THE FUTURE OF CONSTANTINOPLE.
[To rem EDITOR OF THE " SPECTATOR."' Sia,-1 have to thank you for your courtesy in printing my long letter, and, in particular, in choosing it from amongst the many you had received. Your space is. I know, valuable, but you will, I think, allow me to reply briefly to your two comments on my letter, one direct and the other indirect.
The Population of Constantinoplc.—I do not know the par- ticular statistics you have before you for 1912, but I would remark that it would seem ourious to include such a cempara- tively unimportant place as Kutchuk Tchekmedji and apparently to leave out altogether the almost purely Turkish and very important district of Scutari, as also the Boepborue. Kadikeuy, Erenkeuy, Sic. The only census bearing on the matter would be one of the whole " Vilayet of Constantfriople " (corresponding to our "County of London "). You could wily prove anything in the Near East by taking specific districts and leaving out others, and the only reasonable way of dealing with Constantinople is to take an impartial census of the whole city, European and Asiatic, and then letting the population vote. If really the majority—as I know would be the case— vote for the city remaining Turkish, there shonld he nothing more to say in the matter, even by those extremist fanatics who, in order to be able to have St. Sophia again a church, do not hesitate to run the risk of again letting loose the dogs of war. I happen to have an old Encyclopaedia Britannica by me whin gives the Turks as 500,000 and the total population, in round figures, as 800,000. This is very different from the little over one-third that you refer to. However, a new census and voting would be the simplest way out and settle all disputes. The Goeben' and the 'Breslau.'—The signing of a secret Treaty (so very secret that it provoked a storm in the Turkish Parliament when it came out during the war) on August 2nd in no way affects my contention. If the Goeben ' and the 'Breslau' had not got into the Dardanelles and had Constan- tinople at their mercy, Enver and the Germans would never have been able to drag the country into the war. The " Treaty " need not have bound the nation any more than the Treaty with Germany bound Italy to her party..
[(1) We gladly append the figures of 1912 for the whole Vilayet of Constantinople. Out of a total population of 1,173,673, there were 149,114 Turks, 364,459 Greeks, 159,191 Armenians, 4,331 Bulgars, 46,581 Jews, 230 Gypsies, and 142,825 of "other nationalities." In the whole Vilayet, then, the Turks were a little more than a third of the population. In the "almost purely Turkish" district of Scutari, we may add, there were 81,117 Turks and 87,670 non-Turks. Our corre- spondent, we fear, has been misled by his antiquated Encyclo- paedia. (2) There is no parallel between the Turco-German offensive alliance and Italy's defensive alliance with Germany and Austria. Italy was not bound to assist Germany in an offensive war, and said so at the outset of hostilities, nor did Germany expect any help from her. Turkey, on the other hand, bound herself to make war on Russia, and did so as soon as she was ready and as soon as her German ally thought that it was desirable for her to strike. The presence of the Goeben ' and ' Breslau ' was necessary to the conspirators, not to over- awe the Turks, who were completely in the power of Rover, but to defend Thrace and the Bosphorus against the Russian Black Sea Fleet and prevent a Russian landing.—ED. Spectator.]
Previous page
