Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-06T04:55:26.809Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The British Decision regarding the Future of Constantinople (November 1918–January 1920)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

Abstract

Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Communication
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1975

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Useful works concerning the Turkish peace settlement are: Nicolson, H., Curzon: The Last Phase, 1919–25 (London, 1957),Google Scholar and Peacemaking 1919 (London, 1933);Google ScholarEvans, L., United States Policy and the Partition of Turkey, 1974–25 (Baltimore, 1964);Google ScholarKinross, Lord, Ataturk: The Rebirth of a Nation (London, 1964);Google ScholarHoward, H. N., The Partition of Turkey (New York, 1966);Google Scholar and Montgomery, A. E., ‘The Making of the Treaty of Sèvres of 10 Aug. 1920’, The Historical Journal, vol. xv (12 1972).Foreign Office, Cabinet Office, War Office and Admiralty records cited (as F.O., CAB, W.O. and Adm.) are in the Public Record Office, London.Google Scholar

2 Adm. 116/3239, Peace Conf., Turkey, ‘The Future of Constantinople’, memo, by Curzon, dated 2 Jan. 1918, corrected to 2 Jan. 1919, 1.

3 Ibid. iii.

4 Adm. 116/3239, Peace Conf., Turkey, ‘The Future of Constantinople’, memo, by E. S. Montagu, 8 Jan. 1919.

7 Adm. 116/3239, Peace Conf., Turkey, ‘The Future of Constantinople’, memo, by Curzon, dated 2 Jan. 1918, corrected to 2 Jan. 1919, 11.

8 Ibid. i.

9 Adm. 116/3239, Peace Conf., Turkey, ‘The Future of Constantinople and the Straits’, re commendations of a conference held on 30 Jan. 1919.

11 Howard, , op. cit. p. 220;Google ScholarNicolson, H., op. cit. 1933, pp. 272–82.Google Scholar

12 F.O. 371/4239, Curzon's record of a conversation with Pichon, 12 Nov. 1919.

13 F.O. 800/240, Ryan to Forbes Adam, 26 Nov. 1919; F.O. 371/4161, ‘National Movement’, report on possible relations between Nationalist leaders and agents of the Soviet Government; W.O 33/969, ‘Causes of the Outbreak in Mesopotamia’, appendixes 1 and 2.

14 F.O. 371/4239, ‘The Future of Constantinople’, memo, by Curzon, 4 Jan. 1920.

17 F.O. 800/240, Ryan to Forbes Adam, 26 Nov. 1919; F.O. 371/4239, memo, on Constantinople and the Scraits by Forbes Adam, 10 Jan. 1920.

18 Ibid. ‘The Turkish Peace’, memo, by Montagu, 18 Dec. 1919.

20 Ibid. ‘The Future of Constantinople’, memo, by Curzon, 4 Jan. 1920.

21 F.O. 800/240, Ryan to Forbes Adam, 26 Nov. 1919.

22 F.O. 371/4156, Curzon to Granville, 21 Oct. 1919.

23 CAB 29/81,1.C.P., i, 2.

24 Archives du Ministère de la Marine, Paris, ed. 136.2, Etat-Major Général, ‘Etude des ques tions relatives a la Paix’, ch. iv, ‘Détroits et Canaux interoceaniens, Constantinople et Détroits’.

25 F.O. 371/4156, ‘Question of Straits and Future of Constantinople’, Derby to Curzon, 26 Dec. 1919.

26 CAB 29/81, I.C.P., i, 2.

30 F.O. 371/4239, ‘Turkish Peace Settlement’, note communicated by Berthelot on 12 Dec. 1919, with comments by Forbes Adam and Vansittart.

32 Ibid., Anglo–French conf., 22 Dec. 1919.

34 W.O. 32/5735, ‘The Turkish Peace’, 11, memo, by Montagu, 1 Jan. 1920.

35 CAB 23/20, cab. meeting, 6 Jan. 1920, appendix 1.

38 Ibid. Conclusions.

39 Ibid appendix iii.

40 Ibid. Conclusions.

41 F.O. 371/4239, ‘The Peace with Turkey’, memo, by Curzon, 7 Jan. 1920.