Gritting its teeth, the Berlin government has stepped aside and decided to wait. The more it is forced to seek a rapprochement with the Young Turks [1] the firmer their positions will grow. But there is no doubt that capitalist Germany is just as genuinely prepared to welcome the downfall of constitutional Turkey as she has up till now hypocritically welcomed, its victory. On the other hand the more Turkey weakened Germany’s position in the Balkans, the more noisily Britain demonstrated her friendship towards the new order. In this interminable struggle between the two mighty European states the Young Turks naturally sought support and “friends” on the Thames. But the sore point in Anglo-Turkish relations is Egypt. There can of course be no thought of her voluntary evacuation by Britain: she has too great an interest in ruling the Suez Canal to do this. Would Britain support Turkey in event of military difficulties? Or would she stab her in the back and declare Egypt to be her property? One is as likely as the other depending on circumstances. But in either case it is not sentimental love for liberal Turkey but cold and merciless imperialist calculation that guides the actions of the British government.
From The Balkans, Capitalist Europe and Tsarism
(dated 14th October 1908), Proletarii, 1st November 1908
Russian diplomacy wishes to gain for its navy a free exit from the Black Sea into the Mediterranean from where it has been barred for over half a century. The Bosphorus and the Dardanelles, two sea gateways fortified with artillery, are in the hands of the Turks, the custodians of the straits by virtue of a European mandate. But if Russian warships cannot leave the Black Sea neither can foreign ships enter it. Tsarist diplomacy wants the ban to be lifted only for its own ships. Britain can hardly agree to this. The disarming of the straits is acceptable to her only if it gives her the opportunity of sending her fleet into the Sea of Marmara or the Black Sea. But then Russia with her insignificant naval forces would not gain but lose. And Turkey would lose in either case. Her navy is worthless and the master of Constantinople would be the state that could place its battleships under its walls. Novoe Vremya [2] lashes out at Britain who denies the Tsarist government this right, which has, in view of the weakness of the Black Sea Fleet, a “purely theoretical nature” and yet persuades the Shah’s government to open the gates before Russia while promising in exchange to safeguard Turkey’s rule over the straits from foreign encroachment. While protesting in the name of the Treaty of Berlin against the private agreement between Turkey and Austria, Russia herself wants by means of a private agreement with Turkey to break her European mandate. If she had succeeded in achieving her aim this would present a danger not only to the peaceful development of Turkey but also to the peace of all Europe.
While Izvolsky [3] ties up the knots of diplomatic intrigues in Europe, Colonel Lyakhov [4] shares his work and sets off for Asia to cut some diplomatic knots with a sword. Behind the noise of the Balkan events [5] and behind the patriotic shrieks of the loyalist press, Tsarism is preparing a second offensive of the Cossack boot against the heart of revolutionary Persia. [6] And this is being accomplished not only with the silent complicity of Europe but with the active collaboration of “liberal” Britain too.
The victory of Tabriz, the most considerable city of Persia, over the Shah’s troops, threatened to upset the plans of St. Petersburg and London diplomacy completely. Besides the fact that the final victory of the revolution was pregnant with Persia’s economic and political rebirth, the protracted civil war inflicted immediate damage upon the interests of Russian and British capital ... sentence on Persia had been pronounced. [7] Reporting on the most recent talks between Izvolsky and Grey [8], the London Foreign Office demonstratively emphasized the complete solidarity of both governments as a guarantee of their “harmonious co-operation” in solving Central Asian problems. And as early as the 11th October six Russian infantry battalions, supported by a corresponding force of artillery and cavalry, crossed the Persian frontier to occupy revolutionary Tabriz. Telegraphic links with the city have been cut for a long time now so that the humane peoples of Europe are spared the necessity of following step by step how Tsarism’s brazen rabble realizes the “harmonious co-operation” of two “Christian” nations amid the smoking ruins of Tabriz ...
From The Balkans, Capitalist Europe and Tsarism
(dated 14th October 1908), Proletarii, 1st November 1908.
1. The “Young Turks” were exiled Turkish liberals who in 1907 joined with young army officers, led by Enver Pasha, who staged a rising in Macedonia in July 1908 to demand the restoration of the constitution by the Sultan, Abdul Hamid II. In the face of the wide support that this movement attracted the Sultan quickly gave way, and a parliament was called in December. “Young Turk” officers were from then on to dominate the Turkish government, building an alliance with Germany while continuing to oppress the non-Turkish peoples of the Ottoman Empire. The Sultan dismissed the “Young Turks” from the government upon Turkey’s defeat in October 1918.
2. Extreme reactionary St. Petersburg newspaper published from 1868 until 1917. After 1905 it openly supported the ultra-right terrorist bands known as the Black Hundreds.
3. Alexander Izvolsky (1856-1919), Russian Foreign Minister from 1905 to 1909.
4. Colonel Lyakhov (1869-1919), commander of a Cossack Brigade in Iran staffed by Russian officers. In June 1908 he bombarded the Iranian parliament in support of a counter-revolutionary coup d’état.
5. Bosnia-Hercegovina was annexed by Austria-Hungary in October 1908. This consolidation of Austro-Hungarian power in the Balkans was opposed by Tsarist Russia.
6. The Persian Revolution of 1905-1908 was led by petty-bourgeois democrats with the support of the peasantry and workers to win democratic reforms from the Shah’s feudal regime. Local revolutionary councils (enjumens) were set up with their main centre at Tabriz. In September 1906 Shah Mohammed Ali was forced to convene the Majlis (parliament) with a restricted franchise. Further minor reforms were insufficient to stem an upsurge of strikes and land seizures, and in June 1908, with the backing of British and Russian imperialism, the Shah staged a coup dissolving the Majlis and the theeran enjumen. Tabriz then rose up in arms and the enjumen took power only to be overthrown by Tsarist forces in October 1908.
7. The “sentence” was the Anglo-Russian Entente of August 1907 which defined the two imperial powers’ interests in Central Asia, Tibet, Afghanistan and Persia, where a northern zone (including theeran and Tabriz) and an eastern zone were assigned respectively to Russia and Britain as “spheres of influence”.
8. Sir Edward Grey (1862-1933), British Liberal politician, Foreign Secretary 1905-1916.
Last updated on: 1.7.2007