The 'Eastern Question'

A Puzzling Discovery

A document in the library of the Hoover Institution of Stanford University, California, may have a puzzling effect on a Turkish reader. The document in question is an issue of the well-known French paper Le Temps, which was published on 10th September 1919. The editorial of the paper “Bulletin du jour” treats “the Eastern Question” (Question d’Orient), not a very unusual theme for that time, in an entirely new and perplexing manner. The writer argues that “the Eastern Question” should be given a new interpretation. He regrets that this had not been done earlier, and points out that the Anatolian Movement can no longer be regarded as a futile attempt. Along the margin there is a faded hand-written note in old Turkish: “To the attention of Hami Bey. This article should be translated into Turkish.” Signature: “M. Kemal.”

A Turkish reader cannot help being surprised at such a discovery. But what is even more surprising is the mentality of the editor of the well-known paper Le Temps, one of the most influential newspapers in Europe. The desire to treat the two hundred year old “Eastern Question” under a new light at a critical moment when the Ottoman Empire stood on the brink of total ruin is an expression of a fundamental change of outlook.

Europe began to show signs of hesitation about 4 months after Mustafa Kemal Paşa’s landing in Samsun, when the Protection of Rights Movement assumed intensity at the Sivas Congress.

A telegram sent by Admiral Sir John de Robeck, the British High Commissioner in Istanbul, to Lord Curzon, the British Foreign Secretary, on 17th September 1919, only a week after the appearance of the said article in Le Temps, indicated that the Protection of the Rights Movement developed into an attempt to establish an independent republic in Anatolia.

Mustafa Kemal felt that the change of outlook, which occurred within a short period of time was important and demanded that the editorial in question be translated into Turkish.

The Nature of the Eastern Question

The Eastern Question was essentially a Western Question. Even historians known to be hostile to Turkey have stressed this point. Albert Vandal, one of these, confirms the validity of this and describes it as a strange phenomenon. The interests, ambitions, groupings and alliances of the great European powers clashed over the fate of the East.

This was the collective name of an imperialistic policy. It held the Turks responsible for every blunder committed by the Ottoman Empire. It described the Turks as a savage and uncivilized people. The Turkish should be punished for what they had done in the past. This punishment should be meted out by partitioning the Ottoman Empire, denying the Turks the right to live, and confining them to an economically undeveloped corner of Anatolia, where they would have to lead a miserable existence as slaves of the Great Powers. Such anti-Turkish propaganda had influenced world public opinion quite effectively, particularly during World War I. A number of small countries also joined the anti-Turkish propaganda campaign under the instigation of their European masters.

Western Views on Turkey

Let us see what attitudes some European statesmen had towards Turkey. It will be interesting to listen to Lloyd George’s views on Turkey. It will not be very hard to see how wrong and dangerous for mankind was the foreign policy of the Prime Minister of an Empire over which the sun never set.

In one of his speeches, which was published in the Orient News and quoted in the Peyam-ı Sabah, a Turkish newspaper known to be opposed to the liberation movement under progress in Anatolia, Lloyd George described the forces of the Misak-ı Milli (i.e., the National Pact) as rebels and pointed out the “grave crimes” committed by them as follows:

“The policies followed by the nationalists have led to a revolt against the Entente Powers, and to a state of absolute anarchy… therefore the occupation of Istanbul will continue until the Turks realize that the plots being carried out by the nationalists are all vain. It is hoped that this occupation, which is the first of the therapeutic measures to be applied on Turkey, will bring about the good results. It is a fact that this country has suffered too long because of the intrigues of a number of foolish and brutal men.”

Lloyd George expected that the Treaty of Sévres would impose heavy punishments on Turkey. He said on one occasion:

“Once the peace terms are made public everyone will see to what heavy punishments the Turks will be subjected to on account of their madness, blindness and the crimes they have committed… The punishments are terrible enough to satisfy even their greatest enemies.”

Although Lloyd George was not an active politician in the year Atatürk died, he still insisted on some of his erroneous views. When he reviewed his memoirs he regretted very much that Anatolia, particularly the Aegean coast had remained in the possession of the Turks. He wrote:

“If a nation, which has no other merit than being an invader in his own territory, administers these territories in a manner far from the ideal of serving the good of mankind, other nations are justified and even held responsible to restore civilization in these territories.”

It would be wrong to say that Lloyd George was the only writer to have such views. The Entente Powers had discovered a new pretext, which would not be considered very old in 1919, for incriminating the Turks by using some old prejudices against them.

Official Positions on Turkish Entry into War

In a memorandum submitted to the Council of Ten (Conseil de Dix) in Paris, Damat Ferit Paşa, the Head of the Ottoman Delegation, put forth the thesis that the Ottoman Empire had entered the war under German pressure, a view he had held for some time. Turkey’s entry into World War I had no legitimate cause; it had been under the pressure of the Germans. The Turks should not, therefore, be held responsible for it. The Union and Progress Party had the full responsibility.

The reply to this on behalf of the four Big Powers by Georges Clemenceau, the French Prime Minister, expressed a totally different view:

”… the Council does not believe that the Turks have high virtues and competence to govern foreign peoples… while history shows us that the Turks, along with many of their high achievements, have also many shortcomings: invaded countries and liberated countries. Among all these countries, there is not a single country in Europe, Asia and Africa, which came under the rule of the Turks, and did not suffer a material and cultural regression for that reason. Similarly, there is not any country which did not flourish materially and culturally after her liberation from the Turkish rule. Equally to the Christians of Europe, as well as to the Moslems of Syria, Arabia and Africa, the Turk brought devastation wherever he conquered, and did not show the ability of developing in peace what he gained in war. His skill was not developed in this direction.”

American Hostility Toward Turkey

Americans had also a share in this Western hostility to Turkey. Morgenthau, wellknown for his anti-Turkish sentiments, made the following observation on the final Turkish victory, in 1923:

“If the US had landed troops in Izmir with Britain, the expulsion of the Turks from Europe would have been realized. If we had put Turkey under US mandate, we would now have been proud to have established a confederation of Balkan Countries.”

Atatürk and ‘Eastern Question’

Atatürk and the determined team of writers and thinkers he led constantly struggled with persons and circles systematically putting forward “the Eastern Question” with such insults and incriminations on Turkey.

Atatürk believed Turkey had too much trust in Europe. On the other hand, Europe still insisted on ignoring Turkey. It did not know the truth about Turkey and misled the world public opinion regarding Turkey. Atatürk once said the following on this question:

“I repeat, the ideas propagated against us are wrong. They have neither a logical nor historical foundation. I feel the necessity of telling this not only to the West, but to our own citizens, because rarely though it may be, we hear of the existence of some persons, who through either lack of education or any national sentiment, meet with approval the accusations levelled against us by our enemies, and do not hesitate blaming their own country. We want to establish a completely independent Turkey, that is a Turkey liberated from capitulations (concessions granted to foreign powers in the past) within our boundaries.”

It was with this slogan that the Protection of the Rights Movement stood before the agressive intentions of the West.

A Matter of Spiritual Equality

Atatürk put the problem in more concrete terms when he said:

“Supposing there are two men standing before you: one of these is wealthy, and can do anything he likes; the other is poor and has nothing. These two men differ only in their material possessions. Spiritually one is not inferior to the other at all. The difference between Turkey and Europe is the same.”

The West has done all it could to destroy us or to hasten our extinction. But “the patriotic Turks can now see the truth.”

Atatürk’s Vision of Civilization

Nevertheless, Atatürk has never scorned western civilization. In his opinion, there may be a variety of nations, “but civilization was one, and for the sake of the progress and development of the nation it was necessary to participate in it.”

The Resolution of the Eastern Question

Atatürk’s reply to those who wanted to use the so-called “Eastern Question” for the purpose of incriminating Turkey was most significant: fight against the exploiting West, and friendship with and participation in civilization. As far as modern Turkey is concerned, the concept of “western civilization” is not a geographical term. It is a common civilization irrespective of race or nationality. Considered under this light there is not any “Eastern Question” lingering on the pages of history.

Notes

1. The following lines of the long telegram of the Admiral reflect his observations on the developments in Anatolia: “According to all (? information) it is steadily moving in direction of an independent Republic in Anatolia. It receives however considerable support from Constantinople notably from Ministry of War and it (almost) certainly is in touch with Heir Apparent.” For the full text of this telegram see Bilal N. Şimşir, İngiliz Belgelerinde Atatürk (1919-1938), vol. I, Türk Tarih Kurumu, Ankara, 1973, p. 104.

2. Albert Vandal made these remarks following a lecture on “Macedonia and the Question of the Balkans” by René Pinon, another specialist on Balkan history. For the texts of both talks see: Les Questions Actuelles de Politique Etrangere en Europe, Paris, 1911, pp. 179-238. Vandal’s remarks are on p. 225 of the same work.

3. According to the British Prime Minister, some of the grave crimes of the Turkish National Forces were as follows: they have sent their own representatives to the Parliament; they defied the authority of the Ottoman Prime Ministry and caused the fall of at least one Prime Minister; they obtained arms illegally; they violated the terms of the armistice; they received financial aid from the gang leaders of the Union and Progress Party; they have collaborated with the Bolsheviks.

4. Harp Tarihi Vesikalari Dergisi, No. 26, Ankara, E. U. Basımevi, 1958, Document Number: 677, Date: 24.3. 1920.

5. Harp Tarihi Belgeleri Dergisi, Sayı 48, Ankara, Genkur. Basımevi, 1964, Document Number: 1120.

6. David Lloyd George, The Truth about the Peace Treaties, vol. 2, London, 1938, p. 1396.

7. The same thesis was put forth by the Italian Government, which had declared war on Turkey in 1911.

8. The reader is advised to consult the press reports during the armistice period in this connection. Also see the present author’s Devrim Hareketleri içinde Atatürk ve Atatürkçülük, Istanbul, 1964, pp. 47-52.

9. The New York Times, 28 July 1923.

10. Atatürk’ün Söylev ve Demeçleri, vol. III, Türk Tarih Kurumu, Ankara, 1954, pp. 16, 50.

11. Ibid., p. 64.

12. Ibid., p. 67.

* Failing to have access to the original texts of these, the author was obliged to use their translations in Turkish publications.