It was to be a huge task for Rear-Admiral Sir Douglas Gamble, who took up
his appointment in December 1908 when he found vegetable gardens growing on the
decks of the ageing warships.
Four years earlier, the British Naval Attaché, Captain Mark Kerr, had recorded
that ‘it is no longer possible to talk about the Turkish Navy, as it is
practically non-existent.’
Nevertheless some good early progress was made: obsolete vessels, ‘which had
been lying at the Dardanelles and elsewhere’, were collected at the Golden
Horn and offered for sale; more modern ships, which still possessed some
fighting value, had their crews completed and underwent some training, including
a ‘certain amount of target practice’; and the King’s Regulations and
Admiralty Instructions were being translated into Turkish (‘the portions
dealing with religious subjects being altered as necessary’).
By June 1909 Gamble was able to report from the Messudieh:
We
have had a wonderful 10 days experience! None of my brother admirals in England
would believe that with vessels commissioned only a couple of days, with new
officers and captains, none of whom have ever been in a squadron, and very few
ever at sea in their lives, one would be doing tactical manoeuvres, weighing and
anchoring together, etc., etc. — but it is so. The Sultan passed us without
warning, and I had just time for making the necessary signals for dressing and
“manning” ship, and firing a Royal Salute. By some extraordinary luck the
whole lot – 9 ships and 5 destroyers – appeared for the moment to be in
almost perfect station and everything went capitally and would have done credit
to the Channel Fleet.
We nearly piled up on Peoti yesterday by our signalman hoisting a signal
to turn the squadron 8 points to starboard without my having given any orders.
It was a close shave – a matter of about ½ a cable – but I am getting used
to such happenings. It is fearful hard work but wonderfully interesting.
After
such an encouraging start, a mere eight months later, now discouraged and in
ill-health, Gamble resigned. The Admiral’s appointment was not the portent it
might have seemed. It coincided with Lowther beginning to see the first signs
that Germany was recovering her position at the Porte. Lowther had become both
suspicious and contemptuous of the C.U.P., a view which did not take long to
filter back to the Foreign Office where Hardinge entirely shared his assessment
that it was ‘desirable that this Young Turk Committee should disappear in the
near future, otherwise they will in course of time deteriorate, and assume
precisely the same position as that held previously by the Palace camarilla.’
The fears of a resurgence of German influence once more increased the
anxiety regarding the Baghdad Railway, which was made more urgent by the
discovery of a major oil strike in 1908 that, Hardinge was not slow to observe,
was ‘excellent news for our interests in south-west Persia.’ It was already
the accepted wisdom at the Foreign Office that whoever was first to ‘build and
control the railways that abut on the Persian Gulf…will hold the key to the
whole position.’
A sub-committee of the C.I.D. (of which Grey and Hardinge were members) was
convened ‘to consider the effect that the completion of the Baghdad Railway
may have on the situation – strategical, political, and commercial – in
Southern Persia and the Persian Gulf and the measures that it may be necessary
to take in advance for the maintenance of British interests in those regions,
either immediately or after the railway has reached Baghdad.’ The conclusions
of the sub-committee were available in 26 January 1909 with the consensus being
that ‘the competition to which British trade in the Persian Gulf is exposed is
not merely commercial, but has a distinctly political object. British claims to
political predominance in the Gulf are based mainly on the fact of our
commercial interests having hitherto been predominant, and should our trade, as
a result of a German forward policy, be impaired, our political influence would
proportionately diminish.’ It therefore followed that ‘purely political
action on our part, not having as its objective the development of material
British interests, might have a prejudicial effect, both politically and
commercially, by reason of the suspicions it would be likely to rouse’.
The only tangible political action available was the veto on the Turkish request
for a 4% increase in the customs dues which Grey felt obliged to apply
otherwise, it was feared, the extra revenue generated would be used as
collateral for the kilometric guarantee under which the railway was being
constructed.
While Adam Block, the Administrator of the Ottoman Public Debt, argued
(in agreement with Lowther) that consent to the increase should be conditional
on economic and financial reforms being undertaken, Grey took the line that the
increase should be tied to the question of the railway: either Britain should be
allowed to participate in the Baghdad-Gulf section or a separate concession
should be granted for an alternate route along the Tigris Valley to Basra.
Meanwhile, as the various political contingencies were being debated, the first
stirrings were noticed in Constantinople of what would erupt, within two months,
into a full blown counter-revolution. Seeking to strengthen his own position,
and probably with the backing of the Sultan, on 10 February 1909 the Grand
Vizier, Kiamil, sacked the Ministers of War and Marine, replacing them with his
own supporters. Resignations in protest at this action followed immediately
among the Council of Ministers. Kiamil, unprepared for this unexpected reaction,
vainly sought to gain time, ostensibly to allow him to explain the dismissals;
instead the Chamber delivered a resounding vote of no confidence in him. The
clever, though opportunistic, Hilmi Pasha was appointed in his place.
It was noted that the new Cabinet was practically constructed by the Committee
while, in an attempt to conciliate Britain, the Turkish Ambassador in London was
mooted as the new Minister for Foreign Affairs.
‘Whether or not his final efforts to remain in office’, Block wrote
privately to Hardinge, ‘and whether or not the action of the Chamber,
influenced or threatened by the Committee, were justified or constitutional are
questions which need not concern us now, but the result in the opinion of many
Turks is that we now have a cabinet which is not independent but which is
subservient to the Committee and bound to obey its orders.’
Block’s concern with constitutional matters also reflected the concern of the
Young Turks who were only too well aware that, however they might be viewed from
within the confines of the Embassy at Pera, at least Kiamil was seen to be
staunchly pro-British; his demise therefore had to be justified on the basis of
his unconstitutional actions and not on the surmise that the power base of the
C.U.P. was being consolidated. Lowther, who by now had been thoroughly turned
against the Committee by Fitzmaurice (not, it must be said, without some
propensity to turn on the former’s behalf), was at once sarcastic and
sceptical. Adopting a patronizing tone, based on an overestimation of his
influence, Lowther informed the like-minded Hardinge on 2 March: ‘I have been
a little cold with the Committee which I think has done them good for they are
quite aware that our support is essential — on the slightest sign of their
doing good work I shall be more cordial.’
What Lowther did not realize in playing this game of bluff was that the
C.U.P. position in Constantinople itself depended on a good deal of bluff. The
party’s main support came from its power base in Macedonia and it was not
particularly strong, despite appearances to the contrary, in Constantinople.
Popular support had been forthcoming in 1908 as the party sought to have the
constitution reinstated but waned once this objective had been achieved.
Inevitably, the party attracted sundry office-seekers and hangers-on who were to
be disappointed when the Committee decided not to assume office,
while there was, in addition, a religious backlash against the secular policies
of the Young Turks; all of which was compounded by the absence from the capital
of key members of the party. Enver Bey had recently departed to act as Military
Attaché in Berlin; Ali Fuad (who, with Kemal, had been previously exiled for
his revolutionary activity) went to Rome as Military Attaché; Kemal himself was
not so fortunate. Too vocal in his criticism of Enver’s ‘hijacking’ of the
1908 revolution, he was dispatched to Libya on secret assignment and, when this
was completed, he returned to the comparative calm of Salonica where he became
Chief of Staff of the 11th Reserve Division.
Lowther at least perceived the problem posed by the guiding lights of the
revolution being shaded, in their absence, by less than revolutionary
opportunists; he warned Hardinge on 2 March that the new government of Hilmi
Pasha would be in trouble if it could not act to restore discipline in the army
and that, further, a ‘political split in the army would produce frightful
results. Unfortunately what was best of the Committee has withdrawn to make way
for the more violent element and these are gentleman who are not above
money-making…I am not yet discouraged. Only we must have patience.’
But time was running out for the interim regime.
The negotiations with Russia had been left in temporary abeyance while
Hilmi assumed office. By 19 February Lowther was inclined to think that the new
Grand Vizier would seek to accommodate the Russians ‘even at a sacrifice in
order to be able to justify his position and to show that his Government can
accomplish something.’
However, when the Russian Ambassador presented the original proposal once more,
with a rejoinder to take it or leave it, Hilmi declared that it would be
impossible for the Turkish Cabinet to accept the Russian proposal as it stood,
though they agreed to it in principle.
At this show of contumaciousness the Russians extended the period for the
abandonment of the War Indemnity to 40 years, an offer too good to refuse, with
the result that the Russo-Turkish Protocol was initialled in St Petersburg on 16
March.
The Conference proposal was quietly shelved.
Throughout the crisis, Grey had walked a tightrope trying to support the
new regime in Constantinople without alienating St Petersburg. In a series of
dispatches Nicolson forthrightly referred to serious Russian doubts as to the
value of the Entente. ‘[T]here is a feeling’, he informed Grey on 17 March,
‘that neither the entente nor the
French alliance has been of much benefit to Russia during present crisis, while
aid which Germany has given Austria-Hungary has been cited in contrast.’
Nicolson’s solution to this problem was to advocate an Anglo-Russian alliance
— a suggestion Grey would not countenance. ‘I do not think’, he informed
Nicolson, ‘that it is practicable to change our agreements into alliances: the
feeling here about definite commitment to a Continental war on unforeseeable
conditions would be too dubious to permit us to make an alliance. Russia too
must make her internal Government less reactionary — till she does, liberal
sentiment here will remain very cool and even those who are not sentimental will
not believe that Russia can purge her administration sufficiently to become a
strong and reliable Power.’ Indeed, Grey seemed quite pleased with the result
of his diplomacy:
Russia
has drawn closer to Bulgaria, who is worth many Servias — a result which
twenty years ago would have been regarded unfavourably here, but which we now
welcome as strengthening Russia’s position. She has Bulgaria on her side, she
has our goodwill, the Slav feeling is deeply apprehensive of Teuton advance and
affronted by Teuton pressure, and it is at Russia’s disposal; all these are
improvements in her position if only she is cool enough to see them, wise enough
to use them, and will reform her internal Government. Germany will not make war
upon her if not provoked, but Russia may have to withstand some provocation and
bluff now and then: which however will cease if she makes her internal
administration efficient and strong.
While
Grey was content to limit the entente to ‘keeping in touch so that our
diplomatic action may be in accord’, his Permanent Under-Secretary adopted a
line far closer to Nicolson’s. In a remarkably candid private letter to
Nicolson, which bordered on the disloyal, Hardinge castigated the policy of the
Liberal Government:
I
agree [he replied to Nicolson’s suggestion] that it is very desirable that we
should draw nearer to Russia, but there is no prospect of this while the present
Govt. is in office in this country. I am almost absolutely certain that certain
members of the Cabinet assiduously spread the report that, in the event of a
general conflagration, England would stand on one side. This was naturally
reported to Metternich and the Germans were thereby emboldened. Please regard
this as private but I know it is a fact. I mention this to show you how
impossible it is to hope for any step forward by this Govt. towards a closer
‘entente’ or even an alliance with Russia. When Balfour comes into office it
may be different, but we must hope that it may not be too late. This is not said
in any party spirit as I have none and I would sooner have Grey as my Chief than
anybody.
Meanwhile,
as Hardinge longed for the general election that would return the Conservatives
to power, the Foreign Office strongly refuted any suggestion that Russia had
been abandoned in the face of an Austro-German threat: ‘It is not the right
deduction’, declared Louis Mallet, ‘to say that the Triple Entente was too
weak to resist the Central Powers in this matter. It was not worth their while
to do so. If it had been, we could have prevented war.’ To which he sanguinely
added that ‘Russian public opinion will take a calmer view on reflection.’
Grey should at least have been able to garner some kudos for his support of the
new regime in Turkey, but even here there were no lasting benefits, a result
brought about first by the recalcitrant attitude of his Ambassador, and more
importantly, by the counter-revolution that erupted in April.
Sir
Gerard Lowther was highly regarded at the Foreign Office and would have been a
sound choice to deal with Abdul Hamid when power resided in the Sultan’s
hands. His misfortune was to arrive in Constantinople just after the Young Turk
uprising and then to fall under the spell of Fitzmaurice. As Grey later
complained, ‘The leaders of the Revolution had ability, and they were not more
hampered by pity or scruples than Abdul Hamid had been; but they were several
persons, and not one with supreme authority. Their force was dispersed among
many, and soon became dissipated in personal rivalries and intrigues.’
The second dragoman at the Embassy, Andrew (later Sir Andrew) Ryan, who was more
even-handed in his dealings with the Young Turks, has left the following
description of Lowther, which, perhaps, strives too hard to be fair:
[Lowther]
was a good chief, but I never became really intimate with him. It used to be
said that he had fallen short of the great opportunity afforded by his first
arrival in the glow of enthusiasm over the restoration of liberty in 1908. I
think that was unjust. The Young Turks were…chauvinistic, and no British
diplomat was likely to make much headway against them. It must be admitted,
however, that he lacked elasticity. A rich man and very much of a grand
seigneur, he was apt to look down on upstarts playing at statesmanship.
In
a telling comparison to his attitude to the unscrupulous ‘money-makers’
taking control of the party, when Ryan pointed out that the Young Turk leaders
were not out for money but something greater, Lowther ‘asked, apparently quite
sincerely, what was greater than money?’
The Salonica Christians, Jews and Freemasons that Lowther (briefed by
Fitzmaurice) believed were at the centre of the Young Turk revolution found that
time was running out for them as well: the general tendency was to assume that
the disorganization, neglect and corruption of the Hamidian regime could be put
right overnight whereas, in fact, the C.U.P. lacked the strength necessary to
give effect to the orders it issued. This, in turn, was exacerbated by the party
being riven by factions. One such, the ‘nationalists’, set out to
‘Ottomanize’ a diverse geographical area, where four languages (Turkish,
Greek, Armenian and French) were in everyday use, by insisting on Turkish only.
The point was not lost on the Armenians that success in this policy
concomitantly spelled doom for any prospect of an independent Armenia; to be
able to enlist support in Europe and America for their cause, the Armenians
needed ‘the old maladministration even if attended by the old massacres. The
same thoughts were in the minds of the Ottoman Greeks and the Albanians; to
them, Union and Progress meant oblivion and blight.’
If this was not bad enough, trouble was brewing in the First Army Corps in
Constantinople where word was being spread among the disaffected troops that the
C.U.P. was irreligious. The formation of the Society
of Mohammed on 5 April 1909 added to the pressure building up in the
capital. The Society – against the Ottomanization policy and strongly clerical
– demanded rule by the Sacred Law of the Sheriet. The message spread outwards
and upwards from the humblest troops until the pressure could no longer be
contained and exploded on the night of 12/13 April when the troops mutinied,
overpowered their officers (killing those they believed to have been tainted by
lasciviousness), and marched on parliament, demanding the reinstatement of
Kiamil as Grand Vizier and Nazim Pasha as Minister of War.
The situation remained confused throughout the 13th. At dawn that morning
armed men had made their way to the Square before the giant dome of Aya Sophia;
slowly the rabble began to grow in numbers. By noon thousands of armed and
agitated soldiers had gathered in the Square. It would still have been possible
to have sealed off the area and contain the mutiny, but no order came. Few, at
the time, failed to perceive the hand of the Sultan behind the uprising; for
Abdul Hamid the counter-revolution seemed to present a chance to revert to the
old order. ‘It was pointed out’, Lowther reported, ‘that the soldiers were
well provided with money — each man of the 4th Avji battalion, which began the
movement, was said to have received £T.5 — and that the hafiés — Palace
spies — were again at work, and the fact that the Sultan had issued a complete
pardon to the mutineers was adduced as a proof of his Majesty’s complicity.’
Whether the Sultan was involved or not, Lowther was quick to realize that ‘the
malcontents and reactionaries, who are numerous, should have taken advantage of
the opportunity to increase the confusion and panic in the hope of discrediting
the new order of things, and also that the friends of the Committee of Union and
Progress should try to rally public opinion to their aid by raising the cry that
the Constitution was in danger.’
Fortunately for the C.U.P. the Salonica Army remained loyal and ready to
restore order; to grant, in effect, the Committee a second chance to exert their
authority and the excuse to do so harshly. Whoever was behind the turmoil of 13
April, the result was that the Grand Vizier, Hilmi, quickly resigned, wisely
followed by his Cabinet. In the evening volleys of rifle fire could be heard
drifting across the Golden Horn from Stamboul to Pera where the worst was
feared; however, other than a few members of the C.U.P. who forfeited their
lives, most of the firing was in a spirit of rejoicing at the troops’ success.
All was quiet the following morning, though no-one appeared quite sure who the
new Grand Vizier was going to be. The Liberal Union filled the spaces in
parliament vacated by the C.U.P.; Tewfik Pasha was named Grand Vizier;
and all that was left to accomplish, it seemed, was to placate the Third Army in
Salonica by spreading the message that the uprising was a spontaneous gesture
and was not directed at the party.
At first it looked as if this approach might succeed as the conflicting accounts
reaching Salonica made the commander of the Third Army, Mahmud Shevket Pasha,
reluctant to commit his troops. Eventually a compromise proposed by Kemal was
accepted with alacrity: a volunteer force of regulars and reserves should march
on Constantinople. This ‘Action Army’ (so named at Kemal’s suggestion)
would, it was hoped, be seen as not being politically tainted, but, if things
went wrong, the axe would fall on Kemal and the other junior officers, leaving
Shevket’s hands clean.
Although ‘great uneasiness’ prevailed in Constantinople, leading
members of the new Government and the Commander of the 1st Army Corps initially
‘professed the greatest optimism’. This mood soon turned to near panic as
the ‘Committee’s partisans feared assassination before help from Salonica
could arrive, while the liberals and others — even neutrals — were terrified
at the news from Salonica, and both were apprehensive of a move on the part of
the Sultan.’
The Action Army marched on 16 April and had reached the walls of Constantinople
six days later. The delay before the column arrived enabled the various Young
Turks dispatched as attachés throughout the Continent to return hastily to take
up their positions in the Action Army
and Shevket, realizing that the counter-revolution was not spreading but
remained localized within the walls of the city, now assumed his place at the
head of the column.
With the game now up the Sultan, it was rumoured, was prepared to foment a
massacre within the city, which would have forced the intervention of the Great
Powers to restore order but, if this was his intention, he had left it too late.
Instead, Abdul Hamid now desired to switch sides and welcome the Action Army,
while the Cabinet tried to reason with Shevket by sending deputations out to him
proclaiming that the new Government was constitutionally based. In desperation,
Rifaat Pasha, the new Foreign Minister, was instructed to approach Lowther with
a request to allow Fitzmaurice to accompany a delegation of Deputies to
Tchatalja. According to Rifaat, ‘it was the unanimous belief of the Cabinet
that the Committee’s forces would more readily credit the statement that there
was no attack on the Constitution if made by a foreigner, and that an Englishman
would carry special weight.’ In the face of this entreaty Lowther felt that he
‘could not decline to take any step which might contribute to avert a
collision with all its unknown consequences’, although his consent was only
given with some reluctance, as he felt ‘very strongly how undesirable it is
that the Embassy should be drawn into any kind of interference’. Lowther’s
misgivings were allayed however for, ‘when Fitzmaurice reached Stamboul he
found that other counsels prevailed and that it had been decided that the
Deputies should go alone. The Deputation fared no better than its predecessors,
and indeed failed even to obtain a hearing.’
Shevket moved on the night of 23/24 April. Aware finally of the city’s fate,
and confident of his own personal survival (for had he not always been in favour
of the Constitution?) the Sultan,
sent
for his Chamberlain to read aloud to him: a new Conan Doyle story had appeared
in the Strand Magazine, and as usual
it had been immediately translated by the Press Bureau in Yildiz Kiosk. So Abdul
Hamid passed the long hours, with a shawl over his knees, lying on a divan,
smoking, listening to the adventures of Sherlock Holmes, while the Army of
Liberation closed in round the Palace.
On
the following morning Ryan, walking along the Grand Rue de Pera and barely half
a mile from the Embassy, found himself ‘on the edge of a minor battle
front.’ By the evening of the 24th Pera, Stamboul and Galata had been secured
by the Salonica forces and the counter-revolution was crushed.
Although he might have been personally sympathetic to the Young Turks,
Tewfik’s appointment as Grand Vizier, coming as it did as a result of the
uprising against the C.U.P., could not be sustained. Hilmi Pasha resumed his
duties as Grand Vizier while Tewfik went to London as Ambassador. And, finally,
the end had come for Abdul Hamid who was deposed in favour of his brother,
Mehmet V Reshad, ‘a bibulous but kindly dotard’.
Lowther described the events of the 24th as ‘most nauseating’ though in his
private letter to Hardinge he admitted he was ‘writing as I do while my blood
is still hot if it ever is.’ As always his proclaimed attitude was ‘strictly
impartial’ but he thought also ‘the Committee are by no means blind to the
situation of the Germans who have so readily thrown over their old friend the
Sultan for the Committee and the latter will use the Germans as long as it
pleases them.’
Hardinge had hoped that the shock of the counter-revolution might have knocked
some sense into the C.U.P. and made them less intransigent in their dealings
with the British. His principle aim – of a rapprochement
with Russia – was being bedevilled by the difficulty of dealing with the Young
Turks who seemed unable to appreciate the British desire to maintain a peace of
sorts in the Balkans. Hardinge was fast losing his patience. Grey, on the other
hand, being somewhat boxed in by his ardent support of the Young Turks in 1908,
was willing to give them another chance. ‘I see you are becoming
pessimistic’, he wrote Lowther on 30 April, adding,
I
was becoming so, on hearing that corruption was creeping into the Committee and
the Young Turks. But I cannot help being impressed by the decision, purpose,
discipline and strength which have characterised the leaders of the Army which
is now in power. It is clear that we have greatly under-estimated the force at
the disposal of the Committee. Who the Committee are, I do not know, and I do
not like the idea of an anonymous and irresponsible directing body any more than
you do. No doubt they have made plenty of mistakes. But it seems clear to me
that the best elements in Turkey are on their side, and we must back up those
elements and be sympathetic to them. Whether the chance of really permanent
reform is great or small, we must back the chance as long as it exists, and I
should like you to do everything in your power to keep in touch with the best
men and to retain their confidence. I liked Kiamil, because he seemed to me a
man of character and honesty, and a fine old fellow, though by all accounts his
son appears to be a scoundrel. But there must be amongst the men now in power
several of ability and character and good intentions, or they could not have
done what they have in the way in which they have done…
However,
in a thinly veiled attack on Lowther, Grey also thought ‘that during the last
three or four months we have let ourselves slide too much into a critical
attitude towards the Committee and the Young Turks…and we must be less
critical and more sympathetic.’
Hardinge, temporarily adopting Grey’s line, and seeing in Fitzmaurice
the éminence grise, wrote the
following day to Lowther to caution him that the dragoman should be made to
adopt a more considerate attitude towards the Young Turks, which was ‘the only
practical line of policy to follow’ and was the prevailing feeling in London.
Whatever hope for reform remained now obviously rested with the Young Turks
‘and if they do not meet with sympathy and cannot lean on us they will soon
learn to lean on some other Power, and the splendid position which we had at
Constantinople a few months ago will be lost.’
To Aubrey Herbert, who had returned to Constantinople following news of the
counter-revolution, the position was already lost. When he had last been there
four months previously ‘there was nothing in the world the Turks would not do
for an Englishman. All that is changed now. Our Embassy have snubbed them
whenever it was possible, have supported the people they most disliked.’
Not one to accept criticism meekly Lowther rallied support in what appeared to
be an orchestrated campaign: he wrote ‘at great length’ to Grey that his aim
throughout had been ‘that the Embassy should be in complete harmony with the
Govt in power and with moderate and I believe best members of the Committee.’
In addition, Adam Block wrote privately to Hardinge:
There
is a tendency among certain Young Turks, whose identity I cannot discover, to
attribute to England, – to our Embassy, to our Press, and to England
generally, – a share of the responsibility for the late attack on the
Committee of Union and Progress (of April 13th and onwards), and arguing from
that premiss [sic] they would wish to show that England is hostile to the work the
Committee has taken in hand of regenerating the country and reorganizing the
administration on liberal lines. This is quite unjust. Our Embassy has never
shown any but the most sympathetic and encouraging attitude to the reform
movement, and although the Embassy did identify itself to a certain extent with
Kiamil, there is no ground whatsoever for stating that is [sic] has been or is hostile to the Committee. Criticism there no
doubt was, but it was fair criticism and it was made with the intention of
rendering a service…Sir Edward Grey’s speech and The Times leader on it were good, and I have had them translated and
put in the local press, and I ventured to make some observations myself at the
annual meeting of the Chamber of Commerce…[W]e must continue to instil into
the public mind that the attacks made upon us are not justified…But the fact
remains that there is a feeling being worked up against us. I attribute it to
three causes. We put too much money on one horse in backing Kiamil through thick
and thin, although it was evident that through his son he was mixed up with all
kinds of undesirable people. Secondly the Levant Herald and Mizzi have done us incalculable harm. I think we
must buy that paper out and run it ourselves. I believe Mizzi would
sell…Lastly I attribute the reaction against England to the German subventions
to the press in Europe, and in Constantinople, and to the telegraphic agencies
here…All these agencies live by subvention and every speech of our public men,
and every report and leader in our press reaches Constantinople in distorted
form, and are duly reproduced and commented on in the local press. The Germans
have their paper and are about to found another…The Germans are making most
strenuous efforts to regain their influence, and their chance lies in the army.
Many young officers are dazzled by Germany’s military pre-eminence and
prestige, and I suspect Mahmoud Mouktar Pasha as one of the chief supporters of
Germany. The army is to-day the Government and we may expect an increase of
German influence. As I put it, we have got back to “Marshall” Law.
But I don’t believe that pro-German and Anti-British feeling is very deep or
wide spread, and it is not spontaneous I am sure. We must go on working,
maintaining the same sympathetic and encouraging attitude as long as the Turks
are on the right track, and if we advertise our feeling a little more it will do
no harm. The mass of people are ignorant and very inclined to judge by words
rather than by facts: it is only natural as the facts to them are often
unknown…
Hardinge
replied that, although the Turks would probably side with whatever they
considered to be the strongest combination of Powers at any given time, yet
‘if peace and quiet continue in the Balkans for the next two years, and if in
the meantime the Turks lean on Austria and Germany, they will, in my opinion,
find that they have put their money on the wrong horse, and that it would have
been much better for them to have made friends with the Bulgarians and to have
leaned on the Powers of the Triple Entente.’
In this, Hardinge continued in his belief that some form of Balkan bloc
with Turkey and Bulgaria as its main supporters was the surest way to deflate
Austrian ambitions in the area; but the Turks would not play the game and it was
still too soon to gauge the prospects of the new regime which now seemed
dependent for its support not on popular acclaim but fear from the constant
threat of military intervention. Isvolsky, lunching with Grey on the Admiralty
yacht during Cowes’ Week that year, was worried: the outlook, particularly in
Turkey, was most uncertain. While he hoped the new regime would succeed and
believed it should be supported, nevertheless he thought the likely outcome to
be failure which, he feared, would encourage the Austrians to come to an
arrangement with Bulgaria by which Austria advanced to Salonica ‘while
Bulgaria entered Macedonia with the promise of an immediate acquisition of new
territory, and the prospect of Constantinople in the background…’ Grey could
do no more than to promise to support the new regime ‘as long as there was any
prospect of its success.’
For the moment however, the real problem was Isvolsky himself, as Fairfax
Cartwright discovered while enjoying a few days break in Venice. His relaxation
was interrupted when he chanced upon Isvolsky, who was also there, resting. The
Russian harangued Cartwright for some considerable time, asserting that
‘Aehrenthal was vigorously intriguing among the little Balkan States,
preventing a good understanding between Bulgaria and Servia — pushing Bulgaria
upon Macedonia — Roumania upon Bulgaria, &c.’ Cartwright was forced to
point out, judiciously, that ‘it did not require any intrigues on the part of
Aehrenthal to keep up friction between Bulgaria and Servia, as those two
countries disliked each other so cordially that if they were only left to
themselves their relations to each other would always be indifferent.’ The
hatred felt by Isvolsky towards Aehrenthal was so bitter, that any
Austro-Russian rapprochement was, for the moment, out of the question.
Isvolsky, Hardinge had earlier maintained, ‘should realise the great advantage
of war in the Balkans having been postponed to a later date when Russia may be
in a better state of preparation, and I only hope that Russian statesmen will
take the recent lesson to heart’.
The humiliation felt in Russia as a result of the Bosnian crisis would
linger like a cancerous cell, eating away at that most fragile of entities, a
nation’s prestige. For the present, there was a short breathing space to be
savoured. By late 1910 Isvolsky had been replaced as Foreign Minister and it had
become clear that Austrian ambitions in the region had been satiated. Grey was
informed from Vienna in September that Aehrenthal had
no
intention of allowing Austria-Hungary to be pushed by Germany further towards
the South East of Europe and made to absorb still more Slav populations into her
Empire. To do this would make her relations with Russia still more strained that
they are at present, and Aehrenthal wishes to avoid this and would, I think, be
satisfied if Austria-Hungary enjoyed a reasonable amount of influence in the
Balkans instead of having to go there herself…I think it is quite clear that
Aehrenthal dreads anything occurring which is likely to lead to a change in the
“status quo” in the Near East. Aehrenthal does not love the new Turkish régime
for itself — in a moment of expansion he once exclaimed to me “do you
suppose I can sympathise with revolutionary committees and tribunals?”, —but
he will do nothing to damage the prestige of the present Turkish Government and
he hopes that for the peace of the Balkans the new régime
at Constantinople will hold its own for some time to come. Should it go
overboard, he is convinced that anarchy will follow, and this would endanger the
peace of Europe; for him the new Turkish régime,
bad as it may be, is the lid on the pot which keeps the stuff inside from
boiling over, and he will do his utmost diplomatically to keep the lid from
being blown away.
For
Grey, the strengthening of the military’s grip on the Government perhaps eased
his fears of widespread constitutional reform and therefore made it more
imperative to try to work with the Porte in an attempt to subvert the resurgence
of German influence. As Hardinge had earlier remarked, ‘We may have to pass
through a disagreeable period of one or two years, during which everybody’s
influence in Constantinople will be struggling for supremacy, while ours will
occupy a back seat.’
Lowther’s continuing antagonism would not make the task any easier.
|