GREAT BRITAIN and so long as the Polish war continued. The general opinion of the delegates was that while the ideals of the Bolshevists were good they were not practicable. As to liberty, the individual did not have as much industrial freedom in Russia as in England, but they believed that if Russia had peace and if trade relations were resumed, the country would become rich in a short time and that the leaders had shown a capacity for extending production. In August scattered groups of radicals formed a "National Communist Party," believing in the dictatorship of the working class, the Soviet system, and the Third (Moscow) International. Comments of the conservative press were to the fact that the leaders were little known and at that the membership did not exceed 5125. See SOCIALISM LORD GREY ON THE AMERICAN ATTITUDE. There was much discussion at the beginning of the year of Lord Grey's expression of views on the subject of the American attitude toward the Treaty. He expressed them not as an ambassador but a private individual. He said that charges of bad faith or repudiation could not be justly brought against the United States or against the Senate on account of the failure to ratify the Treaty. Nor did he think that the United States could fairly be taxed with an undue regard for self-interest. The tradition of the United States was against all entanglements in European affairs. A possible conflict between the executive and the legislature was involved in the nature of the American constitution. He did not believe that the people wished to withdraw their influence from world affairs. While he thought the difficulties and dangers which Americans predicted as a result of the League of Nations would probably never arise, he at the same time believed their fear of them was sincere. As to the reservations he did not think that they weakened or injured the League in the manner that certain persons apprehended. See UNITED STATES and WAR OF THE NATIONS. as ENGLAND AND FRANCE. In England the various attacks in the French press led in moderate quarters to an admission that in certain respects France had reason to complain of British foreign policy, but she certainly ought not to blame the British people. It was unfortunate that so many French writers saw fit to attack England and especially her prime minister at the very moment when the British were making great efforts to come to the aid of the people in the devastated regions of France. It certainly seemed impolitic to sow the seeds of enmity at such a time. A rupture between France and England at this moment would be an act of insanity and would surely play into the hands of Germany. There were vast numbers of people in England who would make any sacrifice for the sake of uniting the two nations. A great deal of the British comment confined itself to generalities such as these. In an interview on November 20th, Lloyd George condemned the quarrel makers in both countries and defended the Brit ish position in respect to the reparations. He said that France and England were not at odds in this matter and would certainly stand together, but that there were everywhere people who tried to stir up strife. He did not believe that they would succeed. The question of reparations he admitted was an essential point for France, but it was of equal importance to England, for it was evident that the more France received, the more England would receive also. The policy to pursue was very simple. It consisted merely in making Germany pay all that she could. The question was how much she was able to pay. England believed that the amount ought to be definitely fixed. To say that in so thinking she was moved by sympathy for Germany was absurd. It was obviously necessary for a debtor to know how much he was in debt and it was certainly not in the debtor's interests alone that he should have this knowledge; but of course the debtor's own statement of his account was not to be the final authority. The Powers must estimate his capacities and fix the amount due. The important thing was just that-the fixing of the amount-and as soon as it was done Great Britain would be firmly united to France in pressing the demand for payment. "I think I have," continued he, "shown by acts and not by words alone my great friendship for the French democracy. We have fought and gained the victory together and we must not renounce in times of peace the accord which for a long time has been dear to my heart. On the other hand, the French must not consider me an enemy simply because I speak like a man of business and a realist. Friends must always speak to each other frankly and support the method which is best for their common interest." See WAR OF THE NATIONS. ANGLO-EGYPTIAN RELATIONS. In the autumn it was still a question how far the British government would go toward meeting the demands of Egypt for her entire independence. Negotiations between the Egyptian delegates and Lord Milner's mission resulted in an agreement on certain points in a programme bestowing on Egypt a modified independence. Some of the Egyptian delegates who had been conferring in London returned to Egypt apparently to secure the approval of this policy. The main points in it according to the London Times were: The recognition by Egypt of the privileged position of Great Britain on the Nile; Egyptian consent in case of war to give the British all facilities of approach in Egyptian territory; maintenance by Great Britain of a garrison in Egypt in the canal zone; bestowal on Egypt of freedom in her foreign relations provided she abstained from the formation of treaties contrary to British policy; suppression of the capitulations, the control of legislation affecting foreigners to devolve on a British high commissioner. The Egyptian view of this matter was thus set forth by the Egyptian Nationalists and their sympathizers in the French press. In the first place there was the important omission of the Sudan from the proposed arrangement. It was recalled that in 1899 Great Britain had imposed on the Khedive a vention, that had never been ratified by Turkey, whereby the Khedive ceded to England part of the rights that he possessed over the Sudan, forming it into a sort of condominium of England and Egypt. But a series of decrees forbade the thedives to abrogate rights granted to Egypt by the Turkish government or to alienate any part of Egyptian territory. Later Turkey signed the treaty in which she renounced all rights over Egypt, but it was pointed out that this AngloEgyptian agreement formed without regard to the legitimate rights of Egypt had no standing from the point of view of either national Egyptian or international law. During the AngloFrench dispute over Fashoda, England had rec con ognized expressly that the Sudan was a genuine possession of Egypt and by virtue of that interpretation France was obliged to evacuate Fashoda, thus herself recognizing that Sudan was a part of Egypt. From an economic point of view Egypt could not dispense with the Sudan, for whoever was the master of the Upper Nile controlled also the Lower Nile, that is to say, Egypt. The neutrality of the Suez Canal was guaranteed by the convention of Oct. 29. 1888, which entrusted to Egypt the duty of keeping the route open in the interest of international commerce. As to the canal zone the Egyptian delegates had declared that they were ready to recognize the neutrality of the canal under the League of Nations, which solution would be to the interest of all the Powers. As to the right of access to Egypt in case of war, that also might threaten the neutrality and security of the canal as well as the legitimate rights of all the Powers who had a direct interest in the free navigation of the canal. It was pointed out also that the presence of an English army on Egyptian territory might make Egypt the battleground of conflicts in which she had no interest. The limitation of Egypt's right to make treaties was again a serious restriction. The condition imposed, namely, that all treaties must be in accord with British interest, would handicap Egypt in her economic development if it were to her interest to form agreements with England's commercial competitors. It was moreover an attack upon the sovereignty of Egypt in that she would not be independent in regard to her foreign policies but would have to secure English consent in advance to any agreement that she wished to make with a foreign state. The Egyptians were opposed to placing the control over legislation affecting foreigners in the hands of a British high commissioner. Such a control would also impair the sovereignty of Egypt. The above comments are from French sources and illustrate the spirit of French criticism of British foreign policies throughout the year. In general the French critics sided with the party opposed to the British government's foreign policies wherever dissension showed itself. The general tendency of all French writers was to accuse on every possible occasion the British government of self-seeking and disregard for the rights of others. This was in accordance with a widespread belief that Great Britain was getting the lion's share for herself after the war. For discussion of this and other matters relating to foreign affairs, see WAR OF THE NATIONS. THE ARMISTICE CELEBRATION. An impressive feature of the Armistice celebration was the burial of an unknown soldier in Westminster Abbey. A similar ceremony took place in France (q.v.), where an unknown soldier was buried at the Arc de Triomphe. In the English ceremonies the body was brought on a gun carriage to Whitehall in the presence of the generals, admirals, higher clergy as well as the represen tatives of the throne, the prime minister and his cabinet. THE PRINCE'S TOUR. A long and successful voyage was made by the Prince of Wales during the year, in the course of which he visited Australia and New Zealand, and was everywhere received by marks of great enthusiasm. On account of his fatigue he was unable to carry out the plan of paying a visit to India in the winter of 1920 in honor of the new era to be brought in by the reform measures of the government. Toward the close of the year the Duke of Connaught was appointed to take his place and set out for Madras. GREAT LAKES. See DoCKS AND HARBORS. GREECE. A kingdom in the southeast of Europe between the Egean and the Ionian seas, consisting of the lower part of the Balkan peninsula, the island of Crete, and the new territories acquired after the Balkans wars. The mainland is nearly cut in two by the gulfs of Patras and Lepanto on the west and the Gulf of Ægina on the east. In addition to the continental portion there are the archipelago of the Ægean Sea and the Ionian islands. Capital, Athens. AREA AND POPULATION. Before the Balkan wars the area was given at 25,014 square miles with a population in 1907 of 2,643,109. The area of the new territories, comprising Macedonia, Epirus, the Egean islands and the island of Crete, etc., was placed at 16,919 square miles, giving a total in 1913 of 41,933. The population of the new territories according to the provisional census of 1913 was 2,101,616. The total population was estimated in 1914 at 4,821,300. With the consent of the Allied Powers, Greece occupied North Epirus, taking formal possession in March, 1916. The population of that region was placed at about 250.000. After the war Greece also occupied with the consent of the Powers a part of western Thrace which had been held by Bulgaria and the larger part of the former Turkish province of Aidin in Asia Minor, having for its principal town Smyrna. Athens, the capital and principal city of Greece proper had a population in 1907 of 167,479. The largest cities of the new territories and of those occupied in 1920 were with their populations in 1915: Saloniki, 157,889; Korytza (in North Epirus), about 40,000; Candia, 25,185; Canea, 24,399; Cavalla, 23,378. The population of Athens and the Piræus was placed in 1919 at about 300,000 and in that year the population of Saloniki was reported to have increased to about 250,000. The majority of the inhabitants are Greek Orthodox. Education is compulsory between the ages of six and 12 years, but the law is not well enforced and illiteracy prevails. The primary schools in 1917-18 numbered 6799 with 476,695 pupils and 8641 teachers. There were besides, 76 high schools and 425 middle schools with 55,408 pupils. At Athens are the two universities, the National University and the Capodistria University. PRODUCTION AND INDUSTRY. The interests are mainly agricultural. About one-fifth of the land is cultivable. The forests have steadily di minished but recently great efforts have been made to restore them. The land is mainly in the hands of peasant proprietors and farmers under the metayer system, though there are a few large proprietors. The chief cereals are wheat, barley, corn, rye, and mezlin, but the most important crop is that of currants which covers an extremely large area. The yield of currants in 1919 was 145,000 tons. Next in importance are olives. The olive production in 1918 was 31.702,800 gallons. Tobacco in 1919 yielded 57,198,485 pounds; nuts in 1919, 4,486,185 pounds; wine in 1918, 10,566,800 gallons. The other important industries are the fig industry, oranges, mandarines, and lemons. The minerals worked include: Magnesite, iron, lead, emery, nickel, zinc, copper, Total 11,075,692 318,846,472 86,170 261,389 20,126,330331,748,720 223,075,490733,907,099 Exports to the United States in 1919 were valued at 30,191,304 drachmas as against 18,479,763 in 1918. Of these the chief item continued to be tobacco leaf-22,681,873 drachmas in 1919 and 17,295,451 in 1918. The figures for the period under consideration exceeded those of any year since the establishment of commercial relations between the two countries. The principal items showing gains were currants, figs, furs, gum mastic, aromatic herbs, marble, olive oil, opium, skins, sponges, tartrate of lime, and wool. Olive-oil shipments to the United States began again with the removal of the prohibition against exportation existing in 1918. 178,564,362 112,626,577 296,860,251 ment of the interest on the Greek debt. The re- The mora COMMUNICATIONS. On Jan. 1, 1920, the Greek mercantile fleet was composed of 228 steamers of 430,237 tons. At the same time 754 sailing vessels, of a combined tonnage of 108,218 tons, flew the Greek flag. To these figures should be added 214 small craft on the Danube, some 94 smaller boats at Galatz, and about 29 tugboats at Constantinople. The Greek mercantile fleet of steamers was largely divided among seven companies. A number of vessels were owned by individuals or unincorporated groups. FINANCE. The following information in regard to the finances, shipping, etc., was supplied by the United States Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce: During the war three ele ments, among others, gave the Greek drachma a strong position on the changes of the world-the presence of large Allied armies, with the consequent expenditures of large sums for local and immediate needs, the earnings of the Greek mer chant marine (in great part under requisition to Allied governments), and the sums sent into Greece by Greeks residing in the United States. Against these favorable elements in the exchange situation must be noted the inability in 1919 to realize credits held in certain countries, the depletion in some measure through the rush to buy articles of luxury in America and Europe, of which the country had been long deprived, the restrictions on exchange transactions imposed by the government, which latter induced many holders of foreign exchange to retain their capital abroad for trading purposes, etc. The general result of these unfavorable elements was gradually to impair the strong position held by the drachma, which toward the end of 1919 began to show evidences of weakness in comparison to the dollar, with which it had been successfully maintained theretofore. The full effect of this, however, was not seen until the early spring of 1920. The drachma as valued in United States currency stood at 5.19% cents in June, 1919, and at 8.0612 from Canada. in June, 1920. The International Financial Commission was established in 1898, following the war between During the year 1918 all rail and water lines were under the control of the government; this control continued over the railway lines and was expected to lead to the ultimate taking over of all independent companies by the federal authorities. Those navigation companies which lost ships during the war and other ship-owners who gained handsome profits as a result of operations of the past few years were active buyers of ships in 1919-20. During 1919 American vessels arriving at Piraeus numbered 37, of a combined carrying capacity of 123,305 tons. Cargoes consisted of salt, coffee, coal, flour, sugar, and frozen meat There were also a number of general cargoes. But three ships with a tonnage of 6283 flying the American flag arrived in 1918. DEFENSE. The approximate strength of the army at the beginning of 1920 was 200,000 men. Demobilization had not yet been completed on account of the large number of troops engaged in the operations in Asia Minor. The army constituted 12 divisions, the average strength of each being 12,000. The number of vessels in the navy were two warships of 13,000 tons each, one of 10,118, three of 5000 each, and one of 2600 tons, and there were also 13 destroyers, and a number of torpedo boats, two submarines, and miscellaneous craft. GOVERNMENT. The executive power is in the hands of the King, who acts through a responsible ministry. Legislative power is in the Boulé, and in the Council of State. The former comprises 316 deputies, including those from the new territories. The ministry at the beginning of 1920 was as follows: Premier, E. K. Venizelos; Vice-President of the Ministerial Council and Minister of Marine, E. Repoulis; Minister of War, M. Grivas; Minister of Foreign Affairs, N. Politis; Minister of the Interior, M. Raktivand; Minister of Finance, M. Negropontis; Minister of Justice, J. Tsirimocos; Minister of Food Supplies, P. Bourloumis; Minister of Education, D. Dingas; Minister of Agriculture, G. Kafastaris; Minister for Refugees, S. Simos; Minister of Communications, A. Papanastasiou; Minister of National Economy, K. Spyridis; and Ministers without portfolio, A. Michalacopoulos and M. Sterghiadis. HISTORY OPPOSITION TO VENIZELOS. To what extent the power of Venizelos rested upon the consent of the people was not definitely known, but it had been hoped by the Allied Powers that it was firmly based. He had acted steadily in concert with the Allies during the war and afterwards. As to his own country he had secured through the peace great advantages in respect to territory. On the other hand he was successful in carrying out the requests of the Allies in Asia Minor. He established Greek authority firmly in Smyrna and the surrounding territory, driving out the Turkish Nationalists and preparing the way for the signature of the Treaty of Sèvres, and he acquired for his country the sovereignty over the Turkish portion of Thrace. The policy of Venizelos down to the spring of 1915 seemed to have the full approval of the people. At that time they were beginning to question the attitude of the King who in spite of his record in the Balkan wars of 1912-13 was losing some of his popularity. He seemed to repudiate the principles on which those wars had been waged. When the late war began his policy consisted in benevolent neutrality toward Serbia, and therefore toward the Allies, and the government declared that if Bulgaria attacked Serbia, Greece would take part in the war against Bulgaria. Another feature of his policy was a careful watch lest any Balkan nation should secure territory at the expense of Greece, and finally after Turkey entered the war, an attempt to obtain possession of Thrace, the Egean islands, and the coast of Asia Minor. In this policy Constantine and his Prime Minister, Venizelos, had been in accord, but Constantine believed that the Germans would win the war, while Venizelos had a profound faith in the ultimate success of the Allies. The course subsequently followed by Venizelos led to a great loss of life and treasure and the question arose after the war whether Greece would not have been better off if she had followed the policy of neutrality favored by Constantine throughout. Under Venizelos there had been a strict repression of all elements favorable to Constantine, even though they had been loyal to the government throughout the war. Many officers and soldiers had been driven into exile. The censorship of the press concealed these incidents, but when in the summer of 1920 the censorship was lifted, knowledge of them was spread abroad. Venizelos was generally condemned by his opponents for ambition and for subserviency to England and France. The government was accused of lavish expenditures in its foreign policy. It was found that the crops could not be gathered because of the absence of able-bodied men who had been called to the front and who according to the critics were fighting the battles of England and France. An active propaganda was carried on to spread these views and from its headquarters at Lucerne, Switzerland, the campaign was ably conducted. Meanwhile the government of Venizelos was being carried on by an assembly which had been elected on May 31, 1915. This assembly had been dissolved by Constantine six months afterwards, but was called by King Alexander after his father's expulsion. This was naturally an embarrassment. The critics did not refer to the unconstitutionality of recalling this assembly but they dwelt on various unconstitutional acts of Venizelos. They characterized as unconstitutional his invitation to the Allies to occupy Greek territory at Saloniki. They called his setting up a provincial government in Crete an act of treason, and they condemned him for assuming power after the expulsion of Constantine. At the time of the expulsion, the French High Commissioner wrote to King Constantine's Prime Minister, M. Zaimis, a letter calling upon the King to abdicate. In this he said that the King had openly violated the constitution and had lost the confidence of the protecting Powers and that he had therefore been authorized to demand the King's abdication. To this the Prime Minister replied that the King had decided to leave the country and had appointed as his successor, Prince Alexander. According to the papers issued from Lucerne afterwards, the King had been dethroned against the will of 90 per cent of the people who would have fought for him had he called upon them to do It was further said that the Greeks had suffered needlessly and to a terrible extent. King's supporters appealed to the principle of President Wilson that every country should determine its own destiny as giving the Greeks the right to say whether or not they wanted King Constantine. In short, the situation was represented by the partisans of Constantine as one artificially forced upon Greece by the policy of the Allies during the war. So. The There were many discontented persons who joined the opposition on account of alleged maladministration during the frequent absences of Venizelos at Paris and London. While Venizelos blamed his ministers for the wholesale arrests and other arbitrary acts he himself was held to account for them. Along with the supporters of Constantine, there was a large number of pro-Germans and Socialists. Many were less desirous of the return of Constantine than of the overthrow of Venizelos. These included all who were opposed to the republican system, for the establishment of republican gov |