Papers of the War Cabinet's Eastern Committee [‎134v] (268/544)

12
\
5
1
1
(E.C.-1727.)
QUESTION OF AN “ ALLIANCE WITH PERSIA.
Memorandum by Secretary of State for India.
I circulate this precis to my colleagues. It is evident therefrom that we have,
not unnaturally, definitely committed ourselves to a desire to get Persia to come in
on our side. The distinction between this and an alliance is, I know, of great
importance to some of my colleagues. 1 desire, however, merely to press that the
communique which Sir P. Cox is to make should be used to get what we have desired,
viz., the co-operation of Persia against the enemy—call it what you will.
(Initialled) E. S. M.
Precis.
1. Sir C. Marling, in his telegram No. 431 of the 20th May, 1918, commenting
on the general situation as affected by the Turkish advance in the Caucasus, re
marked that, “ while it is possible that Persia may take alarm and throw herself
into our arms, it is more probable that, if the enemy is able to make any show of
superior force, she may timidly go over to them.” In these circumstances, Sir C.
Marling urged that we should “ endeavour to make sure of Mussulman Persia
before that position is reached, and this by making an alliance with her.
2. The Foreign Office replied (telegram No. 285 of the 23rd May, 1918):—
“ If alternative to Persian alliance with Great Britain is Persian alliance
with Turkey and our enemies we certainly ^prefer former. If, however, alter
native is continued neutrality, it seems that comparatively little would be gained
by alliance. Should, therefore, Vosugh in course of conversation suggest idea
of alliance, you should not reject proposal, but should endeavour to ascertain
his exact meaning, and what concessions he would require in return.”
3. To this Sir C. Marling replied (telegram No. 451 of the 24th May, 1918):—
“ Military advantages of alliance would be small, but not negligible, while
I submit that acquisition of an independent Moslem ally would have far-reach
ing effect in Asia.”
4. The question of policy in Persia was discussed at considerable length by the
Eastern Committee on the 24th June, 1918.* The alliance question figured pro
minently in the discussion; and the telegram to Teheran (No. 347 of the 29th June,
1918), sent at the Committee’s direction, contained the following passage on the
subject:—
“ Question has been discussed whether such a position! can best be secured
bv explicit understanding on above basis, or whether a Treaty or Alliance is
required.
“ Latter would publish new relationship to world, and would bind future
Persian Cabinets as well as that which concluded it. But it might entail
inconvenient obligations on us, including that of immediate military action
for recovery of Tabriz and Azerbaijan, which we could not in existing circum
stances assume. Moreover, it seems doubtful whether Persia can give more
by an alliance than she could by friendly co-operation.”
The last sentence, it will be observed, makes the distinction between “ alliance ”
and “ co-operation.” This point was raised by the Secretary of State for India in
the course of the Eastern Committee discussion, as the following extract from the
Minutes shows:—
“ Mr. Montagu suggested that the word ‘ alliance ' need not be used in the
message, if it was quite clear that Persia would take action against, and would
permit us to take action against, the enemy.”
* Fee 16th Minutes of the Eastern Committee, Section 3.
t I.e., active friendliness of Persia for remainder of war. v