Meanwhile Roumania and Jugo-Slavia, which had refused to sign the Austrian treaty, reconsidered their action and signed this treaty together with that between the Allies and Bulgaria. Most of the South American states had signed the treaty and only Holland had definitely decided not to sign. On December 11, a conference between France, Italy, and Great Britain agreed to the organization of a military force to put into operation the League of Nations, in the absence of support from the United States, and the work of putting the treaty into effect was definitely begun. The Treaty with Turkey was presented to her by the Allies on May 11, 1920, and she was allowed one month to consider it. Its main provisions are as follows: Constantinople and the Straits to remain Turkish but to be administered by an international commission which will neutralize the waters for commerce, Macedonia to be given to Greece, except small portions, and the Turkish Islands in the Agean to be Greek possessions; 13 Greece also is to be given the administration over Smyrna with the surrounding territory, although Turkey will retain her title to the city and territory. Turkey gave up her claims to Syria, Mesopotamia, Armenia, Palestine, Hedjaz, Egypt, the Sudan and Cyprus. France was given a mandate for Syria, England for Mesopotamia and Palestine was to be controlled by a mandatory appointed by the Allied Powers and submitted to the Council of the League of Nations. THE TERMS OF PEACE International Conciliation Bulletin, Sept. 1919, No. 142. 13 The group of Islands taken by Italy in 1913 are to remain Italian. PART II THE FAILURE OF EUROPEAN DIPLOMACY CHAPTER I THE CONGRESS OF VIENNA AND THE PEACE OF 1815 THE attempt of Napoleon to dominate Europe during the years 1802-1814, frightened the continent almost as badly as did the great Europe in attempt of Germany in the recent war. By 1813, the 1815. people of the entire continent were in alliance with him or against him. By the close of the struggle, the Holy Roman Empire had disappeared as completely as had the Austrian Empire after the recent contest. There had been organized by Napoleon a series of buffer states along the Rhine which would compare favorably with the group recognized by the Entente Allies at the close of the recent war. In the East, Poland had been organized into an independent state, to trouble Russia and to the weakening of both Austria and Prussia, while the latter state had all but lost its independence and Austria had been greatly limited. The material losses had been, comparatively, little less than in the present struggle. For ten years there had been incessant warfare and while the methods of destruction were not so scientifically developed, yet they were quite sufficient in view of the then prevailing methods of defense. When the war closed, Napoleon was calling to the colors in France the boys of sixteen years, despite the fact that he was using Spaniards, Italians and Germans of the Rhine in his campaigns. The suffering, too, was severe. The science of surgery and medicine had not made the progress that it has made today. The almost heart breaking attempts of both contestants to cripple the food supply, made conditions desperate; and the great loss of life and the supreme need of military supplies made production slow and altogether inadequate. It will be recalled that England alone was profiting by the first beginnings of the great industrial revolution, and trade was made precarious and largely impossible. The United States, the only neutral with any trade possibilities, was drawn into the war in much the same way and for much the same reasons that she entered the recent struggle. The war had to a very great degree destroyed the old territorial divisions of Europe. Those old divisions were, of course, largely the result of the religious wars and the wars for aggrandizement which had troubled Europe from the sixteenth century onward. The spirit of nationality had only begun to make itself felt in Spain and Prussia although it was, of course, more active in France and in England. The war was to have the effect of strengthening the development of the very few national lines that had been drawn on the continent. There is, indeed, a rather striking similarity between the disorders due to the Napoleonic wars regarding territorial settlements and those of the recent wars. In this connection it may be recalled that from the early part of 1813 until the abdication of Napoleon, treaty after treaty was made between the various members of the allied group opposed to Napoleon. These treaties were nearly all concerned with the attempt to trade assistance for land claims to be made in the peace congress. Like the secret treaties of the Entente Allies they were proposals to divide Europe in the interests of the successful contestants. For this reason the land settlement became one of the most important and most bitterly contested problems of the peace. Effects of the French Revolution. The French Revolution had opened the Pandora box of political ideas and the war had busily aided in scattering them broadcast over Europe. The ideas of nationality, civilrights, and privileges of the people, equality of classes, constitutional government and written constitutions, ministerial responsibility-all of these acquired a new meaning to peoples oppressed by high prices and the numberless ills due to a long war. The general prevailing discontent was directed toward these new ideas in much the same way as the recent discontent, due to high prices, lack of occupation, and of labor and other ills, has been directed toward social and industrial reform. Just as we had been saying during the war, "The world can never be the same again," so people were saying after the Napoleonic wars, "We will never return to the old conditions again. of Vienna. In the midst of this disorder, the Congress of Vienna was called to attempt the settlement of Europe. The Peace of The Congress Paris had done little more than the recent armistice in 1919 was intended to do, and dealt with much the same matters. It was intended to hold France firmly until the final peace terms could be drawn up at Vienna. It is worth while to notice that the Congress I was in session from September 14, 1814 to June 15, 1815, though during this time for three months the war was resumed by Napoleon after his escape from Elba. Thus a long period of time to elapse during which disorders grew while Europe awaited the " allowed was the Near East, and to perceive that those interests might be jeopardized by the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire, and the access of Russia to Constantinople. "1 The silence of the Congress of Vienna upon the question of the Near East was due, not to the ignorance of its members concerning the need of some settlement, but to the fact that the Powers were unable to concede to Russia all that she must necessarily demand, and that therefore the opening of the question would only endanger their attempts to settle the rest of Europe and secure peace.2 In this later period since 1815, there are five important events or points about which Russia's relations to the Near East question center. These events are: the Greek war of independence, 1821-1827; the Crimean war and its settlement of 1856; the RussoTurkish war in 1877, with the settlement of 1878; the seizure of Bosnia-Herzogovina in 1908 by Austria; and the Balkan wars of 1912 with their settlement. Aside from the causes for the war of Greek independence as seen in the misgovernment and cruelty of Turkey, and the growth of the nationalistic movement, which was showing itself throughout Europe, Russia must bear the responsibility of inciting the war for her own ends. The Czar, Nicholas I (1825-1855), was quite in sympathy with the conservatism of Metternich, but he was not slow to see the advantages to Russia which the first definite beginnings of a declining and receding Turkish Empire would give. Such a movement might, in causing Russia to interfere, give her a chance to push forward her frontiers to the Black Sea. In this she was right. England and France joined with Russia to save the Turk and curb him, but they were able to stop his cruelties only by the destruction of his fleet, which took place at the battle of Navarino, October 20, 1827. This act practically broke up the alliance of the three Powers. England withdrew, Russia declared war on the Turk, and while France defended Greece in Morea, Russia rapidly conquered the provinces north of the Danube and reached Adrianople, which fell before her assault. Turkey was forced to accept the peace of Adrianople, on September 14, 1829, which gave Russia very large powers of interference in Turkey and forced Turkey to recognize the autonomous character or semi-independence of a considerable portion of her European territory; while Russia gained control of the lands at the mouth of the 1 Marriott, The Eastern Question, p. 144. Compare Part 2, Chap. 1. Danube and was assured a protective voice in the treatment of the Christian population of the Ottoman Empire. Besides this, she made considerable progress in expansion by securing a title to Georgia, lying east of the Black Sea, and to practically all the Caucasus region. The treaty of Adrianople gave Russia a very great impetus in her efforts to go southward. First of all, she received great commercial advantages in the neutralization of the Black Sea and in her possessions upon it. She became the guardian of the Roumanian provinces, which must play into her hands at all times to be secure against Turkey and she had definitely established the idea of a decadent Turkey which would enable her to proceed more rapidly in her work. The importance of the treaty of Adrianople was seen, when as an aftermath to the Greek war came the attempt of the Pasha of Egypt to secure his practical independence of Turkey. As a result of this fiasco, Russia was able to force Turkey to accept a new treaty (Unkiar Skelesi) in 1833 by which Turkey agreed in a secret article to aid Russia, when aid was asked, by closing the Dardanelles to the war ships of any other Power than Russia. In return, Russia agreed to defend Turkey against her enemies with the whole Russian army and navy. This treaty, which practically made Turkey a military dependency of Russia, marks the zenith of Russia's success in the Near East. This success was, however, nullified in part by the treaty of London in which Russia chose to participate with the European Powers against her own interests because of her hatred of Louis Phillippe. This treaty, which was forced upon the Turks of Egypt, recognized the dependency of the Caliph upon the Sultan, guaranteed the integrity of Turkey, and closed the Dardanelles to the ships of war of all countries. In the Treaty of London, England was able to secure an acceptance of Canning's policy that "Russia must not be permitted to regard those affairs as her own exclusive concern. "3 From the time of the Treaty of London in 1840, the Near East question becomes a great European problem in which Russia is not the less interested, but in which the rest of Europe formally announced their determination to participate with her. This announcement bore fruit in 1854 when Russia prepared to renew her effort to reach Constantinople. It should be said that previously (1853) the Czar, Nicholas I, had tried Marriott, The Eastern Question, p. 219. |