Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T04:38:15.086Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

‘A State of Wretchedness and Impotence’: A British View of Istanbul and Turkey, 1919

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 January 2009

Abe Attrep
Abe Attrep
Affiliation:
Louisiana Technical University Ruston, Louisiana
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

No major Allied Power contributed more men and more money td the defeat of the Ottoman Empire than Great Britain. No major Allied Power championed more zealously the cause of Greek ambitions in Asia Minor than Great Britain. No major Allied Power witnessed the despoliation of its peace objectives for non-Arabic Turkey with greater frustration than Great Britain. Between the drafting of the Armistice of Mudros in October, 1918, and the signing of the Treaty of Lausanne in 1923, the catastrophic drift of events was discernible to a number of British statesmen. Tragically, their observations were ignored or rejected by the key British statesman, Lloyd George.

Type
Articles
Information
International Journal of Middle East Studies , Volume 9 , Issue 1 , February 1978 , pp. 1 - 9
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1978

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 A serious but highly sympathetic study of Mustafa Kemal presented by an Englishman is Kinross, Lord, Ataturk: A Biography of Mustafa Kemal, Father of Modern Turkey (New York: William Morrow, 1965).Google Scholar

2 Two recent and thorough works that deal with the Allies and the Greco-Turkish crisis are C. Helmreich, Paul, From Paris to Sévres: The Partition of the Ottoman Empire at the Peace Conference of 1919–1920 (Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 1974),Google Scholar and Llewellyn Smith, Michael, lonian Vision: Greece in Asia Minor (New York: St. Martin Press, 1973).Google Scholar

3 Curzon to Kennard (Rome), 22 October 1919, Woodward, E. L. and Butler, Rohan, eds., Documents on British Foreign Policy, 1919–1939 (London: His Majesty's Stationery Office, 1952), first series, IV, 838.Google Scholar

4 Admiral Richard Webb to SirGraham, R., 28 06 1919,Google Scholaribid., pp. 655–656.

5 Anderson, M. S., The Eastern Question 1774–1923: A Study in International Relations (London: Macmillan, 1966), p. 364;CrossRefGoogle ScholarHelmreich, , From Paris to Sévres, pp. 94–101;Google ScholarN. Howard, Harry, The Partition of Turkey: A Diplomatic History 1913–1923 (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1935), pp.234–235;Google ScholarLloyd George, David, Memoirs of the Peace Conference (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1939), vol. II, 804–806;Google ScholarNicolson, Harold, Curzon, The Last Phase, 1919–1925: A Study in Post War Diplomacy (New York: Harcourt, Brace 1939), pp. 94–95;Google ScholarSmith, , lonian Vision, pp. 77–88;Google ScholarP. Tillman, Seth, Anglo-American Relations at the Paris Peace Conference of 1919 (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1961), p. 328;CrossRefGoogle ScholarD. Robinson, Richard, The FirstTurkish Republic (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1965), p. 283.Google Scholar

6 On one occasion, the Greeks leveled such a withering barrage against some Turks that it was only with difficulty that those under attack found a moment's lull to wave the white flag (Toynbee, A. J., The Westein Question in Greece and Turkey, A Study in The Contact of Civilizations [New York: Houghton Muffin Company, 1922], pp. 270–272, 272 n. 1).Google Scholar

7 Stavrianos, L. S., The Balkans since 1453 (New York: Holt, Rhinehart and Winston), p. 583.Google Scholar

8 Kinross' profound admiration for Mustafa Kemal is strikingly evident in this sweeping question which he asked: ‘War-weary and demoralized as they [the Turkish peasants] were, it was being said that even God himself could not move them to fight again. Could a Mustafa Kemal hope to succeed in a task thus surpassing the powers of the Almighty?’ (Kinross, , Ataturk, p. 192).Google Scholar

9 Anderson, , The Eastern Question, pp. 364–365;Google ScholarNicolson, , Lord Curzon, pp. 253–255;Google ScholarStavrianos, , The Balkans since 1453, pp. 582–583;Google ScholarH. Davison, Roderic, Turkey: The Modern Nations in Historical Perspective (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1968), pp. 117, 121; Enclosures 1 and 2 in despatch 460, Woodward and Butler, eds.,Google ScholarDocuments on British Foreign Policy, first ser. IV, 688–689;Google ScholarButler, Rohanand Bury, J. P. T., eds., Documents on British Foreign Policy (London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office, 1963), first ser. XIII, 67–68.Google Scholar For Kinross's interpretation of Mustafa Kemal's early revolutionary activities see Ataturk, pp. 189–202.Google Scholar

10 Memorandum of Philip H. Kerr, enclosure zin despatch 583, Woodward, and Butler, , eds., Documents on British Foreign Policy, First Series, 4, 862–867.Google Scholar

11 Admiral Webb to SirCrowe, E. (Paris), 17 08, 1919,Google Scholaribid., p. 733.

12 ibid., I, 132–136; Appendix H to despatch 70, ibid., pp. 879–880; ibid., II, 130 231. In typical fashion, the French and Italians delayed recognition of Milne's command, ibid., II, 143.

13 Memorandum by Hohler, in despatch 578, ibid., IV, 854.

14 Calthrope left Istanbul on 26 August 1919, ibid., p. 733.

15 Admiral SirRoebeck, J.de to Curzon, Earl, 11 1919,Google Scholaribid., p. 853.

16 Memorandum by Hohier, ibid., p. 855.

17 Webb, Admiral to Curzon, Earl, 8 09 1919,Google Scholaribid., pp. 753–754.

18 British troops had been stationed in Eskiṣehir until 17 September 1919, Admiral Sirde Roebeck, J. to Curzon, Earl, 17 09 1919Google Scholaribid., p. 765. But apparently, shortly after tis date, they were withdrawn; de Roebeck described his refusal to Damad Fend Pasha in a despatch to Curzon data 30 September 1919 (Admiral Sirde Roebeck, J. to Curzon, Earl, 30 09 1919,Google Scholaribid., pp. 785–786).

19 ibid., p. 786 n. 4.

20 ibid., pp. 785–786.

21 SirAdmiral, de Roebeck, J. to Curzon, Earl, 30 09 1919,Google Scholaribid., p. 786 n. 7.

22 Damad Fend Pasha asked permission to visit England and France. The Foreign Office replied that he could leave Turkey but should not come to England or France (Webb, Admiral to Curzon, Earl, 8 10 1919,Google Scholaribid., p. 789 and n.1)

23 Admiral, Sirde Roebeck, J. to Curzon, Earl, 3 10 1919,Google Scholaribid., p. 787.

24 Memorandum of an interview with Kemal Bey in despatch 534, ibid., p. 793.

25 ibid., pp. 802–;810.

26 Sirde Roebeck, J. to Curzon, Earl, 11 11 1919,Google Scholaribid., pp. 873–876.

27 Curzon, Earl to Sirde Roebeck, J., 28 11 1919,Google Scholaribid., p. 906; Sirde Roebeck, J. to Curzon, , 12 4, 1919,Google Scholaribid., p. 923.

28 Sirde Roebeck, J. to Curzon, Earl, 2 12 1919,Google Scholaribid., p. 915.

29 S. Churchill, Winston, The World Crisis (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1957), vol V, 392–394.Google Scholar

30 Sirde Roebeck, J. to Curzon, Earl, 1110, 1919,Google ScholarWoodward, and Butler, , Documents On British Foreign Policy, first ser., IV, 871.Google Scholar

31 ibid., pp. 870–872.

32 SirCrowe, E. to Curzon, Earl, 3 12 1919,Google Scholaribid., p. 919.

33 Venizelos, to SirCrowe, E., 20 11 1919,Google Scholaribid., p. 905.

34 SirCrowe, E. to Kidston, , 1 12 1919,Google Scholaribid., p. 914.