Great Britain against Russia in the Caucasus, Pat Walsch
For most of the 19th Century Great Britain and Tsarist Russia confronted each other in a geopolitical struggle known as the Great Game. During this period Britain supported the Ottoman Empire as a giant buffer state against Russian expansion toward the Mediterranean. But in 1907 the Great Game against Russia was suddenly suspended in the interests of a drastic alteration in Britain’s Balance of Power policy that identified Germany as the main threat to British global predominance. An unlikely alliance was established between the two former deadly enemies which had momentous consequences for Tsarist Russia and the world.
The primary consequence of this revolution in British Foreign Policy was the Great War of 1914, waged by Britain, Russia and France on Germany and the Ottoman Empire. In the course of this catastrophic global war the Tsarist State collapsed, throwing much of Eurasia into flux, and letting loose new forces into the world. The Russian Revolution and Bolshevik coup, along with universalistic slogans encouraging „self-determination“ trumpeted by the Allied Powers, provoked nationalism and new nations, in areas where such notions had been weakly developed previously, like Transcaucasia.
Within this turmoil the new nations of Georgia, Azerbaijan and Armenia emerged out of the Russian Empire and took their first steps toward independence in a situation of great instability and uncertainty. The Armenians, the most nationalistic and militarized people in the region who had collaborated in the attempt to destroy the Ottoman State, were now employed by the badly-stretched Entente to reconstruct a new Allied front in the Caucasus replacing the Russian lines that had melted away. And this was to have tragic consequences for the local Muslim population.
At the end of 1918 Britain finally won its Great War on Germany and the Ottoman Empire, whilst seeing its former enemy, Russia, descend into chaos. Britain had seemingly won not only the Great War but the Great Game against Russia and occupied its territory in the Caucasus, with the power to determine the region’s future for the first time. Or so it seemed.
The collapse of the Russian State resulted in the Caucasus becoming one of the centres of a new conflict as Britain supported regime change in Moscow by promoting and facilitating civil war in Russia. The new Transcaucasian states of Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan had been provided with a vacuum in which to be born and develop as nations and the British occupation was availed of for this development. But the freedom of action of these new nations was short lived after Britain, lacking the will to sustain its occupation for various reasons, abruptly began a withdrawal.
This study, for the first time, places the fall of the Ottoman Empire and the Armenian question in its full geopolitical context of the Great War, Russian State politics and Revolution, and the changing Foreign Policy of Great Britain. Without this context full understanding of these world-historic events is impossible.
The Mysterious Midas City: 2,800-Year-Old City with Monumental Facades and Strange Inscriptions
A being named Midas has been immortalized in Yazılıkaya, Turkey. Many people think the famous inscription dedicated to this person referred to the king remembered for his ‘golden touch’, but that’s just because the deity associated with the Midas Monument is usually known by another name.
Who Was Midas?
Yazılıkaya (known also as Phrygian Yazılıkaya, or Midas Kenti) is a village located in the northwestern Turkish province of Eskişehir. This village is notable for its archaeological remains from the Phrygian period, in particular a rock inscription mentioning a ‘Midas’. Thus, these archaeological remains are sometimes referred to as the Midas Monument or Midas Kenti (which translates as the ‘City of Midas’), and were even once considered to be the tomb of the legendary King Midas.
Inscription in the Phrygian alphabet. This is part of the Midas Tomb in Midas City (Midas Şehri), Turkey. ( CC BY SA 2.5 )
The literal translation of Yazılıkaya is ‘inscribed rock’, which is a reference to its famous rock inscription. According to the archaeological evidence, this site was first settled around the 8th century BC by a group of people known as the Phrygians. According to the Greek historian Herodotus, the Phrygians were not the natives of Anatolia, but were Thracian Brygians who had crossed the Hellespont to settle in Anatolia. Herodotus’ claim has been confirmed by historians today who have established that the Phrygian language is related to those from the southern Balkan Peninsula.
The Mother of all Gods: The Phrygian Cybele
Everything he Touched Turned to Gold: The Myth and Reality of King Midas
Make Way for the Powerful Assyrian Kings: The History of the Message-Laden Balawat Gates
Unfinished façade, the city of Midas, Yazılıkaya, Turkey. Source: MEH Bergmann/ CC BY SA 4.0
The Phrygians established their capital at Gordian. Yazılıkaya, on the other hand, became an important religious center. This interpretation of the city is supported by the presence of a large amount of monumental structures. The best-known of these monuments is the so-called Midas Monument, which acquired its name as a result of the presence of the word in an inscription located on the upper left-hand side of the façade. Most people would be familiar with King Midas, the most famous ruler of Phrygia, due to the story known as Midas’ touch. In this well-known myth, the king was given the power to turn anything he touched into gold.
Midas’ daughter turned to gold. ( Public Domain )
As a matter of fact, the Midas on the inscription is the surname of Cybele, a Phrygian goddess regarded to be the Mother of the Gods. In addition, what was originally thought to have been the tomb of the legendary King Midas was actually a sanctuary to this goddess. This monument dates to the 8 th century B.C., and is older than the rest of the site. The sanctuary has a niche, into which a statue of Cybele could be placed during the religious ceremonies.
Cybele enthroned, with lion, cornucopia and Mural crown. Roman marble. ( Public Domain )
Another interesting feature of Yazılıkaya is its rock-cut necropolis, which is situated to the south of the Midas monument. In this area, several Phrygian tombs may be found. In addition to this, the ancient site also possessed an acropolis. As the acropolis is on top of a high place, one could have a magnificent panorama of the entire site.
The City of Midas Gains its Popular Name
Around the late 4th century BC, the site was suddenly abandoned. The city of Yazılıkaya was more or less lost to the West until it was re-discovered during the 19th century. In 1800, a Colonel William Martin Leake came across the site by chance during a military mission that took him from Istanbul to Egypt. It was, however, during the latter part of the 19th century that Yazılıkaya became known as the City of Midas. It was William M. Ramsay, a Scottish archaeologist, who first gave this name to the site.
Vibrations and sounds may have enhanced worship of Great Goddess Cybele
Band Posters of the Renaissance: How Medieval Music Fans Showed off Their Taste
The Ancient Kingdom of Tuwana: A Bridge that Aided the Flow of Culture
A rock formation at the top of Midas city ruins, Yazılıkaya village, Han – Eskişehir, Turkey. (Zeynel Cebeci/ CC BY SA 4.0 )
The first systematic archaeological excavations of Yazılıkaya only began in 1936, and were directed by the French Archaeological Institute in Istanbul. This first phase of archaeological work continued until 1939, when the Second World War broke out. Several significant discoveries, including rock reliefs and water cisterns, were made during this time.
Archaeological excavations at Yazılıkaya recommenced after the war ended, in 1948. This period of excavations lasted until 1951 and is notable for its discovery of the necropolis. Archaeological work at Yazılıkaya has also been carried out during the 1970s and 1990s. Most recently, during the 21st century, the plain surrounding the site was surveyed, leading to the discovery of other monuments from the Phrygian period. Apart from that, Yazılıkaya has been turned into a tourist destination today.
A northeastern side view of a rock-cut necropolis with several Phrygian tombs which lies to the south of the Midas Monument in Yazılıkaya (lit. “inscribed rock” in Turkish) village, Eskişehir – Turkey. (Zeynel Cebeci/ CC BY SA 4.0 )
Top image: The Midas Monument, Yazılıkaya. Source: Zeynel Cebeci/ CC BY SA 4.0
The Eastern Mediterranean has become an increasingly crowded space, between precarious refugee crossings from Libya to Europe, the flow of arms and mercenaries in the other direction, and Russia’s new naval hub at the Syrian port of Tartus.
So when a Turkish seismic vessel began carrying out surveys in waters where Greece also claims jurisdiction, shadowed by Turkish warships, it added another dangerous element to the mix.
Since it began in mid-August, Turkey’s drilling program, and the gunboat diplomacy that has followed, has contributed to a situation so volatile German foreign minister Heiko Maas on Tuesday warned: “any small spark could lead to catastrophe.” It has prompted Turkey to announce new live-fire military drills to be held off Cyprus’s northern coast next week, with Greece planning rival navy exercises with France, Cyprus, and Italy. The dispute has divided E.U. leaders over how to manage Turkey and drawn in states as far-flung as Egypt and the UAE.
In a week in which Erdogan resolved to make “no concessions on that which is ours” and Greece announced it would extend its maritime territory around some of its islands unrelated to the dispute, the tensions are only escalating. Here’s what to know about the trouble brewing in the Mediterranean:
Why are tensions between Turkey and Greece flaring up right now?
On the surface, it’s a dispute over energy. Turkey and Greece have overlapping claims to areas of gas-rich waters in the Eastern Mediterranean. Greece’s position is that each of its islands—and there are thousands of them—is entitled to its own continental shelf with exclusive drilling rights. The E.U. has stood firmly behind Greece and last July sanctioned Turkey for carrying out seismic surveys off the north Cypriot coast. It has repeatedly warned Turkey against carrying out further exploration.
But Turkey says that is an unfair interpretation of international law that unjustly encroaches on its own exclusive economic zone. In recent months, Turkey and Greece have each sought to bolster their territorial claims by drawing up exclusive maritime economic zones with Libya and Egypt, respectively.
Beyond immediate territorial concerns, the dispute draws in historical grievances and contemporary military strategy. They include the conflicted status of Cyprus, the wars in Libya and Syria, and the ongoing power struggles in the region as U.S. influence wanes.
How have Greece–Turkey relations deteriorated in recent years?
Greek–Turkic enmity far predates the establishment of the Turkish Republic. It spans quotidian concerns such as the origins of the dessert baklava to grave disagreements over historical atrocities. But for the past half-decade, the most serious disputes have centered on the status of Cyprus.
Turkey’s 1974 invasion of the island, triggered by a Greek-backed military coup, led to Turkish troops occupying the island’s northern third and an exodus of Greek Cypriots from the area. In 1983 a Turkish-Cypriot politician declared a breakaway Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC), recognized only by Turkey. The Republic of Cyprus joined the E.U. in 2004 despite its divided status. Tensions between Greece and Turkey have simmered ever since, and in 1996 the two countries came close to war over two uninhabited islets in the Aegean Sea, near Turkey’s western coast.
Cyprus’s unresolved status features in the Eastern Mediterranean dispute because Turkey considers any deals Cyprus signs on energy exploitation illegal unless the TRNC is also involved. Greece, meanwhile, considers Turkish gas exploration near Cyprus illegal.
What other factors are worsening relations?
One is the flow of migrants from the Middle East to Europe. Turkey hosts almost 4 million migrants and refugees as part of a 2016 deal with the E.U. In February, Erdogan briefly made good on a long-held threat to “open the gates” allowing tens of thousands of asylum seekers to cross over into Greece. Athens’ hardline response—including using violence against asylum seekers—drew criticism from human rights groups. Meanwhile, the E.U. accused Turkey of using migrants as a bargaining tool.
Relations further soured in July over the re-conversion of Istanbul’s Hagia Sophia into a mosque. That revived a centuries-long dispute over one of the world’s most contested religious buildings and irked Russia and Greece, the centers of Orthodox Christianity.
On Tuesday, Greece’s foreign minister Nikos Dendias accused Erdogan of advancing a “neo-Ottoman” strategy in the Eastern Mediterranean as part of an “attempt to implement expansionist aims against neighbors and allies.” That’s an allegation frequently leveled at the Turkish leader, whom critics have dubbed a “modern Sultan.”
But Turkey’s muscular approach to the contested waters enjoys bipartisan support. Turkey’s main opposition Republican People’s Party (CHP) voiced support for the Mediterranean drilling program. Securing lucrative energy resources in a region where Turkey finds itself increasingly isolated also enjoys popular social backing, experts say. “Erdogan’s adventure in the Eastern Mediterranean probably has more support than any of his other regional adventures,” says Emile Hokayem, a Middle East security expert at the International Institute for Strategic Studies.
Which other countries are involved?
It’s a long list, complicated by Turkey and European states’ entanglements in the Middle East, North Africa and beyond.
Last November, Turkey signed a maritime accord with Libya’s U.N.-backed government that would permit expanded Turkish drilling in the Eastern Mediterranean. Although it is not recognized by Washington or the E.U., the accord led to Turkey intervening militarily in Libya’s civil conflict against warlord Khalifa Haftar, who is backed by Russia. As in northwest Syria, Russia and Turkey have emerged as power brokers of the battlespace in Libya.
But it’s not only Russia that backs Haftar in Libya. France, the UAE, and Egypt have each provided military or financial assistance to his self-styled Libya National Army; and they’re all engaged in the Mediterranean dispute.
French President Emmanuele Macron—who labeled Turkey’s Libya incursion “criminal”—earlier in August briefly dispatched two Rafale fighter jets and a naval frigate in support of Greece. France, along with Greece and Cyprus, has taken a hardline stance against Turkey, compared to the more conciliatory approach favored by E.U. nations such as Germany, Spain, and Italy.
Meanwhile, Egypt earlier in August signed an accord with Greece on the development of a joint maritime economic zone that Turkey claims is “null and void.” Egyptian leader Abdel Fattah Al-Sisi has threatened to intervene militarily in Libya against Turkey. The UEA—which has deployed U.S. manufactured warplanes in Libya— reportedly sent four F16’s to Crete last week to participate in drills with the Greek military. “The adversarial positions of the UAE and Turkey across the Middle East and North Africa are spilling into the East Mediterranean dispute, as can be seen by the UAE dispatch of fighter jets,” says Nigar Goksel Turkey project director at the Brussels-based International Crisis Group.
What is Russia’s position on the crisis?
Russia has yet to make a public statement on the Greece–Turkey tensions but it is deeply entrenched in both the Eastern Mediterranean and the Black Sea, where Erdogan recently announced Turkey’s biggest ever gas find. The U.S. Navy’s top admiral in Europe warned last year that Moscow is in the process of turning the eastern Mediterranean into one of the world’s most militarized zones, in part as a result of building up a naval hub at the Syrian port of Tartus. Greek media reported this week that the Russian Navy has gathered nine military vessels between Cyprus and Syria, including three submarines.
And what has the U.S. said?
In phone calls on Wednesday, U.S. President Trump expressed concern to his Greek and Turkish counterparts over the rising tensions, urging the two NATO members to commit to dialogue, according to a White House Press Secretary. Still, although the USS Hershel Woody Williams recently arrived on the Greek island of Crete, the White House has largely left Germany to mediate the crisis. “The U.S. is not happy about being dragged into Mediterranean politics. They have enough on their plate trying to deter Russia and China,” says IISS’s Hokayem. “But the reality is that when the U.S. veers away from some of the issues and decides not to be implicated in their management, actually things get worse and the U.S. may be dragged back in.”
Is the tension likely to spill over into violence?
It’s increasingly plausible, if unlikely. War between two NATO members in the Mediterranean would be an unmitigated disaster, and both sides have voiced their desire for negotiations. But as the brinkmanship increases, so does the possibility of accidental escalation. “We invite our counterparts to smarten up and avoid mistakes that will cause their ruin,” Erdogan said on Wednesday. “Those who wish to confront us at the cost of paying a price, are welcome. If not, they should keep out of our way.”
There are few moderating voices. As Turkey’s E.U. membership prospects dwindled, it became increasingly difficult for more dovish politicians in Ankara to highlight incentives to compromise, says ICG’s Goksel. “The E.U. doesn’t have any carrots to offer Turkey that would override nationalist sentiments,” she says, “I think Ankara’s strategic thinkers sincerely want negotiations, but they don’t think they could get them unless they create havoc.”
Sultan Selim, His Ottoman Empire, and the Making of the Modern World
Published by Liveright
by Alan Mikhail (Author, Yale University)
“A stunning work of global history. . . . Alan Mikhail offers a bold and thoroughly convincing new way to think about the origins of the modern world. . . . A tour de force.” —Greg Grandin
Long neglected in world history, the Ottoman Empire was a hub of intellectual fervor, geopolitical power, and enlightened pluralistic rule. At the height of their authority in the sixteenth century, the Ottomans, with extraordinary military dominance and unparalleled monopolies over trade routes, controlled more territory and ruled
“A stunning work of global history. . . . Alan Mikhail offers a bold and thoroughly convincing new way to think about the origins of the modern world. . . . A tour de force.” —Greg Grandin
Long neglected in world history, the Ottoman Empire was a hub of intellectual fervor, geopolitical power, and enlightened pluralistic rule. At the height of their authority in the sixteenth century, the Ottomans, with extraordinary military dominance and unparalleled monopolies over trade routes, controlled more territory and ruled over more people than any world power, forcing Europeans out of the Mediterranean and to the New World.
Yet, despite its towering influence and centrality to the rise of our modern world, the Ottoman Empire’s history has for centuries been distorted, misrepresented, and even suppressed in the West. Now Alan Mikhail presents a vitally needed recasting of Ottoman history, retelling the story of the Ottoman conquest of the world through the dramatic biography of Sultan Selim I (1470–1520).
Born to a concubine, and the fourth of his sultan father’s ten sons, Selim was never meant to inherit the throne. With personal charisma and military prowess—as well as the guidance of his remarkably gifted mother, Gülbahar—Selim claimed power over the empire in 1512 and, through ruthless ambition, nearly tripled the territory under Ottoman control, building a governing structure that lasted into the twentieth century. At the same time, Selim—known by his subjects as “God’s Shadow on Earth”—fostered religious diversity, welcoming Jews among other minority populations into the empire; encouraged learning and philosophy; and penned his own verse.
Drawing on previously unexamined sources from multiple languages, and with original maps and stunning illustrations, Mikhail’s game-changing account “challenges readers to recalibrate their sense of history” (Leslie Peirce), adroitly using Selim’s life to upend prevailing shibboleths about Islamic history and jingoistic “rise of the West” theories that have held sway for decades. Whether recasting Christopher Columbus’s voyages to the “Americas” as a bumbling attempt to slay Muslims or showing how the Ottomans allowed slaves to become the elite of society while Christian states at the very same time waged the horrors of the transatlantic slave trade, God’s Shadow radically reshapes our understanding of the importance of Selim’s Ottoman Empire in the history of the modern world.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
A M
Alan Mikhail
A leading historian of his generation, Alan Mikhail, professor of history and chair of the Department of History at Yale University, has reforged our understandings of the past through his previous three prize-winning books on the history of the Middle East. In writing God’s Shadow, he has drawn on Ottoman Turkish, modern Turkish, Arabic, Spanish, Italian, and French sources. He lives in New York and New Haven, Connecticut.
Today is the 98th anniversary of the beginning of the Great Offensive (Büyük Taarruz), which ended the Greek occupation in Anatolia and brought Turkey’s War of Independence to a final victory. In current times as tension between Turkey and Greece gains momentum in the Eastern Mediterranean and Aegean Seas, the propaganda that the Turks committed ethnic cleansing against the Greeks during their War of Independence has picked up in the Western press.
How did one of the important witnesses of the period, Soviet Russia, evaluate the events that took place in Anatolia at that time? How did the Soviet authorities who came to Turkey then report their observations? What did the Soviet orientalists of the time write about this issue?
Let us look for answers to these questions with archival documents.
MOSCOW PROTESTS
The most important of the examples on this subject is the protest sent by G. V. Chicherin, the Soviet People’s Commissariat (Minister) of Foreign Affairs, to the governments of all countries on October 26, 1921. In his protest, Chicherin drew attention to the massacres committed against Turkish civilian population by the Greek armed forces during their withdrawal from Sakarya and demanded that these inhumane actions to be stopped as shown below:
“The savage and inhumane actions undertaken by the Greek Armies on the lands of Asia Minor (Anatolia – MP), obligated the Government of Russia, to bring in front of all governments the issue of the attitude that needs to be taken against these actions and forced to draw their attention on the terrible destruction and barbaric atrocities the local people suffered from the Greek Army in all Turkish regions under the Greek occupation. Even neutral observers and telegraph (news – MP) agencies emphasize that all Turkish regions occupied by the Greek armies have been converted into wilderness during the Greek withdrawal.
In all places where Greeks have retreated, Turkish villages are being burned and the population is completely destroyed or taken as prisoner while women are subjected to the most brutal rape. Among the Turkish population, only those who could hide in forests and mountains are able to stay alive.
In the orders of the Greek command, reference is made to Prince Andrey, who ordered the Greek armies to burn down all Turkish villages on their way. In fact, Papulas, the Commander-in-Chief of the Greek armies, ordered the destruction of Turkish villages. Bloodcurdling acts of brutality that makes people rebel have been proven in the villages listed below: (…)
The Government of Russia draws the attention of all governments, to the invading Greek army’s conversion of this immensely flourished vast Turkish region into a real desert by causing its demolition. The Russian Government sees it unconditionally necessary to apply to all the governments by suggesting to take necessary steps against the Greek Government in order to stop the intolerable actions of the Greek armies in Turkey.” [1]
Turkey’s Ambassador to Moscow, Ali Fuat Pasha, responded with a thank you letter to this initiative of Russia on the same day. Ali Fuat Pasha stated in his letter that Moscow’s protest is proof of the high sense of humanity that the Soviet Government mobilized. [2]
MILITARY ARCHIVE DOCUMENTS
Documents in the Russian State Military Archive (RGVA), which is the archive of the Soviet Red Army, also shed light on this issue. In a 16-page report titled: “Anatolian Turkey”, it is expressed that the Greeks started wild massacres upon their occupation of the Izmir Region. According to this report, the Greeks also sent their agents to the Black Sea region to provoke revolt in order to create a suitable ground for the Greeks to land. The intellectuals and bourgeois Greeks in this region were invested in the idea of an independent Pontus Republic.
For this reason, in order to secure the coastal areas, the Turkish government had to evacuate the Greeks in these areas. In response to this, Greek gangs were established which raided Turkish villages, where they massacred entire populations including women or children. Thus, the mutual slaughter in the region was ignited and revenge attacks against Greeks also took place. [3]
Under the “Military Summary” subheading of a document titled “A Brief Report on the Military-Political and Economic Situation in Anatolia”, it is stated regarding the events of September – October 1921, that while withdrawing, the Greek armies burned down all villages and cities; thus it is stated that they left a complete empty land behind Mustafa Kemal’s front-line. [4]
In another report in the Military Archive, dated November 1, 1921, the following was recorded while dealing with the policies of the Greek occupation in the Thrace Region and the reaction of the local population to this:
“The status of the Greeks in Turkey mainly depends on the success of their armies in the Asia Minor front line. Bulgarians and Turks make up about two third of the Thracian population and they approach hostile invaders. The Greek government is relentlessly terrorizing other peoples, trying to crush all resistance from the people.
The Greek language has been declared a mandatory language in state and public institutions. Bulgarian and Turkish schools are closed. The ever-increasing expropriation policy, carried out arbitrarily by the use of force by the special Greek commissions, creates discomfort among the villagers.
The stated reasons gave birth to the formation of gangs in the Thrace. The gangs are made up of local Bulgarians and Turkish populations. The armed gangs procure their weapons from the stocks that were left behind Tahir Pasha’s (Turkish) army. The centers of the rebellion are the Bulgarian and Turkish villages in the Rhodope and Strandja Mountains, along the Bulgarian border. (…) The rebels have recently changed tactics and are avoiding clashes with Greek troops; they are attacking warehouses, government agencies, they are destroying supply routes and are applying terror to the representatives of the occupation administration.”
While discussing the economic situation of Thrace, the report also mentions the pillage policy of the Greeks and their seizure of grains and cattle for the needs of the Greek occupying army in Anatolia. [5]
In a military intelligence report in the archives dated September 2, 1920, with the title “Life in Turkey”, information is given that, relying on the strong support of the Entente States, Greeks behaved with conceit and arrogance toward the Turks. This is particularly evident in Istanbul, where European bigotry has made it a base for itself against the Near-East. [6]
The Red Army’s military intelligence reports sometimes convey Ankara’s statements as well. In a report conveying a news report of the Anatolian Agency dated November 3, 1920, it is stated that during their withdrawal from Inegöl towards Bursa, the Greeks burned down almost all of the villages and Yenişehir. There were even incidents in which people were burned. [7]
TESTIMONIES OF FRUNZE AND ARALOV
In a speech to the Parliament during his visit to Turkey, Soviet commander Frunze said: “exposure of the Turkish people to the rabid enemy’s brutality” evokes “great hatred” in Ukraine and Russia. [8] In addition, Fruze mentions in his memoirs regarding Turkey, that the Greeks had destroyed the Muslims in Western Anatolia, and that they also looted their property and other valuables. [9]
Soviet Ambassador Aralov wrote in his memoirs about the Greek persecution that “The fleeing enemy, in a wild rage, was burning down everything that they encountered on the road. The cities: Uşak, Aydın, Manisa and most of the villages were burned.” [10] In a telegram that he sent from Ankara to Moscow on September 2, 1922, Aralov reported that most of the Turkish villages were burned with their residents. [11]
During the days he was in Izmir for the Economic Congress, Aralov gave a statement to the reporters: “(…) our journey was very long, very beautiful, and at the same time very painful due to the destruction of the Greek cruelty. We saw the destructiveness of the Greeks with our own eyes. (…) The miserable Greeks are the tenants of foreign capitalism.” [12]
Anatoly Glebov, who was the first secretary of the embassy during Aralov’s period, also states in his memoirs that Turkish women and children shed a lot of blood in the regions occupied by the Greeks; and in return, pressure was exerted on the Greeks, in the regions under Ankara’s rule. [13]
The Soviet artist Lansere, who came to Turkey upon Aralov’s invitation during the War of Liberation years and drew many pictures there, also refers in his memoirs to the massacres carried out against the Muslims upon invasion of Izmir by the Greeks. [14]
WRITINGS OF SOVIET ORIENTALISTS
Irandust, whose articles were frequently published among the official publications of the Soviet State such as Pravda and Izvestia, also touched on Greek atrocities in his works. Osetrov, using the name Irandust, writes in his work titled “The Driving Forces of the Kemalist Revolution” published in 1928:
“The program of physical extermination of the Turkish population was implemented consciously under the rule of the invaders, so much so that the fertile lands of Anatolia were reserved for Italian and Greek immigrants. This policy has taken a very sharp turn in Izmir. Here, an openly armed war was started by Greek immigrants to destroy the Turkish population and seize their assets. Disarmament of the Turkish peasants was often just an excuse for the destruction of all their villages. In the occupied areas, the survivors of the Turkish population were pushed into complete poverty.”
In his work, Irandust also states that the Greeks of the Black Sea Region committed massacres against the local Turkish population in order to revive the Pontus State. [15]
1. Pavlovich, one of the most important experts of the Soviet State, also talks about the “terrible massacre” committed by the Greeks in Izmir. [16]
Bagirov, one of the prominent Soviet historians, wrote “The Greek occupation of Izmir and its surroundings, brought with it massacres and murder against the people, children, the elderly; it also brought tyranny to women.” [17]
The Belarusian historian I. G. Drogovoz described the occupation of Izmir in his book with the following lines:
“The Greeks that came ashore, started from the very first moment, continuous massacres, looting, rape, humiliation and murder against the Turkish civilian population. On the first day alone, they killed 400 Turks: men-women, adults-children. On the following three days, the number of Turkish deaths reached four thousand in Izmir.”
Drogovoz also states that in the days of the liberation of Izmir, Turkish troops were in a legitimate defense effort to protect the Turkish population of Izmir from looting and massacres. In response, the Greeks set many houses on fire. In addition, a Greek submarine sank a ship containing Turkish prisoners of war. [18]
FROM THE ARCHIVES IN AZERBAIJAN
Soviet Azerbaijan did not remain indifferent to the massacres of the Turkish population in Anatolia. The protest text sent by Hüseyin Rauf Bey to all governments on behalf of the Turkish Grand National Assembly on August 31, 1922, also reached Baku:
“The Greeks are committing murder in the places where they are forced to evacuate in the current battle, similar to the atrocities and disasters they committed in the regions where they were forced to evacuate in the Inönü and Sakarya wars that they lost before. After evacuating Afyonkarahisar and its environs, they set fire to a large part of the Muslim neighborhood within the holy city and destroyed many villages in the vicinity, massacring their residents. They also committed similar crimes during the combat period of Dumlupınar War, in the Olucuk area around Altuntaş, filling the people, women and children included, into mosques and prayer houses, they burned them alive.
The Greeks completely burned down the towns of Umurbey and Çalköy and partially massacred the people living there, burning some people alive. They also burned down Dumlupınar.” [19]
Azerbaijan’s People’s Commissar for Foreign Affairs M. D. Huseynov attached a note on this document saying: “The ‘Rabochiy’, ‘Trud’ and ‘Communist’ newspapers should publish this article, specifying the anger and protest of the Soviet State. They should also show the ingenuity of Greece, the sister of the Allies that protect it.”
In addition, on October 2, 1922, Azerbaijan Communist Party decided to establish an aid committee for helping the Anatolian Turks that were harmed by the Greeks and opened up a special fund for it. [20]
FROM THE ARCHIVES OF WESTERN EUROPE
Even though they did not voice it at that time, the Western European States which supported the Greek invasion included in their secret reports that Greek atrocities were carried out in Western Anatolia. Striking examples can be found in the works of Salahi Sonyel, who has been working in the European archives for many years; for example, in the reports of the officials of countries such as England, America, Italy and Sweden on this subject together with archive registration numbers. [21]
Although very rare, there have been writers who touched this point among Greek historians. Georgios Nakracas, in his work which he expresses to have written in order to enlighten the fictitious historical myths and to contribute to the correction of mistakes, acknowledges that the Greeks committed massacres a few hours after their arrival in Izmir, followed by more slaughters that took place in cities like Aydın, Menemen and Bergama. [22]
THE TURKISH POPULATION WAS SAVED FROM ANNIHILATION
The documents cited above are just some examples of what is to be found in the archives, there are much more sources available. If an ethnic cleansing took place in the Aegean Region, it was done against the Turkish population during the Greek occupation.
The Turkish War of Independence, which attained victory with the Great Offensive (Büyük Taarruz), not only saved the lands occupied by the imperialist forces, it also saved the Turkish population in the region from being exterminated.
[1]From the The Foreign Policy Archive of the Russian Federation (AVPRF) f. 132, op. 4, p. 4, d. 2, l. 89.
[2]For the French original, French copy and Russian translation of the letter, pls see: AVPRF f. 132, op. 4, p. 4, d. 6, l. 62-64.
[3]For the full report pls see: RGVA f. 25899, op. 3, d. 319, l. 36-43, 36 ob.-43 ob.
[4]RGVA f. 25899, op. 3, d. 498, l. 198.
[5]RGVA f. 25899, op 3, d. 482, l. 60 and 60 ob.
[6]RGVA f. 109, op. 3, d. 278 or 279, l. 31.
[7]RGVA f. 109, op. 3, d. 302, l. 20 ob.
[8]Rasih Nuri İleri, Atatürk ve Komünizm, Scala Printing House, 5thed., Istanbul, May 1999, p. 314.
[9]Frunze’nin Türkiye Anıları, Cem Printing House, Istanbul, 1978, pp. 8, 108.
[10]S. I. Aralov, Bir Sovyet Diplomatının Türkiye Hatıraları, Burçak Printing House, Istanbul, 1967, p. 142.
[11]Russian State Archive of Socio-Political History (RGASPI) f. 544, op. 3, d. 117, l. 150.
[12]Newspapers Vakitdated February 26, 1923 and Tanindated February 26, 1923.
[13]Anatoly Glebov, Liniya Druzhby, Sovyetsky Pisatel, Moscow, 1960, p. 34.
[14]Y. Y. Lansere, Ankara Yazı, Kaynak Publishing, Istanbul, October 2004, p. 91.
[15]Irandust, Dvizhushie Sily Kemalistskoy Revolyutsii, Gosudarstvennoe Izdatelstvo, Moscow-Leningrad, 1928, pp. 67, 70.
[16]M. P. Pavlovich, “Revolyutsionnaya Turtsiya”, Turtsiya v Borbe Za Nezavisimost, Nauchnaya Assotsiatsiya Vostokovedeniya Pri TsIK SSSR, Moscow, 1925, pp. 49, 63.
[17]Y. A. Bagirov, Kurtuluş Savaşı Yıllarında Azerbaycan-Türkiye İlişkileri, Bilim Publishing, Istanbul, February 1979, p. 108.
[18]Pls see I. G. Drogovoz, Turetskiy Marsh. Turtsiya v Ogne Srazheniy, Harvest, Minsk, 2007, pp. 319, 340.
[19]State Archive of Political Parties and Social Movements of the Azerbaijan Republic, f 281, op. 1, d. 27, l. 116-117 (in Turkish). The Russian translation is in f. 28, op. 1, d. 68, l. 115b, 118.
[20]For details pls see Betül Arslan, Türkiye Azerbaycan İlişkileri ve İbrahim Abilov (1920-1923),Kaynak Publishing, Istanbul, October 2004, p. 108 ff.
[21]Pls see, Salahi Sonyel, Mustafa Kemal (Atatürk) ve Kurtuluş Savaşı, vol .1, TTK Publishing, Ankara, 2008, p. 171 ff; Salahi R. Sonyel, Kaygılı Yıllar, Remzi Publishing, November 2012, pp. 253 ff, 264 ff.
[22]Pls see. Georgios Nakracas, Anadolu ve Rum Göçmenlerin Kökeni, Kitabevi Publishing, Istanbul, 2005, p. 70.
Rate this (8 Votes)
Related articles
Last week in Turkey: Greek-Egyptian maritime agreement, delegation in Lebanon, rise in TurkeyRecent events in Turkey went by full speed over the last week. The maritime border…
Last week in Turkey: Is Turkey shifting back into Washington’s axis?The Idlib crisis in Syria The martyrdom of 13 Turkish soldiers in two separate strikes…
Last week in Turkey: Rising political tensions between Turkey and SyriaConsidering Turkey’s conditions, for the first time in many years, we were having a calm…
For all of you celebrating Christmas, from all of us here at Let the Quran Speak, we’d like to wish you the very best this holiday season with your family and friends. Dr. Shabir Ally helps us learn more about the similarities amongst all of us when it comes to Christmas and Jesus.
