DOCSLIB.ORG

Picot Agreement of 1916 Was the Basis for the Political Division of the Middle East?

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Picot Agreement of 1916 Was the Basis for the Political Division of the Middle East? Journal of Geography, Politics and Society 2016, 6(3), 50–58 DOI 10.4467/24512249JG.16.019.5806 IS THE SYKES – PICOT AGREEMENT OF 1916 WAS THE BASIS FOR THE POLITICAL DIVISION OF THE MIDDLE EAST? Gideon Biger Department of Geography and the Human Environment, Tel-Aviv University, P.O.B 39040, Ramat Aviv, Tel Aviv 69978, Israel, e-mail: [email protected] Citation Biger G., 2016, Is the Sykes – Picot Agreement of 1916 was the basis for the political division of the Middle East?, Journal of Geography, Politics and Society, 6(3), 50–58. Abstract In 1916, Britain and France signed an agreement deals with the future division of the Ottoman Empire. This agreement, known as the Sykes – Picot Agreement, after its two designers, the British Sir Mark Sykes and the French François George Picot, is seen up today as the main act which created the modern Middle East and responsible for some of its problems. The article present here point to another act, the decision of the newly established League of Nation to create the Mandate System and , following it, the San Remo decision of April 1920 giving the Mandates concerning the Arab Middle East to France and Britain, as the main designer of the division of the Middle East to its present form. Key words First World War, Ottoman Empire, League of Nations, Britain, France, Mandate System. 1. Preface Lately, especially in light of the events of the past five the creation of the political map of the Middle East years in Syria and Iraq, popular as well as scientific divided for several independence states which ex- publications, as well as political groups and leaders, ists today in that area. More new information to this wrote and mentioned the agreement signed a hun- ‘known’ agreement was supplied in a book called dred years ago, in May 1916, between the repre- “A Line in the Sand” (Baar, 2012) written by the jour- sentative of the British Empire, Sir Mark Sykes, and nalist and political analyst, James Barr, published the French representative, Francois Georges –Picot in 2011 (American Edition 2012). According to the concerning the future of the Middle East1. All consid- overall public opinion, this agreement between the ered the “Sykes – Picot Agreement” as the base for governments of Britain and France created the exist- ing political structures of the Middle East – a struc- 1 See for example – The Sykes – Picot Agreement at 100, ture that the Muslim State (ISIS) tries to abolish. ISIS YouTube discussion of 2 hours, 26:24 minutes. Also see – Re- declared that the boundaries of the Sykes – Picot thinking the map of the Sykes – Picot Agreement Legacy, BBC World YouTube. Is the Sykes – Picot Agreement of 1916 was the basis for the political division of the Middle East? 51 Agreement are void and null2, tried to abolish the (especially in Palestine – the Terra Sancta) and to separate Arab states units, and bring back the Mid- secure control all over the area from the Egyptian dle East to the situation in which there were no bor- border – a line set in 1906 – as far north as Aleppo ders separating and disintegrate the Arab world – in Syria and the Gulf of Alexandretta (Iskenderun, to- the Muslim Middle East. James Barr’s book reinforces day in Turkey) and in the area of Mosul in northern this argument and tries to show that the “Line drawn Mesopotamia (now Iraq). In contrast, Britain sought in the Sand” drowned on the map attached to the to strengthen its Persian Gulf positions and extend agreement, put the Middle East as a conflict area its control to the north of Mesopotamia, where she between France and Britain struggled for control hoped to find oil3. In Western Middle East Britain of the territory after the fall of the Ottoman Empire, look for Palestine, due to activities which took place hence the root of the ongoing conflicts in the Middle in the course of the war itself. Attempts to attack the East. Moreover, from this stems the notion that Mid- Suez Canal “The life line of the British Empire”, by the dle Eastern countries, with the possible exception of Ottoman army (with German encouragement and Turkey and Israel, are being artificial and unnatural, planning), although twice failed, made it clear to never been established according the frame of the Britain that the Sinai desert is no longer a buffer in “nation-state idea”. the age of modern war, aided by railroad and motor Is that right? It seems that a historical research, traffic by land and airplanes. Crossing the desert bar- which is based on original documents and previous rier became more easily. It became clear to Britain studies, which try to examine what happened dur- that a modern military force located in Palestine is ing the years 1914–1920, without preliminary views, a constant threat to the Suez Canal, a waterway vital present a slightly different picture. to the British Empire. Britain sought therefore to ex- pand the actual power and control to all the territory between Palestine and Mesopotamia from Egypt in 2. Background the west, up to the Ottoman – Persia boundary, de- marcated in 1914, in the east. Britain wanted to get In the Eve of World War I the Ottoman Empire con- this area in order to ensure direct contact between trolled the entire area currently defined as the Mid- the Persian Gulf and the Mediterranean by continen- dle East (but not independent Persia – now Iran), tal railroad, roads and oil pipelines (Frieschwasser- with the exception of Egypt, which was officially Raanan, 1955). Tsarist Russia had no territorial ambi- still under the sovereignty of the Ottoman sultan tions in Palestine and focused its ambitions in other but actually was, since 1882, control by the British parts of the Ottoman Empire – the area of Istanbul, empire. The accession of the Ottoman Empire in the the Bosporus and Dardanelles Straits, and parts Great War (WWI) alongside with the Central Powers of eastern Anatolia and Armenia. The Italians, who (Germany, Austria-Hungary and Bulgaria) against had occupied the territory of the Ottoman Empire the Allied (Entente Cordial) Powers (Britain, France, in Libya and some islands in the Aegean Sea, (The Russia and Serbia later joined by Italy, Greece, Portu- Dodecanese Islands) just before the War, asked for gal, Rumania and the USA), which took place mainly international approval of their control in these areas, in Europe but also in the Middle East (and even in as well as controlling some areas in central Anato- central Africa) brought about discussions between lia. Russia and Italy as well as Britain, refused to ac- these powers concerning the future of the Middle cept that only one European power (France) and East. An Ottoman – Germany victory would leave the one Christian faith (The Catholic Church) will rule the situation as it is, under the authority of one empire holy places in Palestine. Those conflicting ambitions – the Ottoman, but a victory of the Allied Powers of the Allied countries, formed the basis for discus- could bring into the creation of a new Middle East. sions on a possible partition of the Ottoman Empire, Pre-war Great Britain held diplomatic outposts in if the War will end in the collapse of it. Thus, imme- the Middle East, in Egypt, Cyprus and Aden, and held diately upon the outbreak of war, after the Ottoman a series of agreements with Arab sheikhs along the Empire joined the Central Power in 31 October 1914, Persian Gulf. France had religious, trade and politi- France demanded for herself Syria, including Leba- cal interests on the east coast of the Mediterranean, non and Palestine. Russia, the closest ally of France, particularly in Syria, Lebanon and Palestine. Thus tended at the beginning to agree to this request but France sought to achieve influence and control over later Russia withdrew its support for this demand the Christian holy places in the Ottoman Empire because of the reluctance to see a Catholic control 2 Melisa Ruthven, The Map ISIS Hates, The New York Reviews 3 On the rival between Britain and France in the Middle East of Books, 25 June 2014. see Y. Nevakivi (1969) and E. Monroe (1963). 52 Gideon Biger of the holy places in Palestine, where the Russian Or- Ottoman Empire after the war. In accordance with thodox Church had also interests and properties. the terms of the agreement, which was later joined In March 1915 the French government asked of- by Russia and Italy, France was due to have direct ficially Russia to accept French future control of Syria control over most of the eastern shore of the Medi- and Palestine at the end of the war, but the Rus- terranean Sea, from Rosh Hanikra in the south to sians rejected the French demand for the control Alexandretta golf in the north and the great Syrian – of the holy places in Palestine, and to do so, Russia African rift in the east. In addition, she was supposed enlisted the help of Britain. The British government to directly control Cilicia, the south Asian region of was not prepared to formally discuss the future of Anatolia. The French control area was painted by the Ottoman Empire before the latter defeated, but blue color on the map that accompanied the origi- the British Cabinet set up, in April 1915, a committee nal agreement. As concerning Palestine France was of experts headed by Maurice De – Bunsen, to dis- supposed to have complete control of the area from cuss the British interests in the Middle East4. France, Rosh Hanikra to the Sea of Galilee, including the Up- which faced Russian opposition and non coopera- per Galilee region, with the city of Safed, Hula Lake tion from Britain concerning its ambitious demands, and the northern part of the Jordan River (fig.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Phoenician Ships: Types, Trends, Trade and Treacherous Trade Routes
    PHOENICIAN SHIPS: TYPES, TRENDS, TRADE AND TREACHEROUS TRADE ROUTES by ANNE MARIE SMITH Submitted in accordance with the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS In the subject BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGY at the UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH AFRICA SUPERVISOR: PROF. CL vW SCHEEPERS November 2012 Student number: 31063543 I declare that PHOENICIAN SHIPS: TYPES, TRENDS, TRADE AND TREACHEROUS TRADE ROUTES is my own work and that all the sources that I have used or quoted have been indicated and acknowledged by means of complete references. _________________________ ___________________________ SIGNATURE DATE (Mrs) ii TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS ............................................................ ix ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................................................. xi SUMMARY .................................................................................... xii CHAPTER 1 .................................................................................... 1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................. 1 1.1 BACKGROUND ............................................................................................. 1 1.2 PROBLEM STATEMENT ............................................................................... 1 1.3 HYPOTHESIS................................................................................................ 2 1.4 AIM AND OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY ...................................................... 2 1.5 RESEARCH QUESTIONS ............................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Legacies of the Anglo-Hashemite Relationship in Jordan
    Legacies of the Anglo-Hashemite Relationship in Jordan: How this symbiotic alliance established the legitimacy and political longevity of the regime in the process of state-formation, 1914-1946 An Honors Thesis for the Department of Middle Eastern Studies Julie Murray Tufts University, 2018 Acknowledgements The writing of this thesis was not a unilateral effort, and I would be remiss not to acknowledge those who have helped me along the way. First of all, I would like to thank my advisor, Professor Thomas Abowd, for his encouragement of my academic curiosity this past year, and for all his help in first, making this project a reality, and second, shaping it into (what I hope is) a coherent and meaningful project. His class provided me with a new lens through which to examine political history, and gave me with the impetus to start this paper. I must also acknowledge the role my abroad experience played in shaping this thesis. It was a research project conducted with CET that sparked my interest in political stability in Jordan, so thank you to Ines and Dr. Saif, and of course, my classmates, Lensa, Matthew, and Jackie, for first empowering me to explore this topic. I would also like to thank my parents and my brother, Jonathan, for their continuous support. I feel so lucky to have such a caring family that has given me the opportunity to pursue my passions. Finally, a shout-out to the gals that have been my emotional bedrock and inspiration through this process: Annie, Maya, Miranda, Rachel – I love y’all; thanks for listening to me rant about this all year.
    [Show full text]
  • Constantinople Agreement”, 1915: Between Britain, France and Russia - Initiated by Russia to Assure Rights to Constantinople, Straits of Dardanelles
    Studying the Ottomans: Section 2: Ottomans in the Modern World (19th -early 20th C.) WWI and Aftermath. End of Empire, Birth of Modern Turkey (2:) politics of dismemberment -- ‘Secret Agreements’ Nov. 19-23 World War I Pledges to Arabs: - Britain encouraged Sherif of Mecca to organize Arab revolt, undermine Ottoman attempts unity 1915-16 “Hussayn-McMahon” correspondence: - outlined agreement: -Hussayn would rally Arabs in exchange for Arab independence, British alliance (political, economic) [see ‘Additional Readings’] World War I Correspondence ‘Secret’: took place between 14 July – 10 March, 1915 Hussayn made it clear: this was about recogniztion of ‘Arab Caliphate of Islam’ – nation defined by ‘Arabness’ Initially: - claimed Basra, Baghdad as ‘ancient Arab homeland’ - subsequently agreed to ‘temporary’ British authority, as long as Arab interests respected World War I - also wanted Adana and northern region including Alexandretta; wilayets Damascus, Aleppo (approximately) - AND, most significantly: wilayet of Beirut - relinquished claims to former in face of Britain’s response that these areas were ‘not purely Arab’ in population World War I - effectively, British attempted NOT to engage in detailed discussion of boundaries: at first ‘deferred’, then left ambiguities - ultimately: Hussayn agreed to terms - But Which Boundaries? Never Clear…. Map A: interpretation EXCLUDING Beirut Ambiguity of McMahon-Hussayn Correspondence as reflected in conflicting Interpretations, conflicting ‘agreements’ …. Map B: interpretation INCLUDING Beirut I Ambiguity of McMahon-Hussayn Correspondence as reflected in conflicting Interpretations, conflicting ‘agreements’ …. World War I Text on Map A: ---Line west of which Britain said ‘should be exluded from the proposed limits and boundaries of any future independent Arab State (McMahon 25 oct.
    [Show full text]
  • Cilician Armenia in the Thirteenth Century.[3] Marco Polo, for Example, Set out on His Journey to China from Ayas in 1271
    The Armenian Kingdom of Cilicia (also known as Little Armenia; not to be confused with the Arme- nian Kingdom of Antiquity) was a state formed in the Middle Ages by Armenian refugees fleeing the Seljuk invasion of Armenia. It was located on the Gulf of Alexandretta of the Mediterranean Sea in what is today southern Turkey. The kingdom remained independent from around 1078 to 1375. The Kingdom of Cilicia was founded by the Rubenian dynasty, an offshoot of the larger Bagratid family that at various times held the thrones of Armenia and Georgia. Their capital was Sis. Cilicia was a strong ally of the European Crusaders, and saw itself as a bastion of Christendom in the East. It also served as a focus for Armenian nationalism and culture, since Armenia was under foreign oc- cupation at the time. King Levon I of Armenia helped cultivate Cilicia's economy and commerce as its interaction with European traders grew. Major cities and castles of the kingdom included the port of Korikos, Lam- pron, Partzerpert, Vahka (modern Feke), Hromkla, Tarsus, Anazarbe, Til Hamdoun, Mamistra (modern Misis: the classical Mopsuestia), Adana and the port of Ayas (Aias) which served as a Western terminal to the East. The Pisans, Genoese and Venetians established colonies in Ayas through treaties with Cilician Armenia in the thirteenth century.[3] Marco Polo, for example, set out on his journey to China from Ayas in 1271. For a short time in the 1st century BCE the powerful kingdom of Armenia was able to conquer a vast region in the Levant, including the area of Cilicia.
    [Show full text]
  • Turkey Bird Report 2002–06
    Sandgrouse-080723:Sandgrouse 7/23/2008 12:51 PM Page 166 Turkey Bird Report 2002–06 GUY M KIRWAN, METEHAN ÖZEN & BARBAROS DEMIRCI (COMPILERS) This report, covering the years 2002–06, has been produced jointly by GMK, MÖ and BD, and is the second such to be co- edited by an Anglo- Turkish team, following the last report (Sandgrouse 25: 8–31). The increase in the number of in- country birdwatchers submitting records to the report, first noted in the last compilation, encouragingly has been main- tained, as has the number of records of rarities being documented photographically. In contrast, reports from visiting foreign birdwatchers, although frequently posted on the internet, are now rarely submitted. These latter are still welcome, as some areas of the country (and seasons) are still arguably better covered by visiting, rather than resident, observers. Highlights of the present report include the first records in Turkey of the following 12 species: Lesser Flamingo Phoenicopterus minor, Pectoral Sandpiper Calidris melanotos, Lesser Yellowlegs Tringa flavipes (one unconfirmed previous record), Namaqua Dove Oena capen- sis, Siberian Accentor Prunella montanella, Blackstart Cercomela melanura, Black- throated Thrush Turdus ruficollis atrogularis, Plain Leaf Warbler Phylloscopus neglectus (apparently breeding in extreme eastern Turkey), Arctic Warbler P. borealis (one unconfirmed previous record), Iraq Babbler Turdoides altirostris (one unconfirmed previous record), Fan- tailed Raven Corvus rhipidurus and Lapland Longspur Calcarius lapponicus (one unconfirmed pre- vious record). The first reports of the following species— Little Shearwater Puffinus assimilis, Cotton Pygmy Goose Nettapus coromandelianus and Oriental Pratincole Glareola maldivarum— were also received, but insufficient documentation is available to advocate their acceptance onto Turkey’s bird list.
    [Show full text]
  • On the Lichen Gonidia Question
    302 NATURE At last it occurrecl to me why they came, and on placing the Remarkable Form of Lightning cage on the floor the onslaught on the contents was a convincing DURING a thunderstorm on Sunday afternoon, August 24, p,-;:iof that A. panthera would _never be naturnlised 3:t St. Pedro. 1873, I saw a flash of lightnino- here exactly answering to Mr. I CJnlcl adduce many other rnstan~es of the _smellm; and the Joule's description of "punctu;tion." The note of the storm in "perception of sound" (to phrase It), but wil~ not mtmde on my diary says:-" Lightning and thunder very frequent but not yom space. E. L_. LAYARD violent. One flash, very nmr, !tad the appeam11ce of a chain of British Consulate, Noumea, -µew Caledorna, April 26 alternate links, and remained visible, I should think, for half a p. S. Since writing the above I named the subject to Pere second, gradually fading out." This persistence was, no doubt, Montrnusier, the celel,rated French naturalist so long. resident in mainly an optical illusion, but it shows the definiteness of the this c.:ilony. He detailed the following experiment that he had form. The flash was from cloud to cloud, anrl followed a very made. He immersed a long-snouted weevil (Octhorinus cru­ sinuous line, as described by Mr. Lawrence. Is not this whnt ciatus) so as to cover it, all but the tip of the antenrn:e, with a old books describe as " chain lightning?" · coatinJ of wax. On presenting to it oil of turpentine it became B.
    [Show full text]
  • The Forgotten Regional Landscape of the Sykes-Picot Agreement
    LOEVY MACRO (DO NOT DELETE) 4/2/2018 10:42 AM RAILWAYS, PORTS, AND IRRIGATION: THE FORGOTTEN REGIONAL LANDSCAPE OF THE SYKES-PICOT AGREEMENT Karin Loevy ABSTRACT What was the geo-political scale of the Sykes-Picot Agreement of May 1916? What did the British and French mid-level officials who drew lines on its maps imagine as the territorial scope of their negotiations? This Article claims that the Sykes-Picot Agreement cannot be understood strictly as the beginning of a story about territorial division in the Middle East, but also as an end to a story of perceived regional potency. Rather than a blueprint for what would later become the post-war division of the region into artificially created independent states, the Sykes-Picot Agreement was still based on a powerful vision of a broad region that is open for a range of developmental possibilities. Part II of this Article outlines the prewar regional landscape of the agreement in ideas and practices of colonial development in Ottoman territories. Part III outlines the agreement’s war-time regional landscape in inter-imperial negotiations and in the more intimate drafting context, and locates the Sykes-Picot Agreement within a “missed” moment of regional development. I. INTRODUCTION: OPENING TERRITORIAL SPACE ............................ 288 A. Preface: December 1915, at 10 Downing Street .................... 288 B. A Forgotten Regional Landscape ........................................... 290 C. The Sykes-Picot Agreement: A Region Opening-Up for Development ........................................................................... 291 II. PRE-WAR HISTORY OF THE SYKES-PICOT AGREEMENT ................. 296 A. The Context of the Agreement in Pre-war Colonial JSD Program Manager, IILJ Visiting Scholar New York University School of Law; 22 Washington Square North, New York, NY 10001, [email protected].
    [Show full text]
  • Mavi Vatan, "The Blue Homeland"
    APRIL 2021 Mavi Vatan, the "Blue Homeland" c The Origins, Influences and Limits of an Ambitious Doctrine for Turkey Aurélien DENIZEAU In association with: Ifri is a research center and a forum for debate on major international political and economic issues. Headed by Thierry de Montbrial since its founding in 1979, Ifri is a non-governmental, non-profit organization. As an independent think tank, Ifri sets its own research agenda, publishing its findings regularly for a global audience. Taking an interdisciplinary approach, Ifri brings together political and economic decision-makers, researchers and internationally renowned experts to animate its debate and research activities. Policy Center for the New South, formerly OCP Policy Center, is a Moroccan policy-oriented think tank based in Rabat, Morocco, striving to promote knowledge sharing and to contribute to an enriched reflection on key economic and international relations issues. By offering a southern perspective on major regional and global strategic challenges facing developing and emerging countries, the Policy Center for the New South aims to provide a meaningful policy-making contribution through its four research programs: Agriculture, Environment and Food Security, Economic and Social Development, Commodity Economics and Finance, Geopolitics and International Relations. The opinions expressed in this text are the responsibility of the author alone. This memorandum has been produced as part of a partnership between the Institut français des relations internationales (Ifri) and the Policy Center for the New South. ISBN : 979-10-373-0362-2 © All rights reserved, Ifri, 2021 Cover: © Admiral Cem Gürdeniz How to cite this publication: Aurélien Denizeau, “Mavi Vatan, the ‘Blue Homeland’: The Origins, Influences and Limits of an Ambitious Doctrine for Turkey”, Études de l’Ifri, Ifri, April 2021.
    [Show full text]
  • Mersin Province
    REPUBLIC OF TURKEY MINISTRY OF FORESTRY AND WATER AFFAIRS (Nature Conservation and National Parks) 7th Regional Directorate - Mersin Branch Office MERSİN PROVINCE MEDITERRANEAN MONK SEAL Monachus monachus SPECIES CONSERVATION ACTION PLAN 2014-2018 DECEMBER 2012 / ANKARA Revision Date: April 2014 REPUBLIC OF TURKEY MINISTRY OF FORESTRY AND WATER AFFAIRS (Nature Conservation and National Parks) 7th Regional Directorate - Mersin Branch Office MERSİN PROVINCE MEDITERRANEAN MONK SEAL / Monachus monachus SPECIES CONSERVATION ACTION PLAN 2014 - 2018 DECEMBER 2012 / ANKARA Revision Date: April 2014 Republic of Turkey Ministry of Forestry and Water Affairs (Nature Conservation Name of Project Owner and National Parks) 7th Regional Directorate - Mersin Branch Office Address Yeni Mah. 33191. Sok. No:31 Mezitli / MERSİN Phone: 0 (324) 3570820 Fax: 0 (324)3570823 Phone and Fax Numbers Preparing Species Conservation Action Plan for Mediterranean Monk Seal (Monachus monachus) and Service Project Name Procurement Work Project Location Mersin Province Turunç Peyzaj Tasarım Planlama Uygulama Proje İnşaat Organizasyon ve Danışmanlık Hizm. Reporting Institution Ltd. Şti. Plan Revision: Mersin Branch Office Address GMK Bulvarı Onur İşhanı 12/143 Kızılay Çankaya/ANKARA Phone and Fax Numbers Phone: 0 (312)4183949 Fax: 0 (312)4183949 Report Submittal Date 26 / 12 / 2012 Plan Revision Date: 16 - 17 April 2014 PREFACE Mediterranean monk seal (Monachus monachus) is a species under conservation by international conventions and national legislations. Various methods are utilized in order to conserve and prevent extinction of Mediterranean monk seal, which is referred to as seal by local people, in many countries. Although it does not have any natural predators on our coasts, Mediterranean monk seal population gradually diminishes due to irresponsible and unplanned human activities.
    [Show full text]
  • Mosul Question (1918-1926)
    MOSUL QUESTION (1918-1926) The Institute of Economics and Social Sciences of Bilkent University by ALEV DİLEK AYDIN In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of MASTER OF ARTS in THE DEPARTMENT OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS BİLKENT UNIVERSITY ANKARA June 2004 I certify that I have read this thesis and I have found that it is fully adequate, in scope and in quality, as a thesis for the degree of Master of International Relations. Prof. Stanford J. Shaw Thesis Supervisor I certify that I have read this thesis and I have found that it is fully adequate, in scope and in quality, as a thesis for the degree of Master of International Relations. Asst. Prof. Nur Bilge Criss Examining Committee Member I certify that I have read this thesis and I have found that it is fully adequate, in scope and in quality, as a thesis for the degree of Master of International Relations. Asst. Prof. Oktay Özel Examining Committee Member Approval of the Institute of Economics and Social Sciences Prof. Kürşat Aydoğan Director MOSUL QUESTION (1918-1926) A Master’s Thesis by ALEV DİLEK AYDIN Department of International Relations Bilkent University Ankara June 2004 ABSTRACT MOSUL QUESTION (1918-1926) AYDIN, ALEV DİLEK MIR in International Relations Supervisor : Prof. Stanford J. Shaw June 2004 This thesis aims to elaborate the Mosul question, which was dispute first between the Great Britain and the Ottoman Empire and later between the Great Britain and Turkey. It attempts to analyze the resolution process of the Mosul question as a result of a very complex process between the years 1918-1926, with various political, diplomatic, military and legal dimensions by taking the fact into consideration that the Great Briatin was the strongest member of the League of Nations, but Turkey was not even a member.
    [Show full text]
  • TURKISH DIPLOMACY, 1936-1945 a Dissertation Submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of Arts
    RUSSOPHOBIC NEUTRALITY: TURKISH DIPLOMACY, 1936-1945 A Dissertation submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences of Georgetown University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in History By Onur Isci, M.A. Washington, DC February 27, 2014 Copyright 2014 by Onur Isci All Rights Reserved ii RUSSOPHOBIC NEUTRALITY: TURKISH DIPLOMACY, 1936-1945 Onur Isci, M.A. Thesis Advisor: Mustafa Aksakal, Ph.D ABSTRACT This dissertation tells the story of Soviet-Turkish rivalry during the crucible of World War II. By 1939, Turkey began fast reverting to its old imperial attitude, when Istanbul’s foreign policy had been dictated largely by the Sultan’s fear of Russia. The state of wartime affairs between Ankara and Moscow gradually fell in sharp contrast with the cordial atmosphere of the 1920s and 1930s. As opposed to previous historians who have dismissed Turkey’s wartime neutrality as a wily strategy of capitalizing on war, I argue that the underlying factor, guiding the Turkish state in its quest to remain neutral was the revival of Russophobia amongst the ruling circles in Ankara. There had never been a moment during the war for neither the Allies nor the Axis to depart Turkey from its neutrality unless some form of guarantee had soothed its Russian complex. A closer examination of the Turkish archives and the parliamentary minutes reveals that Turkey desired a German victory over Russia provided that this was followed by a British victory over Germany. In other words, Turks very much hoped to see another Brest-Litovsk status quo: two separate wars involving Germany, conducted independently by Britain and the USSR without cooperation.
    [Show full text]
  • The Question of an Armenian Revolution and the Radicalization of the Committee of Union and Progress Toward the Armenian Genocide
    Genocide Studies and Prevention: An International Journal Volume 7 Issue 2 Article 8 August 2012 The Question of an Armenian Revolution and the Radicalization of the Committee of Union and Progress toward the Armenian Genocide Wolfgang Gust Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarcommons.usf.edu/gsp Recommended Citation Gust, Wolfgang (2012) "The Question of an Armenian Revolution and the Radicalization of the Committee of Union and Progress toward the Armenian Genocide," Genocide Studies and Prevention: An International Journal: Vol. 7: Iss. 2: Article 8. DOI: 10.3138/gsp.7.2/3.251 Available at: https://scholarcommons.usf.edu/gsp/vol7/iss2/8 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Open Access Journals at Scholar Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Genocide Studies and Prevention: An International Journal by an authorized editor of Scholar Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Question of an Armenian Revolution and the Radicalization of the Committee of Union and Progress toward the Armenian Genocide Wolfgang Gust Hamburg, Germany Hilmar Kaiser, one of the first German historians to work on the Armenian Genocide and one who has often written about it as a historical fact, is now trying to dilute that history. In his latest article, which consciously avoids use of the term genocide, Kaiser seeks to portray Mehmed Djemal Pasha, a member of the Young Turk triumvirate ruling the Ottoman Empire during World War I, as an individual resisting the genocidal policies of his co-conspirators within the Committee of Union and Progress.
    [Show full text]