WW1, Allies promise....

[unmerged(5627)]

I've recently read that during WW1 Russia was such a major player and so valuable in defeating Germany that France and Great Britain promised to give Russia the city of Constantinople! Is there any truth to this?

I suppose there ought to be, since I doubt it would get into what I read if it were false. Imagine if Russia hadn't collapsed after the revolution. A Russian Orthodox Constantinople after hundreds of years of upholding the Orthodox faith. If they had gotten it, I would imagine a serious boost in Russias role in the world.

 

[unmerged(5578)]

This could be the truth.
There are countries which like to give not their lands, cities etc. to other countries in the world...
So I wouldn't be surprised.

 

[unmerged(6898)]

Originally posted by Waltan
This could be the truth.
There are countries which like to give not their lands, cities etc. to other countries in the world...
So I wouldn't be surprised.

good one

 

[Dark Knight]

Originally posted by Lord xEnderx
I've recently read that during WW1 Russia was such a major player and so valuable in defeating Germany that France and Great Britain promised to give Russia the city of Constantinople! Is there any truth to this?

Russia certainly hoped to get Constantinople after the war, although France and Britain weren't necessarily keen on this. I've read that Russia actually vetoed an offer of Greek entrance into the war on the Allied side to support the Gallipoli invasion because they feared that Greece would end up in control of the city.

 

[unmerged(5120)]

Re: Re: WW1, Allies promise....

Originally posted by Dark Knight

Russia certainly hoped to get Constantinople after the war, although France and Britain weren't necessarily keen on this. I've read that Russia actually vetoed an offer of Greek entrance into the war on the Allied side to support the Gallipoli invasion because they feared that Greece would end up in control of the city.

With the effort Britain and France put in in the XIXth century to prevent Russia from gaining access through the straits, I'd be surprised they'd committed a promise of Constantinople to Russia on paper in 1914.

 

[unmerged(6964)]

I was just going to say that. A major plank in British foreign policy was traditionally to prevent Russian expansion.

 

[unmerged(7536)]

Re: Re: WW1, Allies promise....

Originally posted by Dark Knight

Russia certainly hoped to get Constantinople after the war, although France and Britain weren't necessarily keen on this. I've read that Russia actually vetoed an offer of Greek entrance into the war on the Allied side to support the Gallipoli invasion because they feared that Greece would end up in control of the city.

This is true. A Peace to End All Peace is a great book on this. It is about the events of 1915-1924 which shaped todays Middle East.

It is true that with the Greek army flanking the Ottomans the allies could have burst through Gallipoli. But such was the Russian's longing for Istanbul that they did not approve this, threatining to quit the war if "any Greek soilder entered Istanbul".

The secret agreements between England, France and Russia, actually did give Istanbul to a Russian control, this way Britain would get Baghdad and the area between Egypt and Southern Iraq (aptly named Trans-Jordan). France would get Syria and Lebanon. Russia would be finally let into warm waters through Istanbul.

Anyhow A Peace to End All Peace explains everything. How the Young Turks convinced the Germans to ally, how Lawrence of Arabia actually doesn't have any major victories, how the British tried to ignore the agreements and tried not to give any land to France, how the Palestine question ended, and so on. I would recommend it to anyone interested..

 

[unmerged(6657)]

Originally posted by Top Cat
I was just going to say that. A major plank in British foreign policy was traditionally to prevent Russian expansion.

The Russians were promised Istanbul in the case of an allied victory. The Germans outted this fact after Brest-Litvosk, after they were attempting to negotiate a staus quo ante peace with the west. Russia was to be granted the title of protector of the Balkans, and they were to get to administrate Constantinople and gain their warm water port.

The Russians played the Alliance and Entente off each other, which is why Britain never attempted to restrict the Russian fleet in the Black Sea after it was placed there in 1871 in violation of the Berlin Clauses. France had sunk so much economic investment into Russia that a collapse of the Entente would have caused an economice disaster in France. Also, since the Anglo-French were negotiating to take all of Germany's overseas colonies, they were hardly in the position to tell Russia that her demands were too great.

 

[unmerged(4953)]

The Treaty of London in 1915 guaranteed the Russians Constantinople. It also gave the Italians the Eastern Coast of the Adriatic.

 

[unmerged(7225)]

Regardless of what the russians were promised, they bowed out early, relinquishing any claims they had on Istanbul. Remember, in 1915, a treaty was signed with the representatives of the CZAR while in 1917, russia under Lenin quit the war at Brest-Litovsk.

Thus, the allies had 2 reasons to NOT give Istanbul to russia:

1) The original agreement had been signed with a different government, and in 1917, the Red government was not yet recognized as internationally sanctioned (and would not until the White causes were exterminated by about 1920 or so)

2) The Russians took themselves out of the war early; their separate peace with Germany meant they lost all claim to any spoils of the war gained after 1917.

 

[unmerged(7536)]

Originally posted by jayron32
Regardless of what the russians were promised, they bowed out early, relinquishing any claims they had on Istanbul. Remember, in 1915, a treaty was signed with the representatives of the CZAR while in 1917, russia under Lenin quit the war at Brest-Litovsk.

Thus, the allies had 2 reasons to NOT give Istanbul to russia:

1) The original agreement had been signed with a different government, and in 1917, the Red government was not yet recognized as internationally sanctioned (and would not until the White causes were exterminated by about 1920 or so)

2) The Russians took themselves out of the war early; their separate peace with Germany meant they lost all claim to any spoils of the war gained after 1917.

3. Oh and Istanbul wasn't anyone's to give away. In 1922 the allied forces were kicked out. Plus the new regime in Russia helped the Turkish nationalists. Altough completely opposite backgrounds, both governments were fighting "imperialism".

 

[PMLF]

Originally posted by ZheShiWO

If Tsarist Russia existed in 1919 then Istabul would have been called Tsargrad.

I dont think so. They would keep its name as Constantinople.

 

[unmerged(7536)]

Originally posted by ZheShiWO

If Tsarist Russia existed in 1919 then Istabul would have been called Tsargrad.

In your dreams. Istanbul will always be Istanbul.


But you should consider Russians lucky, because if Koca Mustafa Pasha hadn't accepted the favors of Catherina, Moscow would be called Sultaniye.

 

[unmerged(6657)]

Originally posted by ZheShiWO

If Tsarist Russia existed in 1919 then Istabul would have been called Tsargrad.

I have heard that the renamed city was going to be named after Catherine the Great. (Catherinegrad??)

However, I don't think that if Tsarist Russia had stayed in the war, they would have received the city, since it seemed that Russia and Italy were the junior partners of the alliance, and they probably wouldn't have received what they were promised, especially if the U.S. delagation was still in the equation.

 

[unmerged(2833)]

Originally posted by BRYCON316


I have heard that the renamed city was going to be named after Catherine the Great. (Catherinegrad??)

However, I don't think that if Tsarist Russia had stayed in the war, they would have received the city, since it seemed that Russia and Italy were the junior partners of the alliance, and they probably wouldn't have received what they were promised, especially if the U.S. delagation was still in the equation.

Russia was junior partner? Don't think so. Italy, yes, Russia, no.

 

[unmerged(6657)]

Originally posted by Maur13

Russia was junior partner? Don't think so. Italy, yes, Russia, no.

Not at the beginning, Russia wasn't a junior partner. If neither revolution had occurred, and Russia was getting whipped back to her pre-Peter the Great days when Germany surrendered to the west, Russia would have been treated like a junior partner at the peace table, and wouldn't have gotten what she was promised in 1915.

 

[unmerged(4953)]

Seeing as the French and the English cut huge swathes of Turkish territory into little Mandates I think the Russians would have goten what they were promised.

 

[unmerged(5120)]

Strategically, the only really important mandate was Iraq, and that's nowhere near the value of Constantinople.

Furthermore, since Britain controlled the two exits from the Med, the next step for Russia after the acquisition of the straits would obviously have been to wrest one of those from Britain.

I really can't see how the British would have let Russia control Constantinople if they had anything to say about it.

 

[PMLF]

I have read somewhere that Constantinople would be some kind of International City instead of being given to Russia or Greece.

 

[unmerged(6964)]

Sokollu: "It wasn't anybody's to give away. In 1922 the allies were kicked out". So...given the the First World War ended prior to the 1920's I think it can be assumed that this point is completely irrelevant.


Russia and France were the senior partners at the start of the war. By the time Russia was knocked out Britain had probably overtaken her or drawn level. Until the end of the war France was THE senior partner in the coalition and British policy was largely driven by what France wanted. This was not so much because France was perceived to be more powerful as because the British were fighting on French soil, often under overall French command.