have introduced a most distracting and demoralising influence into
European politics. Their presence has, I think, been equally injurious to Islamism
because of the pretensions and aspirations it has encouraged. It has been absolutely
disastrous to the various subject races, both in Europe and in Asia, with whom they
have had to deal. Indeed, the record is one of misrule, oppression, intrigue, and
massacre, almost unparalleled in the history of the Eastern world.
Finally, the possession of the Straits has enabled the Turks, if we take only the
case of this war, to exercise an influence altogether disproportionate to any position
that they would otherwise occupy in the world. It was their presence in Constantinople
and the fortification of the Straits that prevented Russia from obtaining an exit into the
Mediterranean, that brought in the Balkan States in the earlier days of the war, that
was responsible for our unfortunate failure—conceived on the soundest strategical lines
as that venture was—at Gallipoli and the Dardanelles; and really the last four
years are a convincing proof of the prodigious influence that the possession of the
Straits and Constantinople enables the Power placed in that position to exercise,
perhaps even more than before, under the conditions of modern warfare.
What are the factors we now have to deal with? We are discussing to-day what
ought to be the fate of the territories of the Turk in Europe, of Constantinople and the
area around it.
The population of Turkey in Europe at the beginning of the war was under two
millions. I fancy, from such information as I have been enabled to procure, that it is
not much more than a million and a half now. Contrast with this the population of
Turkey in Asia. Take Asia Minor. I am giving the pre-war figures. No doubt they
* E.C.-2822. t E.C.-2824. f E.C.-2823. § E.C.-2841.
j| Note by the Secretary. — A Memorandum by Sir Louis Mallet, entitled, “ Constantinople and Inter
nationalization," was prepared and circulated to members of the Committee subsequent to the meeting-
(E.0.-2964).