Others hoped the Great Powers would take into account the goodwill of Turkey, and would gradually give up some of their intolerable demands.
Others, finally, bewailing the direful downfall of the Turkish Empire and insisting upon the lesson taught by this historical event for the future, hoped that the future would forcibly bring on a revision of that “iniquitous and impracticable” treaty of peace.
In France, M. Pierre Loti devoted one of his last articles to the treaty, which he called “the silliest of all the silly blunders of our Eastern policy.”[35]
The map on p. [269] shows the area left to the Turks in Europe and in Asia Minor by the Treaty of Sèvres. There will be seen the territories of Mesopotamia under English mandate, those of Syria under French mandate, and those which have been added to Palestine and are practically under English control. There will also be seen the regions on which France and Italy, in virtue of the tripartite agreement signed on August 10, 1920, enjoy preferential claims to supply the staff required for the assistance of the Porte in organising the local administration and the police. The contracting Powers in that agreement have undertaken not to apply, nor to make or support applications, on behalf of their nationals, for industrial concessions in areas allotted to another Power.
The map on p. [270] is a scheme of the territories lost by Turkey from 1699 down to the Sèvres Treaty; it shows that, by completing the dismemberment of Turkey, the treaty aimed at her annihilation.
Footnotes:
[26] The Times, March 26, 1920.
[27] The Times, March 27, 1920: “Mesopotamia and the Mandate.”
[28] The very words of this agreement were given by M. Pierre Loti in his book, La Mort de notre chère France en Orient, p. 153.
[29] Journal des Débats, May 26, 1920.