Given below is the
complete introduction which appears in Straits.
This introduction is provided as a service to those who may be interested in the
subject. It provides an indication of the scope and content of the book but
please note that, in accordance with the provisions of the Copyright Act 1988,
it may not be reproduced without the prior permission of the author. Please see
the copyright notice at the base of this page.
STRAITS
British Policy Towards the Ottoman Empire and the Origins of the Dardanelles Campaign
"By 6 oclock therefore on the morning of August 7
[1914] the Goeben, already the fastest capital unit in the Mediterranean, was steaming on
an unobstructed course for the Dardanelles, carrying with her for the peoples of the East
and Middle East more slaughter, more misery and more ruin than has ever before been borne
within the compass of a ship."
[Winston Churchill]
The Ottoman Empire had undergone a fundamental change since the military defeat at
the hands of the Russians in 1877. The lurid western image of the Sultan, Abdul Hamid
(universally known as Abdul the Damned), masked certain advances that had been made and
which looked likely to continue, albeit at a snails pace. These reforms however
could not come soon enough to head off the pressure building from within the Empire and
which exploded in 1908 with the Young Turk revolution. Initially with limited aims, the
Young Turks and, in particular, the inner circle forming the heart of the party the
Committee of Union and Progress (C.U.P.) would increasingly stand at the centre of
Turkish politics, for good or evil. As with other reformists, the Young Turks looked
beyond their own borders for help in the task of modernizing the Ottoman Empire. The
German Emperor had already demonstrated his willingness to assist, his overt altruism as
always underpinned by hard commercial and strategic logic. Sir Edward Grey, the British
Foreign Secretary, also made soothing noises in London and, for one brief shining moment,
British stock in Turkey rose to unheard of heights culminating in a spontaneous public
display of approbation when the new Ambassador, Sir Gerard Lowther, arrived soon after the
revolution.
The pieces were there to be picked up; but Lowther would not stoop. Malign
influence from within the Embassy, together with his own haughty personality and confusing
signals from London, combined to bankrupt the British stock and leave the way open for
Germany. Nevertheless, it should not be thought that the scheming Teutons then proceeded
to coerce the Turks to their bidding; for the Turks could be equally scheming. The end
result Turkeys entry into the war as an ally of Germany owed more to
the machinations of a German Admiral, Wilhelm Souchon, and Enver Pasha, the Minister for
War, than it did to the prevarication of the less rabid members of the Committee of Union
and Progress who had hoped to use Germany until it was felt the moment had arrived when
Turkey could be admitted as a fully paid-up member of the international club and join the
exclusive coterie of nations entitled to be described as Powers, with all the majesty
denoted by that imposing capital letter. As part of this grand scheme, and at Turkish
invitation, Britain undertook the onerous task of modernizing Turkeys navy; Germany
reformed her army; France contributed most financially.
Despite this, the Ottoman Empire in the early twentieth century was still an
unwieldy product of past glories with glistening fruits at the extremities which were ripe
for the plucking. The power base of the Young Turks was too narrow and, while the heart
beat more strongly in Constantinople after the revolution, the effect was too late to save
the atrophied limbs. When trouble struck the new régime at the Sublime Porte in 1911 (the
certainty of which was only partly offset by the surprise felt that it should be the
Italians who began the process of dismantling the Empire), the Young Turks turned to
Britain for an alliance; they were rebuffed. Further approaches were made, all with the
same result. British support for France, to prevent her falling under the virtual
control of Germany, was essential; British support for Russia was necessary, or, as
Grey admitted, we should again be faced with the old troubles about the frontier of
India; British support for the Ottoman Empire was an unnecessary entanglement. But
Grey did not write Turkey off completely: after the disappointing tenure of Lowther, one
of the rising stars of the Foreign Office, Sir Louis Mallet, was dispatched as Ambassador
with a remit to repair the damage done by Lowther. This Mallet attempted to do. That he
was, ultimately, unsuccessful was due more to a combination of the sinister forces that
continued to operate within the British Embassy at Pera and a fatal defect in Mallet
himself: seeing what he wanted to see. The flattery lavished on his hosts was used against
him; paternal and gullible in equal measure, Mallets mission was a failure. Whether
it could have been otherwise if more support had been forthcoming from London is
problematical.
The difficulty for Britain was that there was a lack of consensus over the policy
to be pursued with regard to the Ottoman Empire and this in turn created a vacuum which
was then filled by the personal views of the Ambassadors and other advisers. The
cornerstone of Greys foreign policy was the Anglo-Russian Convention of 1907. When
the Liberal party came to power in December 1905 Russia had just been humiliatingly
defeated by Japan and had ceased, temporarily, to be a menace to British interests in
India and Persia. No-one believed however that this situation would last. Russia would
eventually rise again to threaten British interests, unless checked either diplomatically
or militarily. To an incoming administration soon to be pledged to expensive social reform
and burdened with onerous naval estimates, the military option was out of the question. A
diplomatic solution on the other hand would not only safeguard interests it would have
been otherwise difficult to defend but would also suit the French who had their own formal
alliance with Russia. Although it would later be referred to in terms of classic balance
of power politics, Imperial considerations were to the fore in negotiating and maintaining
the Anglo-Russian entente. Grey forthrightly resisted calls to convert the entente into an
alliance as this, he believed, could only be seen in the context of a grouping directed
against the Triple Alliance of Germany, Austria-Hungary and Italy. Meanwhile. with Germany
in the ascendant at the Sublime Porte, the Anglo-Russian Convention had an important side
benefit. As the Permanent Under-Secretary at the Foreign Office declared: Russia
will inevitably be drawn into paying greater attention to her position in the Near East
& there she will constantly find herself in conflict with Germany and not in
opposition to us.
While Abdul Hamid ruled as Sultan of the Ottoman Empire, the Anglo-Russian
Convention had little impact on Turkish relations with Britain which were already poor.
This situation changed dramatically with the Young Turk Revolution and the overthrow of
the Sultan. Faced with an apparently democratic movement, Grey had to perform a balancing
act, at the same encouraging the new, anti-Russian, régime while seeking not to alienate
St Petersburg. This was particularly important as the Russian Foreign Minister was, at the
same time, clamouring for a guarantee of free passage for Russian warships through the
Straits of the Bosphorus and Dardanelles. Grey was also faced with a no less important
dilemma — would the constitutional change that had been forced upon the Porte by the
Young Turks lead to a demand for similar constitutional reform amongst Britains
Muslim subjects in Egypt? Almost immediately, the new régime faced a stern test following
the Austro-Hungarian annexation of Bosnia-Herzegovina. To Greys undoubted relief,
the Turks reacted prudently and a major crisis was averted. As Austria-Hungarys
ally, Germanys standing at the Porte suffered grievously as a result of the
annexation; now was the time to cement Britains new status as a supporter of the
administration. Instead, before long, Grey developed doubts as to the democratic bona
fides of the new régime, and these doubts fed upon the pessimistic reports reaching him
from his Ambassador. Eventually the continued cynicism of Lowther would earn a rebuke from
Grey; the effect was short-lived. Events in the Ottoman Empire appeared to bear witness to
Lowthers low opinion of the Committee of Union and Progress. Grey, perhaps bored by
the subject or aware of the limitations of foreign policy, left matters alone until a
series of wars involving the Turks caused him to consider the implications of the break-up
of the Ottoman Empire.
Lowthers continuing disenchantment with the C.U.P., combined with the
continual rebuffs delivered to the régime by London, paved the way for a resurgence of
German influence. This, and the concurrent Russian and French designs on the Ottoman
Empire, created its own problem which was succinctly outlined by Mallet in 1913: I
assume that it is to the interest of Great Britain that the integrity of what remains of
the Turkish Empire should be maintained — a division of the Asiatic provinces into
spheres of interest could not benefit us, but would seriously affect the balance of power
in the Mediterranean, our position in Egypt, in the Persian Gulf, to say nothing of India,
and might bring about a European war. At the same time however British naval
strength in the Mediterranean was being reduced. By April 1913 the strength of the Malta
Squadron stood at precisely one battle cruiser while, in the summer of the following year,
the Turks were scheduled to take delivery of a British-built dreadnought. And, if the
rumours that they were trying to procure a second dreadnought proved correct, the prospect
loomed of the Turks gaining temporary naval mastery of the Eastern Mediterranean until
such times as the British Squadron could be reinforced. With the military and naval
options being narrowed, Grey had but little choice than to recall Lowther and, in a
belated attempt to foster better relations, replace him with a more sympathetic
Ambassador.
By the spring of 1914, having weathered the Turco-Italian war and both Balkan Wars,
the Turks could be forgiven for thinking that their putative protectors were now poised to
deliver the coup de grâce — what the Minor Powers had failed to accomplish, the
Major Powers would finish. All it would take was for one of them to make the first move;
each Power had its particular area mapped out dignified by such names as sphere of
interest if little else. In a last ditch attempt to forestall the inevitable the
Turks turned to Russia. Nothing could have better illustrated the innate weakness of the
Turkish position. In the circumstances Russian suspicion and the pressure of events
resulted in the final, fatal adherence to Germany. Even here the outcome might have been
different: the German Ambassador to the Porte reported ruefully on Turkeys
usefulness as an ally and was over-ruled; the Turks themselves pursued a course of
delaying for as long as possible the moment when the debt incurred following the signature
of the Turco-German Treaty of Alliance on 2 August 1914 would be called in. This begs the
question, for how long could the Turks have kept up the pretence had their hand not been
forced by Admiral Souchon?
As the fate of Souchons squadron was to have such a bearing on the entry of
Turkey into the First World War it would be as well to recall briefly the allegedly
resplendent escape of Goeben and Breslau from the British (which I have
described in detail in my previous work, Superior Force). Having bombarded the North
African ports of Philippeville and Bona early on the morning of Tuesday, 4 August in an
attempt to disrupt the transportation of the Algerian Corps to France, Souchon returned to
Messina, there to coal, before, in compliance with his orders, resuming his dash to
Constantinople. For Admiral Milne, the British Commander-in-Chief, it should have been a
relatively simple task, once Souchon had re-entered Messina, to blockade him there.
Instead, convinced that Souchon intended to break west to interfere in the transportation
once more, Milne placed his heaviest forces to the west of Sicily in a position to block
this move. The northern exit of the Straits of Messina was left unguarded while, to the
south, the humble light cruiser Gloucester patrolled alone.
Souchon made his break late on the afternoon of Thursday, 6 August. It was still
possible for Goeben to have been intercepted by Rear-Admiral Troubridges First
Cruiser Squadron, but, in a fatal error of judgment based on a notorious signal from the
First Lord of the Admiralty, Winston Churchill, Troubridge decided that the German battle
cruiser constituted a superior force to the First Cruiser Squadron and declined to
intercept. Throughout most of Friday, 7 August, as Souchon continued towards Cape Matapan,
the British were able to keep in touch through the admirable efforts of Captain Howard
Kelly, who continued to shadow in Gloucester. Finally however, aware that Kelly was short
of coal and fearing that his ship might be ambushed, Milne ordered Kelly to go no further
than the Cape. When Kelly reluctantly gave up the chase that afternoon it was the last the
British would see of the German ships until they reached the Dardanelles three days later.
Would Milne have reacted differently if he had been convinced that Souchon was
headed in a north-easterly direction? For it is now clear that Admiral Mark Kerr, the
British Admiral on loan to the Greek Government for the purposes of reorganizing their
fleet, was aware of Souchons destination and passed on this information to the
Russian Minister in Athens, Prince Demidoff, who in turn cabled the Admiralty in St
Petersburg. From first light on Saturday 8 August the Russians, but not the British, were
aware that Souchon was steaming north-east, towards the Dardanelles. On the other hand,
Kerrs attempt to alert Milne, while simultaneously trying to disguise the source of
his information, failed abysmally. Furthermore the Greek Premier, Eleutherios Venizelos,
assumed to be rabidly pro-Entente, was not only also aware of Souchons destination,
but conspired to supply coal to the fleeing German ships while at the same time
undermining the reports of the Turco-German alliance being picked up in Athens by the
representatives of the Entente.
Kerr and Venizelos were both applying the same means to achieve different ends.
Once at their destination, the German ships would, Venizelos gambled, precipitate a quick
breach between Turkey and her neighbours under the influence of Turkeys German ally.
With Turkey in the war it would have made sense for the Entente, as they planned, to seek
active Greek participation; Venizelos could then name his terms. What Venizelos did not
count on was the reluctance of the Turks to enter the lists. By the time the Turks were
eventually forced into the war by Souchon and Enver Pasha, Venizelos had all but lost his
chance to march, hand-in-hand, with the Entente Powers. Once more, Admiral Kerr was to be
his nemesis. By sending a reply to Churchill, against the wishes of Venizelos, in which he
asked for a guarantee of Bulgarian neutrality or co-operation, Kerr removed the immediate
prospect of Greek participation in the proposed Dardanelles scheme.
Not until the campaign at the Dardanelles was almost under way would the Greeks
again be
approached for assistance. At first non-committal, once the assault commenced all
the ambitions of Venizelos would be re-aroused and, on 1 March, he offered the
co-operation of three Greek divisions for service on the Gallipoli peninsula. The British
Minister in Athens was to declare that the prospect of entering Constantinople as
conquerors weighs more with the King and his people than that of any material advantage to
be obtained by the war. The Greek offer was debated by the Cabinet in London on 2
March and was, Asquith noted, gladly accepted by us, with the suggestion that the
Greeks should also contribute their Navy (four good ships) & their excellent flotilla
of Destroyers. However, the Russians imposed an immediate veto upon the offer.
Desperate, Venizelos cabled London and Paris that without having any political views
on Constantinople and the Straits, we have such interests of a moral and commercial order
there that we could not be disinterested in their fate. All he wished to do was
enter Constantinople if only temporarily along with the victors. Greece, he
breathtakingly exclaimed, would not accept the city if offered to her.
What Venizelos was unaware of was that the city had, in fact, already been offered
to the Russians. In November 1914 Grey learned that the Russian offensive against the
Turks would, of necessity, violate Persian neutrality. Sir Edward became distinctly
nervous at the thought of Russian encroachment in Persia, which directly threatened
British interests in the Gulf and, more seriously, India itself. Maintaining Persia as a
buffer therefore assumed paramount importance in the counsels of the Foreign Office. This,
in itself, was a suitable reason for Grey not to have been overly concerned when balancing
the scales by hoping to trade Constantinople for a free hand in Southern Persia and the
Gulf. But was there another, underlying, reason to explain the British desire to maintain
their position? How dependent was the Royal Navy on the Mesopotamian and Persian
oilfields? Was there a hidden agenda?
The current work, the second in a projected trilogy, examines the policy of the
Great Powers towards the Ottoman Empire, with particular emphasis on charting the
fluctuations in British policy and the lost opportunities to foster better Anglo-Turkish
relations. The obsession with protecting India by means of the Anglo-Russian Convention
limited the choices open to Grey after the overthrow of the Sultan. What choices remained
were in turn affected by the character of the Ambassadors resident in the imposing Embassy
building atop the hill in Pera and their dependence upon the Chief Dragoman. British
policy would be guided by the necessity to prevent Russian incursions into Persia; by the
anxiety felt at the resurgence of German influence in Constantinople; and by the
ever-present fear that any breakdown in relations with the Porte would result in
uncontrollable Muslim agitation throughout India and Egypt. Straits also details how the
good intentions of the Young Turk revolution were soon to be derailed; rule by consensus
would be replaced by rule by triumvirate. In part this reflected the confusion of motives
amongst the Powers, not knowing whether to preserve the Ottoman Empire or to precipitate
the scramble they all expected following its final collapse. This collapse, however,
proved a long time coming. First a war with Italy; then one, then a second Balkan war; all
of which the Empire survived, if not quite whole. The choices facing the Turkish Cabinet
upon the outbreak of the European war in August 1914 were of a different character
entirely; the very being of the Empire was now threatened. Could Turkey have remained out
of the war? Was the possession of Goeben the sole determinant?
Once the fateful decision was taken to attack Russia, it was left to Winston
Churchill to finish the job of dismantling the Ottoman Empire; instead, the job finished
him. Yet, although Churchill and Gallipoli would be forever intertwined in the
publics memory, the real author of the botched campaign, but who escaped official
censure, was the Secretary of the War Council, Maurice Hankey. This is my last task: to
offer a new interpretation of the drift to the Dardanelles showing the extent to which the
campaign resulted first, as a consequence of a behind-the-scenes campaign by Hankey,
second from the personal friction between Churchill and his First Sea Lord, Admiral Sir
John Fisher and, third, with the knowledge that Goeben — Churchills nemesis
— had been badly damaged and would be out of action in the first months of 1915.
|