p. 10 | PERCY T. MAGAN by PERCY T. MAGAN

Review and Herald Publishing Association · Takoma Park Station, Washington, D.C. · Aug 12, 1909

PERCY T. MAGAN

By PERCY T. MAGAN

The Turkish Revolution.—No. 6

PERCY T. MAGAN

Constantinople: Europe’s Dinner — Russia’s Life

The Turkish question is the international question of the hour. The platform rings with it, and the press teems with it. One thing has been effected by the recent revolutions in the Ottoman empire,—men have ceased to “prophesy” as to what will happen next in Turkey. The situation, say the authorities , “is inscrutable.” Noel Buxton, the chairman of the Balkan Commission, tells us that “no one is entitled, since the revolution of the twenty-third of July, 1908, to speak of more than facts.” He declares that “no one has more to report than the things that have happened and the talk of the town,” and that “the world is watching a new phenomenon.” See Noel Buxton, Art. “Young Turks,” in Nineteenth Century and After, January, 1909.

From these and many other similar statements by the most learned and brilliant students of the “near-Eastern question,” it is evident that they have no certain philosophy to advance relative to the future of the Ottoman empire. They admit that the situation “is inscrutable.” They agree that they can not fathom it.

But on the Eastern question, as on a thousand other problems, the Word of God furnishes a sure philosophy. Biblical prophetics explain worldly politics. The Bible says of the Turk that “he shall come to his end, and none shall help him.” Abdul-Hamid or Mehmed V, Young Turk or no Young Turk, Salonikans or no Salonikans, palace camarilla or no palace camarilla,—the Turkish ship of state steams steadily into the whirlpool, in the vortex of which she will go down in defeat amid “a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time.” This is the all-overwhelming thought, the crowning inspiration in the preaching of the Eastern question. Forever let it be settled that we are dealing with prophetics and not with politics, and that the Turkish question now upon the hearts and lips of hundreds of thousands—yea, of millions—of men and women, is God’s great sign that the seven last plagues and the end of the world are at hand. The Eastern question is a mighty weapon in our hands by means of which to convict men and women and lead them to the salvation that there is in Jesus Christ.

In last week’s REVIEW I endeavored to make plain the undying ambition of Russia to obtain free access to the sea; and that by international law, through a long train of treaties, this was impossible so long as the Turk sat upon the Bosporus. While free access to the oceans of earth for her navies via the Bosporus is all-important to Russia, there are other formidable and gigantic reasons of state why she can never rest until the long-coveted waters of the Bosporus are her very own.

Divested of humanitarian considerations, the question of the future of the Ottoman empire is the question of the possession of, or the control of, Constantinople with the Dardanelles and the Bosporus.

From the standpoint of military and naval power, Constantinople occupies a position of prime importance. Constantinople is the great gateway of two continents. Here was the spot which the great Darius had chosen to connect Asia and Europe with his bridge of boats. Napoleon Bonaparte once remarked that “the nation which holds Constantinople possesses the mastery of the world.” Be this as it may, it is beyond question “that the power which holds Constantinople dominates Russia.” Flanking the shores of the Black Sea, lie the garden lands of Russia. It is here that her richest and most fertile, and her most densely populated, provinces are situated. It is into the Black Sea that her mightiest rivers flow. The products of the soil and of the shop and the factory always follow the most natural and the cheapest means of transport, the course of the navigable streams. Thus the south of Russia is likely, more and more, to become the citadel and source of her wealth and power. Commerce as well as war seeks a free way to the high seas, and from the viewpoint of commerce and war alike, Constantinople is the natural heritage of the czars. A great authority has correctly stated the Muscovite situation relative to the possession of the imperial city of Constantinople:—

“He who is at war with Russia can, if he controls Constantinople, attack her in her most vulnerable part. He may bring Russia to her knees without great military exertion by closing the Bosporus to Russia’s foreign trade, which is now a far more important factor in Russia’s economic life than it was at the time of Napoleon I, or of the Crimean War, when Russia’s foreign trade was quite insignificant.”—J. Ellis Barker, Art. “Future of Turkey,” in Fortnightly Review, October, 1908.

In the days of old, Constantinople was the centre of the world’s commerce, when by overland caravan the riches of Asia were hauled to the ports of South Europe, and when European goods were transported to the heart of the Orient via Egypt and the countries skirting the shores of the Black Sea. The sea is the route now taken, but with the phenomenal growth of railroads in the region south and east of the Black Sea, Constantinople, humanly speaking, is destined to become, once more, one of the greatest marts and most important distributing points on earth.

Constantinople would be a very desirable possession for any Central European power. But it is a vital necessity to Russia. Central European powers on one side, and Russia on the other, with Constantinople as a prize between them, is a situation very much akin to that almost overshadowing challenge which Germany has hurled across the narrow seas to the empire of Great Britain,—“Supremacy on the ocean may be Germany’s dinner, but it is Britain’s life.” In the case between the Central European powers and the Russian empire, Constantinople may be their dinner, but it is Russia’s life.

“Nearly all her great wars were waged for the possession of Constantinople, and she is not likely to abandon her aim now, when the possession of Constantinople is to her far more important and necessary than it has been at any previous period of her history. It is an extremely humiliating and an intolerable position for the greatest statein the world to be denied free access to the sea.”—Id.

In the past the Austro-Hungarian empire and Great Britain have resisted Russia’s endeavors to obtain control or possession of Constantinople. Field Marshal Radetzky, by far the most statesmanlike Austrian general of modern times, has stated the case as between his country and Russia in the following masterly terms:—

“Owing to her geographical position, Russia is the national and eternal enemy of Turkey. The huge territory of that empire can send its produce only through the narrow gates of the Baltic or the Bosporus. Russia must therefore do all she can to take possession of Constantinople, for its possession gives to her the security she requires, as well as territorial completeness.

“Russia’s geographical position makes it indispensable for her to keep open the Bosporus and the Sound. She can secure the former object only by dividing its shores between two independent powers, or by taking possession of it. Austria might permit the former, and might also permit Russia to possess an isolated fortress on the straits similar to Gibraltar. But Austria can never tolerate that Russia should incorporate Turkey in part or whole, for in that case Austria would be hemmed in and controlled by Russia. The Danube in Austria’s main artery. Its lower reaches in the Black Sea are as necessary to Austria as the Sound and the Dardanelles are to Russia; and in order to utilize the Danube freely, Austria requires also the free use of the Dardanelles. Hence it follows that the conflicting interests of Austria and Russia must lead to war unless both nations arrive at an agreement with regard to Turkey.”

There is still another and most potent reason from the Muscovite angle of view why Russia must drive the Turk off the straits, and generally disrupt his empire and terminate his rule. Russia is brought into eternal conflict with the Ottoman government from a racial and religious standpoint. There are vast numbers of men and women of the Slavonic race who owe their civil allegiance to the Turkish star and crescent. The religion of these people is the same as that of the Russians — the Greek Orthodox Church. On these two counts they are affined to the Russian people by a most powerful dual bond of race and faith. Consequently the manner in which Turkey rules her Christian subjects is a prolific cause of irritation between herself and her northern neighbor.

Now the Russians are a profoundly religious people. Consequently there is something intolerable to them in the thought of a population of their own blood and creed being misruled and persecuted by the Moslems. Popular sentiment in Russia frequently runs so high over this matter that the hand of the government is forced to action.

Thus Russia feels indeed that “Constantinople is the key to her house.” Without this strategic spot her war fleet is as good as useless, her trade and commerce is hindered and handicapped, and her foreign trade is in direct danger in time of war. Add to this her deep and almost organic interest in the ever-present alien and religious problem which the Turkish empire involves, and it will readily be seen that sooner or later Russia must float the cross of Saint Andrew over the citadel of the sultans.

Madison, Tenn.