FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   36   37   38   39   40   41   42   43   44   45   46   47   48   49   50   51   52   53   54   55   56   57   58   59   60  
61   62   63   64   65   66   67   68   69   70   71   72   73   74   75   76   77   78   79   80   81   82   83   84   85   >>   >|  
y for its national policy, to ask themselves these questions: Is it true that the Powers could have prevented in large measure the abominations which Turkey has practised in the Balkans for the last half-century or so? Has our own policy been a large factor in determining that of the Powers? Has our own policy directly prevented in the past the triumph of the Christian populations which, despite that policy, has finally taken place? Was our own policy at fault when we were led into a war to ensure the "integrity and independence of the Turkish dominions in Europe"? Is the general conception of Statecraft on which that policy has been based--the "Balance of Power" which presupposes the necessary rivalry of nations and which in the past has led to oppose Russia as it is now leading to oppose Germany--sound, and has it been justified in history? Did we give due weight to the considerations urged by the public men of the past who opposed such features of this policy as the Crimean War; was the immense popularity of that war any test of its wisdom; were the rancour, hatred and scorn poured upon those men just or deserved? * * * * * Now the first four of these questions have been answered by history and are answered by every one to-day in an emphatic affirmative. This is not the opinion of a Pacifist partisan. Even the _Times_ is constrained to admit that "these futile conflicts might have ended years ago, if it had not been for the quarrels of the Western nations."[6] And as to the Crimean War, has not the greatest Conservative foreign minister of the nineteenth century admitted that "we backed the wrong horse"--and, what is far more to the point, have not events unmistakably demonstrated it? Do we quite realise that if foreign policy had that continuity which the political pundits pretend, we should now be fighting on the side of the Turk against the Balkan States? That we have entered into solemn treaty obligations, as part of our national policy, to guarantee for ever the "integrity and independence of the Turkish dominions in Europe," that we fought a great and popular war to prevent that triumph of the Christian population which will arise as the result of the present war? That but for this policy which caused us to maintain the Turk in Europe the present war would certainly not be raging, and, what is much more to the point, that but for our policy the abominations whi
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   36   37   38   39   40   41   42   43   44   45   46   47   48   49   50   51   52   53   54   55   56   57   58   59   60  
61   62   63   64   65   66   67   68   69   70   71   72   73   74   75   76   77   78   79   80   81   82   83   84   85   >>   >|  



Top keywords:

policy

 

Europe

 

integrity

 

independence

 

dominions

 

nations

 

Turkish

 

present

 

foreign

 

history


answered

 

oppose

 

Crimean

 

prevented

 

triumph

 

Christian

 

national

 

century

 
Powers
 

questions


abominations

 
demonstrated
 

admitted

 

backed

 

unmistakably

 

nineteenth

 

events

 

Conservative

 

conflicts

 
futile

constrained
 

greatest

 

realise

 

Western

 
quarrels
 
minister
 
result
 

population

 
prevent
 

fought


popular

 

caused

 

raging

 

maintain

 

guarantee

 

fighting

 

pretend

 

political

 

pundits

 

treaty