Constantinople Promised to Russia by F. M. W.

Review and Herald Publishing Association · Takoma Park Station, Washington, D. C. · Dec 21, 1916

Constantinople Promised to Russia

By F. M. W.

ONE has only to recognize the striking manner in which Turkey holds the center of interest among the nations engaged in the great European war, to recognize why the ultimate fate of this nation should be made the climax of the long prophecy of Daniel II. In view of the fostering care which Great Britain has exercised over the Ottoman Empire for many years, virtually constituting herself the guardian of Ottoman autonomy; and the covetous desire with which for many years Russia has looked upon Constantinople as affording a warm-water port of entry and egress, many have been led to wonder how these apparent differences would be reconciled, and what disposition would be made of the Turkish possessions in Europe.

A marked change has been noticeable in the last two or three years in the attitude of the English press regarding this question. Whereas before the war English papers were outspoken in their convictions that in event of the dissolution of Turkey, Constantinople should come under British control, latterly these same journals have expressed the conviction that this city on the Bosporus, with its commercial advantages, naturally and geographically belongs to the Russian Empire.

It has been believed for some time, particularly since the beginning of the great conflict, that some secret understanding existed whereby Russia was assured of her coveted prize. This question evidently is now set at rest by a statement made by the Russian premier at the opening of the Duma, December 3. A dispatch from London to the New York Times of December 4 states:—

“An event surpassing in far-reaching importance the actual military operations of the war, comes today in the public announcement of the new Russian premier, that by an agreement concluded in 1915, and subsequently adhered to by Italy, the Allies definitely established Russia’s right to Constantinople and the strait. The existence of this agreement has been for a long time alleged, but never before was it thus publicly and formally admitted.”

The premier’s statement follows:—

“For more than a thousand years Russia has been reaching southward toward a free outlet on the open sea. This age-long dream, cherished in the hearts of the Russian people, is now ready for realization. . . .”

“From the beginning of the war, wishing to spare human lives and suffering, we and our allies did our utmost to restrain Turkey from mad participation in hostilities. Turkey received formal assurances guaranteeing her, in exchange for neutrality, the integrity of her territory and independence, and also conferring on her certain privileges and advantages. These efforts were in vain. Turkey surreptitiously attacked us, and thus sealed her own doom.

“We then concluded an agreement with our allies, which establishes in the most definite manner the right of Russia to the straits and Constantinople. Russians should know for what they are shedding blood, and in accord with our allies, announcement of this agreement is made today from this tribune. Absolute agreement on this point is firmly established among the Allies, and there is no doubt that after she has obtained sovereign possession of a free passage into the Mediterranean, Russia will grant freedom of navigation for the Roumanian flag, which now, not for the first time, floats in battle side by side with the flag of Russia.”

This agreement on the part of the entente powers will be carried out, provided they achieve their designs in the present conflict. Many authorities question, however, if the Turkish Empire would fare any better in event of victory on the part of the central empires. For years, it is argued, Germany has desired a free and open communication from the Balkans to the rich provinces of Asia. And for long years she has been developing Turkish territory, commerce, and industry in line with the achievements of her national purposes. In event of victory, Germany would continue to pursue this definite purpose. It is altogether probable, we are told, that Turkey would be subjugated to the state of vassalage if she did not entirely lose her autonomy as an independent state. Speaking of this in the Independent for Dec. 7, 1914, Dr. Bernhard Dernberg makes the following statement regarding German purposes:—

“Germany has been for about thirty-five years the associate of Turkey in developing Turkish territory, commerce, and industry. She has acquired the Oriental railways and built the Anatolian and Bagdad lines. She has established harbors and shipping companies, and engaged in mining and very extensive irrigation works. She must be left with a free hand to go on with this commercial development as far as she can arrange with the sovereign power of the Porte and without outside interference. This would mean a recognized sphere of influence from the Persian Gulf to the Dardanelles.”

Mr. Vahan Cardashian, in the New York Tribune of Dec. 1, 1916, speaks regarding the purposes of Germany with respect to Turkey, and what Turkey might expect from Germany in event of German victory:—

“The important fact must be recognized that, even with the best intentions, the German cannot collaborate with the Turk, the possession of whose empire is the principal object of Germany’s ambition, because of irreconcilable racial temperamental differences, if not moral, and of the low moral standard of the Turk, without taking into consideration

the absolute economic insufficiency of the Turk, which alone would naturally place him in a position of servitude and vassalage to the German, who will be wholly depended upon to nurse, support, and develop him. It is furthermore reasonable to believe that even before the comparative accomplishment of the Turk’s development, which would make of him an efficient and humane administrator and governor,—qualities heretofore not found or even suggested in the Turk’s character,—the German would overwhelm him in numbers, and establish over him physical superiority as he has mental superiority. These are clearly revealed in the German character, the record and the direction of the national activities of Germany, and the undisputed control she now holds over the conduct of the affairs of these states. The success of the German arms will, therefore, make of these states German dependencies and vassals.”

Hence, from whatever angle the Turkish question is viewed, whether in its relation to the side of the entente Allies or that of the central empires, publicists are forced to the conclusion, in the words of Mr. Cardashian, that “the Turk must go.”

This indeed is the prediction of the inspired penman. This power, under the designation of “the king of the north,” is represented as finally setting up its seat of government in Jerusalem. In this place the prophecy declares that this nation shall come to its end. How many turns of the political kaleidoscope it will take to bring this about, we cannot tell. How long after the capital of the Turkish government is removed from Constantinople before it reaches its end, the prophecy does not indicate. It is possible that the government may be moved from place to place before its final stand at Jerusalem.

In close connection with the final Turkish overthrow the prophecy declares that Christ will stand up to take his kingdom; the end of probationary time will be reached; the judgments of God as represented in the seven last plagues will be poured out upon a wicked world. With interest we should watch the development of political events in their fulfilment of prophecy; and to those who desire a knowledge of the meaning of these things, these political changes should be pointed out as a fulfilment of the prophetic word, as signs of the imminence of the coming of the Lord.

F. M. W.