Header Background Image
    Chapter Index

    One of the reasons why we are making so little progress in carving up Turkey is undoubtedly the confusion in the plans and proposals of the Giaours, for which all good Moslems pray every day at the afternoon prayer—and, apparently, these prayers are heard. The President’s original plan, or purpose, contemplated international control for Constantinople and the Straits. This is now interpreted by many as meaning that the Turks are to remain masters of Anatolia. When we look at Point Twelve for guidance, we read:

    The Turkish portion of the present Ottoman Empire should be assured a secure sovereignty, but the other nationalities which are now under Turkish rule should be assured an undoubted security of life and an absolute, unmolested opportunity of autonomous development.

    These words do not warm the hearts of my Armenian visitors. The same assurances were given them at the Congress of Berlin in 1878, and Great Britain, France, Russia, in fact all the Great Powers, sponsored the arrangement and accepted responsibility for its fulfillment. But nothing happened, and Turkish rule continued its ruthless sway. After all, the Armenians ask, what does autonomous development mean, what does it promise? Certainly not an independent sovereign state. Autonomy on the tongue of the Turk, the Armenians say, means nothing except the prelude to another series of massacres, and they cite many instances in the history of the last fifty years to support this interpretation.

    And turning to the commentary on the Fourteen Points as drawn up by Frank Cobb and Walter Lippmann during the armistice proceedings (as we are officially urged to do in seeking light), and which when cabled to the President received his approval,1 we find more confusion than clarification as regards Point Twelve:

    Anatolia should be reserved for the Turks. … Armenia must be given a port on the Mediterranean and a protecting power established; France may claim it, but the Armenians would prefer Great Britain.

    Of course it is impossible to carve a new Armenia out of Anatolia if that region is to be “reserved for the Turks.” And the coastline on which the Commentary says the Armenians should have a port, their ardently desired “window on the western world,” has been earmarked for the Italians, the French, and the Greeks, and they are all fighting briskly over their allotments provided for in the secret and conflicting treaties. It is plain that some of the slices of Turkey will have to be curtailed, and perhaps even worse is to come. At times, Lord Bryce fears that the whole idea of a free and independent Armenia, to which we are all pledged, will be dropped. I hate the whole wretched business, and from now on I shall decline to urge the Armenians to cherish hopes which I fear will never be realized.

    Today (March 8) Boghos Nubar Pasha had his hour in court, and while his statement of the Armenia case was somewhat rambling, all agreed that he acquitted himself well. He first spoke in impeccable French for M. Clemenceau, and then in High Church English for the benefit of President Wilson and Mr. Balfour. Right at the beginning he pitched into the middle of things.

    “It would be shameful,” he announced, “to leave us under the domination of the Turks. We are as deserving of liberty and independence as are the Greeks, the Arabs, and the Zionists, although, I admit, not more so. Indeed, we have the same aspirations and pursue the same high ideals. Nothing can divide us from these noble peoples who have suffered similar hardships and vicissitudes—not even the question of Trebizond—although of course Armenia to survive must have an outlet on the Black Sea. Between people of our culture this problem can and will be adjusted. To negotiate with a noble man like M. Venizelos is a very different affair from negotiating with Abdul Hamid2 and those who have come after him, who have only changed their names but who pursue the same diabolical objectives.

    “I trust that no one here will seek to restore the Turkish Empire even on a reduced scale. It has been kept alive for generations by the unhappy rivalries of the European Powers with the result that it has generated wars and revolutions, rebellions and massacres without end. Turkey was given a chance to reform and to survive in 1914. Had she not joined the Central Powers, had she remained at least neutral in the struggle, something might be said today in her behalf; but she joined up against civilization and by her action prolonged the war for at least two years. Had she remained neutral, Bulgaria in all probability would not have entered the struggle or, in any event, could have been easily and quickly crushed. How many millions of dead is she responsible for? The flower of our generation is gone!

    “There can be no mistake about it. Civilization must not permit non-Ottoman peoples to remain under the yoke of Turkish oppression. The extinction of Turkey is essential to world peace. Otherwise it will prove an idle dream and indeed a cruel one for which thousands will have died in vain.

    “We deserve independence on another score: We have fought for it. We have poured out our blood for it without stint. Our people have played a gallant part in the armies that have won the victory.

    “I disagree with those who assume that in the hour of triumph the suffering and the blood shed by my people, our contribution to the common victory, is to be forgotten, and I shall be precise in telling you what we expect at your hands. It is an independent Armenia embracing Cilicia and the six Armenian vilayets of Turkey; and to these must be joined the Armenian provinces of Russia whose inhabitants, numbering over two million and having the advantage of forming a compact body, have already been successful in forming an independent government of their own. This reunited and independent Armenia, we think, should be placed under the collective protection of the Christian nations, or under that of the League, which is to us the hope of the world. We also ask for the particular guidance of any one of these nations to stand by us in the transition period we are entering upon. It is clear that this aid and guidance will be indispensable to us as we begin the reconstruction of our devastated country, now reduced to ashes, blackened fields, and heaps, of rubble by the Turks in retaliation for our unflagging devotion to the cause of the Allies.”

    Nubar’s statement and his appeal were much more eloquent than would appear from the scrappy notes which I here recall. He was listened to with sympathetic attention by the great men who today hold the balance of power. But there was a faraway look in their eyes and no promises were made. That indeed is the trouble. Armenia is far away, and other problems nearer at hand and hence: thought more urgent are coming home to roost.

    Footnotes

    1. 1923. As this statement has been challenged in some quarters it is perhaps proper for me to say that, as instructed, I drew up the dispatch in question and decoded the President's reply from Washington, dated October 29, 1918. In it he accepted the memorandum as “a satisfactory interpretation of the principles involved.” In the circumstances, House was certainly justified in regarding the Commentary as a complete elucidation of the President's world program; and as a matter of fact in the course of the Armistice negotiations, when queried by the delegates for more precise information as to points which were regarded by some as obscure, he read aloud to them the explanations which the President had formerly sanctioned. S. B.
    2. Abdul Hamid, Sultan of Turkey (1876-1909), was very pro-German and, as the instigator of the horrible Armenian massacres of 1894-1896, he was dubbed the Great Assassin, the Red Sultan. He was dethroned eventually by the Young Turks.
    Email Subscription
    Note