The Question of Dismembering Turkey
The recent friction between France and Turkey has brought up once more for discussion the question of the dismemberment of Turkey. According to the Minneapolis Journal, “the Turk is one of the things that must go, as an obstruction to civilization.” The same paper further expresses “the hope that Abdul Hamid may be the last sultan at Constantinople.” The St. Louis Globe-Democrat says: “Turkey is staggering under loads of debts which are becoming heavier and heavier each year. Even if the Sultan had the disposition to meet his obligations, he lacks the power. His crimes, as shown by the massacres which are periodically reported from Armenia and other portions of his domain, still continue without material interruption. Nothing except the asinine jealousies and rivalries of the great nations prevents the settlement of the Turkish question in the only way that it ever can be settled, and that is by driving the Turk into his Asiatic dominions, and keeping him there. . . . His hand is against every man among his neighbors, and every man’s hand ought to be against him. In the present era of good feeling among the great nations of Europe the removal of the Turk ought not to be beyond the powers of peaceful diplomacy. It should be possible in 1901 to correct the mistake made by Alexander at Tilsit in 1807, and to pack the Turk back into Asia.” These statements, together with many others of like nature, are indeed significant.