Petitions, Propaganda, and Plots: Transnational Dynamics of Diplomacy During the Turkish War of Independence

ABSTRACT

The international recognition of Turkey through the Treaty of Lausanne is often seen as the foundational moment of Turkey in international diplomacy. This article approaches diplomatic history from a decentred perspective. It highlights the activities of various non-state actors and semi-official figures who became engaged in international politics during the Turkish War of Independence (1919–1923). They used citizen diplomacy, public propaganda, as well as other clandestine and public channels of transnational diplomacy to strive against the Allied peace terms. Notwithstanding their divergent political visions and agendas, these unofficial diplomats strengthened—though not always intentionally—the international recognition of the Turkish nation-state formation, only to be absorbed by the Ankara government’s growing monopoly on foreign policy. Informed by the New Diplomatic History approach, this article illustrates the important role of unofficial, transnational dynamics that escapes state-centred accounts of Ottoman-Turkish diplomacy during the aftermath of the First World War.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the guest editors, Hazal Pabuççular and Deniz Kuru, for inviting us to write for this special issue and for their valuable review and feedback on our first draft. We are also grateful to the comments of our colleague Ozan Özavcı as well as the comments by the anonymous reviewers.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1. For a recent survey of the history of the First World War in the Middle East, see R. Gingeras, Fall of the Sultanate: The Great War and the End of the Ottoman Empire, 1908–1922, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2016. For a classic study of European diplomacy in the wider Middle East, including North Africa, the Caucasus, and Central Asia, during the era of the First World War, see D. Fromkin A Peace to End All Peace: The Fall of the Ottoman Empire and the Creation of the Modern Middle East, Henry Holt & Co., New York, 20^th year anniversary ed., 2009.

2. Answer to the Turkish Delegates, approved by the Council of the Principal Allied and Associated Powers on 23rd June, 1919, in Papers Relating to the Foreign Relations of the United States. The Paris Peace Conference 1919, vol. 6, Government Printing Office, Washington, 1946, pp. 688–691.

3. In this transitional period, we use the terms Ottoman Empire and Turkey interchangeably, as contemporaries did. For a discussion, see Maurus Reinkowski, Geschichte der Türkei: Von Atatürk in die Gegenwart, C.H. Beck Verlag, München, 2021, pp. 40–41.

4. On citizen diplomacy in the context of the First World War cf. D. S. Patterson, The Search for Negotiated Peace: Women’s Activism and Citizen Diplomacy in World War I, Routledge, New York, 2007. For the history of transnational activism in the Middle East, see A. Arsan, ‘“This Age Is the Age of Associations”. Committees, Petitions, and the Roots of Interwar Middle Eastern Internationalism’, Journal of Global History 7, 2012, pp. 166–188.

5. e.g. S. Demirci, Strategies and Struggles: British Rhetoric and Turkish Response: The Lausanne Conference, 1922, Gorgias Press, Piscataway, 2010.

6. See the classic accounts by S. R. Sonyel, Turkish Diplomacy, 1918–1923: Mustafa Kemal and the Turkish National Movement, Sage, London, 1975; R. H. Davison, ‘Turkish Diplomacy from Mudros to Lausanne’, in G. A. Craig and F. Gilbert (eds), The Diplomats 1919–1939, Princeton University Press, New Jersey, 1952, pp. 172–209. See also more recent works: B. Oran, Turkish Foreign Policy, 1919–2006: Facts and Analyses with Documents, The University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City, 2010; W. Hale, Turkish Foreign Policy since 1774, 3^rd edition, Routledge, New York, 2013. A new account of Kemalist diplomacy that also includes transnational and cultural factors, yet only cursorily covers the period of the War of Independence, is A. Bein, Kemalist Turkey and the Middle East. International Relations in the Interwar Period, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2017.

7. See the classic study by M. R. Berman and J. E. Johnson (eds), Unofficial Diplomats, Columbia University Press, New York, 1977.

8. For a general introduction see: H. Alloul and M. Auwers, ‘What is (New in) New Diplomatic History’, Journal of Belgian History XLVIII(4), 2018, pp. 112–122.; E. Manela, ‘International Society as a Historical Subject’, Diplomatic History 44(2), 2020, pp. 184–209. On new approaches to Turkish Foreign Policy see H. Papuççular and D. Kuru, ‘Introduction: Transcending the State—A Transnational Account of Turkish Foreign Policy’, in H. Papuççular and Kuru (eds), A Transnational Account of Turkish Foreign Policy, Palgrave Macmillan, London, pp. 3–17.

9. F. Halliday, The Middle East in International Relations: Power, Politics and Ideology, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2005, p. 234: ‘all that appears to be “non-state” may not, in fact, turn out to be so’.

10. On transnational dynamics of postwar Ottoman-Turkish activism, see C. Liebisch-Gümüş, Verflochtene Nationsbildung. Die Neue Türkei und der Völkerbund, 1918–38, De Gruyter Oldenbourg, Berlin, 2020; A. Yenen, The Young Turk Aftermath. Making Sense of Transnational Contentious Politics at the End of the Ottoman Empire, 1918–1922, PhD thesis, University of Basel, 2016; published online in 2019), https://doi.org/10.5451/unibas-007110817. For a general account of the Peace Conference and its publicity, see: M. MacMillan, Peacemakers. The Paris Conference of 1919 and its Attempt to End War, Murray, London, 2001. On recent developments in historiography, see R. Gerwarth, ‘The Sky beyond Versailles: The Paris Peace Treaties in Recent Historiography’, Journal of Modern History 93(4), 2021, pp. 896–930.

11. La Civilisation Turque en Asie-Mineure. Pour la Défense des Droits Légitimes de la Nationalité Turque, Turc-Yourdou de Lausanne, Lausanne, 1919; La Turquie devant le tribunal mondial. Son passé, son présent, son avenir, Congrès National, Istanbul, 1919.

12. See S. T. Wasti, ‘Halil Halid: Anti-Imperialist Muslim Intellectual’, Middle Eastern Studies 29(3), 1993, pp. 559–579; M. Uzun, ‘Halil Halid Bey’, in Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslam Ansiklopedisi, vol. 15, Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslam Araştırmaları Merkezi, Istanbul, 1997, pp. 313–316.

13. Halil Halid, La Turcophobie des impérialistes anglaises, Staempfli, Berne, 1919, which was a follow up to his A Study in English Turcophobia, Pan-Islamic Society, London, 1898.

14. Ahmed Rıza, Echos de Turquie. Vivre au grand jour. Vivre libre ou mourir, Billard et Baillard, Paris, 1920; Ahmed Rıza, La faillite morale de la politique occidentale en Orient, Picart, Paris, 1922. On Ahmed Rıza, see E. Kaynar, L’héroïsme de la vie moderne. Ahmed Rıza, 1858–1930, en son temps, Peeters, Louvain, 2021.

15. Turkish Wilsonian League letter, December 5, 1918, Hoover Institution Archives VW TURKEY T939. On the organization cf. F. Tevetoğlu, Millî Mücâdele Yıllarındaki Kuruluşlar, TTK Yayınları, Ankara, 1988, p. 168.

16. Kemal Midhat (Geneva) to Friedrich Ebert (Berlin), November 26, 1918; La Tribune de Genève, November 28, 1918, both in Politisches Archiv des Auswärtigen Amts [PA—AA], R 13,805, 88–89, 118.

17. Cemiyet-i Akvam’a Müzaharat Cemiyeti Nizamnamesi, Istanbul 1922 (1338 R), p. 5.

18. S. Karal Akgün and M. Uluğtekin, Hilal-i Ahmer’den Kızılay’a, Kızılay Yayınları, Ankara, 2000, p. 253.

19. Rumbold (Berne), report on activities of two Turkish ladies from the Red Crescent Society, April 2, 1919, Foreign Office and Foreign and Commonwealth Office records [FO], 371/4141; Müller (Berne) to Auswärtiges Amt (Berlin), March 19, 1919, and April 3, 1919, PA-AA, R 13,565; Calthorpe (Istanbul) to Lord Curzon (London), July 10, 1919, FO 4142/107162. See also Karal Akgün/Uluğtekin, op. cit., 174.

20. Petition, July 2, 1919, League of Nations Archives [LONA] R1447 28–276.

21. On the Ottoman-Turkish women’s movement: E. Biçer-Deveci, Die Osmanisch-türkische Frauenbewegung im Kontext Internationaler Frauenorganisationen. Eine Beziehungs- und Verflechtungsgeschichte von 1895 bis 1935, V&R, Göttingen, 2017; N. van Os, Feminism, Philanthropy and Patriotism. Female Associational Life in the Ottoman Empire, PhD thesis, Leiden University, 2013, online available in http://hdl.handle.net/1887/22075.

22. H.-L. Kieser, ‘La Grande Guerre vue par la Diaspora Turque en Suisse (1918–1923)’, in O. Farschid, M. Kropp, S. Dähne (eds), The First World War as Remembered in the Countries of the Eastern Mediterranean, Ergon, Würzburg, 2006, pp. 231–246; H.-L. Kieser, Vorkämpfer der ‘Neuen Türkei’. Revolutionäre Bildungseliten am Genfersee (1870–1939), Chronos, Zurich, 2005. For anticolonial internationalism in Switzerland, see : H. Fischer-Tiné, ‘The Other Side of Internationalism. Switzerland as a Hub of Militant Anti-Colonialism, c. 1910–1920’, in P. Purtschert and H. Fischer-Tiné (eds.), Colonial Switzerland: Rethinking Colonialism from the Margins, Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke, 2015, pp. 221–258.

23. Kieser, Vorkämpfer, pp. 85–86.

24. Z. Sarıhan, Kurtuluş Savaşı Günlüğü, vol. 1, Öğretmen Dünyası Yayınları, Ankara, 1982, p. 135.

25. Ahmed Réchid, Lettre Ouverte à M. W Wilson, Président des Etats-Unis d’Amérique, Imprimerie du Journal, Geneva, 1919, p. 10.

26. Secretary’s Notes of a Meeting of the Supreme Council, June 17, 1919, in Papers Relating to the Foreign Relations of the United States, The Paris Peace Conference, 1919, vol. IV, United States Government Printing Office, Washington, 1943, pp. 509–512.

27. Ahmet Reşit Rey, Gördüklerim, Yaptıklarım 1890–1922, Türkiye Yayınaevi, Istanbul, 1945, p. 243.

28. Mehmet Şerif Pasha, Statement, Churchill Archives Centre [CHAR] 2/107/18–19.

29. Cavid, diary entries, December 6, 1919, December 11, 1919, December 24, 1919 and January 6, 1920 in H. Babacan and S. Avşar (eds), Cavid Bey, Meşrutiyet Ruznamesi, vol. 4., TTK Yayınları, Ankara, 2015, pp. 46, 50, 56–57. See also H. Özoğlu, Kurdish Notables and the Ottoman State: Evolving Identities, Competing Loyalties, and Shifting Boundaries, State University of New York Press, Albany, 2004, pp. 38–40; M. Atmaca, ‘Osmanlıcı, Konformist ve Liberal Bir Muhalif: Şerif Paşa’, in Y. Çakmak and T. Şur, Kürt Tarihi ve Siyasetinden Portreler, İletişim, Istanbul, 2018, p. 139.

30. A. Yenen, ‘Envisioning Turco-Arab Co-Existence Between Empire and Nationalism’ Die Welt des Islams 61(1), 2021, pp. 72–112.

31. E. Manela, The Wilsonian Moment. Self-Determination and the International Origins of Anticolonial Nationalism, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2007.

32. On ethno-national interpretations of Wilsonianism see: V. Prott, Politics of Self-Determination. Remaking Territories and National Identities in Europe, 1917–1923, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2016.

33. Dossier on Turkish Intrigues in Switzerland, September 13, 1919, FO 371/4142, 128926, p. 259.

34. Whittall, The Nearer East and the British Empire, June 5, 1919, FO 371/4142, 90575, pp. 71–73.

35. Emir Shakib Arslan did not know where Enver was up until late 1919, see Arslan (Berne) to Enver (Berlin), December 11, 1919, in M. Bardakçı, İttihadçı’nın Sandığı. İttihat ve Terakki Liderlerinin Özel Arşivlerindeki Yayınlanmamış Belgeler ile Atatürk ve İnönü Dönemlerinde Ermeni Gayrimenkulleri Konusunda Alınmış Bazı Kararlar, Türkiye İş Bankası Yayınları, Ankara, 2013, p. 477; Diel, report on the political activities of Turks in Switzerland, April 30, 1919, PA—AA R 21,282.

36. Whittall, The Nearer East and the British Empire, June 5, 1919, FO 371/4142, 90575, pp. 69–70.

37. A letter from Switzerland to Auswärtiges Amt, May 21, 1919, PA—AA R 13,567.

38. E. J. Zürcher, The Unionist Factor: The Rôle of the Committee of Union and Progress in the Turkish National Movement 1905–1926, Brill, Leiden, 1984, p. 116.

39. Ahmed Réchid, op. cit., pp. 10, 19.

40. On the topic see V. N. Dadrian, ‘Emergent Kemalism and the Court-Martial’, in V. N. Dadrian and T. Akçam, Judgment at Istanbul. The Armenian Genocide Trials, Berghahn, New York, 2011, pp. 101–107.

41. Kara Schemsi [Reşit Saffet Atabinen], L’Extermination des Turcs, Genève 1919.

42. Woodrow Wilson, The Program of Peace. Address to the Congress, January 8, 1918, in A. R. Leonard (ed), War Addresses of Woodrow Wilson, Ginn, Boston, 1918, p. 99.

43. Ahmed Hakki, Les Evénements de Turquie depuis l‘armistice du 31 octobre 1918, Turc-Yourdou de Genève, Lausanne, 1919, pp. 4–5.

44. Mehmet Şerif Paşa, Statement, CHAR 2/107/18–19.

45. Ibid.

46. For the text see Ş. Turan, Türk Devrim Tarihi, vol. 2, Bilgi Yayınaevi, Ankara, 1992.

47. On the convolution of diplomacy and secrecy in asymmetrical conflicts, see: I. Clark, Legitimacy in International Society, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2005, pp. 175–180.

48. For instance, the Syrian Arab Congress had tried to appeal the League of Nation but was disregarded in the settlement of the French mandate. See E. F. Thompson, How the West Stole Democracy from the Arabs: The Syrian Arab Congress of 1920 and the Destruction of Its Historic Liberal-Islamic Alliance, Grove Press, London, 2020.

49. Most notably in the Rowlatt Act of March 1919 that preceded and facilitated the Amritsar massacre. K. A. Wagner, Amritsar 1919: An Empire of Fear and the Making of a Massacre, Yale University Press, New Haven, 2019, p. 48. On British and French colonial intelligence during and after the Great War see: M. Thomas, Empires of Intelligence: Security Services and Colonial Disorder After 1914, University of California Press, Berkeley, 2008.

50. J. Gallagher, ‘Nationalisms and the Crisis of Empire, 1919–1922’, Modern Asian Studies 15(3), 1981, pp. 355–368; K. Jeffery, The British Army and the Crisis of Empire, 1918–22, Manchester University Press, Manchester, 1984; S. Pedersen, The Guardians: The League of Nations and the Crisis of Empire, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2015.

51. ‘Young Turk Intrigues: Hand of Berne Union and Progress Committee Behind Egyptian Disorder’, Paris Daily Mail, April 21, 1919.

52. A. Yenen, ‘Elusive Forces in Illusive Eyes: British Officialdom’s Perception of the Anatolian Resistance Movement’, Middle Eastern Studies 54(5), 2018, pp. 788–810; J. Ferris, ‘The British Empire Vs. The Hidden Hand: British Intelligence and Strategy and “The CUP-Jew-German-Bolshevik Combination”, 1918–1924’, in K. Neilson and G. Kennedy (eds), The British Way in Warfare: Power and the International System, 1856–1956: Essays in Honour of David French, Ashgate, Farnham, 2010, pp. 325–345; A. L. Macfie, ‘British Views of the Turkish National Movement in Anatolia, 1919–22’, Middle Eastern Studies 38(3), 2002, pp. 27–46. For similar reactions by French officials: A. Orr, ‘“We Call You to Holy War”: Mustafa Kemal, Communism, and Germany in French Intelligence Nightmares, 1919–1923’, The Journal of Military History 75, 2011, pp. 1095–1123.

53. For a similar perspective see, R. Hakkı Öztan, ‘Republic of Conspiracies: Cross-Border Plots and the Making of Modern Turkey’, Journal of Contemporary History 56(1), 2021, pp. 55–76.

54. Zürcher, Unionist Factor.

55. A. A. Cruickshank, ‘The Young Turk Challenge in Postwar Turkey’, Middle East Journal 22(1), 1968, p. 18.

56. E. Ülker, Sultanists, Republicans, Communists: The Turkish National Movement in Istanbul, 1918–1923, PhD thesis, University of Chicago, 2013, pp. 14–39.

57. E. Akal, Milli Mücadelenin Başlangıcında Mustafa Kemal, İttihat Terakki ve Bolşevizm, İletişim, Istanbul, 2012, pp. 184–191.

58. Correspondence between Mustafa Kemal (Sivas) and Galatalı Şevket (Istanbul), October 10–12, 1919, ATASE, ATAZB 9–83, as quoted in Yenen, ‘Elusive Forces’, p. 795.

59. Halil Kut, İttihad ve Terakki’den Cumhuriyet’e Bitmeyen Savaş, T. Sorgun (ed), Istanbul, Kum Saati Yayınları, 2007, pp. 227–28; Kazım Karabekir, İstiklal Harbimiz, Türkiye Yayınaevi, Istanbul, 1960, p. 299.

60. For the treaty, see Karabekir, op. cit., pp. 591–592.

61. Akal, op. cit., pp. 286–289, 294–295.

62. Military Intelligence (Istanbul), ‘Weekly Summary of Intelligence Reports’, February 26, 1920, FO 371/5166, 1782, in B. N. Şimşir (ed), British Documents on Atatürk (1919–1938) [BDA], vol. 1, TTK Yayınları, Ankara, 1973, pp. 426–427.

63. Correspondence with the 12^th Army Corps (Burdur), January 28, 1920, Turkish General Staff’s Directorate for Military History and Strategic Studies [ATASE] İSH 328–41; January 31, 1920, ATASE İSH 111–32.

64. Enver (Berlin) to Cemal (Munich), [December, 1919], in H. C. Yalçın and O. S. Kocahanoğlu (eds), İttihatçı Liderlerin Gizli Mektupları: Bir Devri Aydınlatan Tarihi Mektuplar, Istanbul, Temel Yayınları, 2002, p. 34. P. Dumont, ‘La fascination du Bolchevisme: Enver Pacha et la Parti des soviets populaires 1919–1922’, Cahiers du monde russe et sovietique 18(2), 1975, pp. 144–145. See also: Karakol leaders discovered the similarity of Turco-Russian agreements of Berlin and Baku only afterwards. Baha Sait to Rıza, April 8, 1920, in Karabekir, op. cit., p. 612.

65. Yenen, The Young Turk Aftermath, pp. 194–226.

66. Major Ivor Hedley, notes on an interview with Enver Pasha, January 6, 1920, quoted in J. Ferris, ‘The British Empire vs. the Hidden Hand: British Intelligence and Strategy and “the CUP-Jew-German-Bolshevik Combination” 1918–1924’, in Neilson/Kennedy, op. cit., p. 325.

67. Compare Cavid’s diary entry from October 23, 1919, in Cavid Bey, Meşrutiyet Ruznamesi, IV: 33–34, and Talat (Berlin) to Cavid (Switzerland), November 21, 1919, in Yalçın/Kocahanoğlu, op. cit., pp. 144–45. See also Reşad Halis (Berne) to Charles R. Paravicini (Berne), November 9, 1919, BAR, E2001B.1000/1501.307; Talat (Berlin) to Mustafa Kemal Pasha (Ankara), December 22, 1919, in Yalçın/Kocahanoğlu, op. cit., p. 208.

68. F. L. Grassi, ‘Diplomazia Segreta Italo-Turca dopo la Prima Guerra Mondiale; Convergenze ed Equivoci (1919–1920)’, Clio: Rivista trimestrale di studi storici 39(1), 2003, pp. 51–84; F. L. Grassi, ‘I Profitti di un Fallimento: Politica e Affari Segreti dell’Italia in Turchia tra 1920 e 1923’, Rassegna Storica del Risorgimento 40(1), 2003, pp. 47–86.

69. H. Kayalı, Imperial Resilience: The Great War’s End, Ottoman Longevity, and Incidental Nations, University of California Press, Oakland, 2021, pp. 103–106; Yenen, ‘Turco-Arab Co-Existence’, pp. 102–110; Ü. Gülsüm Polat, Türk-Arap İlişkileri: Eski Eyaletler Yeni Komşulara Dönüşürken (1914–1923), Kronik Kitap, Istanbul, 2019, pp. 181–275.

70. Thompson, op. cit., pp. 183, 250–253; Orr, op. cit., pp. 1103–1106.

71. Mustafa Kemal (Ankara) to Talat (Berlin), February 29, 1920, in Yalçın/Kocahanoğlu, op. cit., pp. 216–218.

72. H. Kut, Kutü’l-Amare Kahramanı Halil Kut Paşa’nın Hatıraları, ed. E. Çiftçi, Timaş Yayınları, Istanbul, 2015, pp. 203–208.

73. Mustafa Kemal (Ankara) to Kazım Karabekir (Erzurum), June 20, 1920, ATASE, İSH 613–80.

74. B. Gökay, A Clash of Empires. Turkey between Russian Bolshevism and British Imperialism, 1918–1923, I.B. Tauris, London, 1997, p. 67.

75. A. Yenen, ‘Internationalism, Diplomacy and the Revolutionary Origins of the Middle East’s ‘Northern Tier’’, Contemporary European History 30(4), 2021, pp. 505–8; F. Ahmed, Afghanistan Rising: Islamic Law and Statecraft Between the Ottoman and British Empires, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 2017, pp. 175, 180–182.

76. Ü. G. Polat, ‘Mehmet Cavid Bey (1875–1926)’, in Atatürk Ansiklopedisi. https://ataturkansiklopedisi.gov.tr/bilgi/mehmet-cavid-bey-1875–1926/.

77. Tyrrell, Note on ‘Anatolian Affairs’, August 12, 1920, FO 371/5178, E –11,072.

78. See, for example, ATASE, İSH 742–8.

79. Mustafa Kemal (Ankara) to Kazım Karabekir (Erzurum), June 3, 1921, ATASE, İSH 1167–115.

80. Yenen, ‘Elusive Forces’, pp. 800–801; Ülker, ‘Sultanists, Republicans, Communists’, pp. 92–98.

81. E. Weitz, ‘From the Vienna to the Paris System: International Politics and the Entangled Histories of Human Rights, Forced Deportations, and Civilizing Missions’, The American Historical Review 113(5), 2008, pp. 1313–1343.

82. For a brief vignette of the Paris Peace Conference as a highly public and transnational moment of global reordering see M. Herren, M. Rüesch, C. Sibille, Transcultural History. Theories, Methods, Sources, Springer, Heidelberg, 2012, pp. 1–2.

83. B. Tanör, Türkiye’de Kongre İktidarları, 1918–1920, Yapı Kredi Yayınları, Istanbul, 3^rd ed. 2009.

84. E. J. Zürcher, ‘Contextualizing the Ideology of the Turkish National Resistance Movement’, Middle Eastern Studies 57(2), 2020, pp. 267–268.

85. C. Liebisch, ‘Defending Turkey on Global Stages. The Young Turk Reşit Saffet’s Internationalist Strategy in 1919’, New Global Studies 10(3), 2016, pp. 217–251. Despite the fact that Reşit Saffet did not represent a socialist party and was thus not eligible to form an official delegation, he managed to attend the Socialist International because the Bulgarian delegation agreed to support him (see: Herbert Diel, Orientalenvertreter und Berner Sozialistenkongress, February 21, 1919, PA—AA R 14,553). See also his published conference contributions: Kara-Schemsi [Reşit Saffet Atabinen], Le prolétariat turc au Congrès socialiste international de Berne 1919, Berne, 1919; Kara Schemsi, L‘Islam, les Turcs et la Société des Nations, Geneva, 1919.

86. Halil Halid, op. cit.; Halil Halid, British Labour and the Orient, Staempfli, Berne, 1919. See also the summary of Halil Halid’s memorandum against British colonialism in Herbert Diel’s report, March 25, 1919, AA R 14,553.

87. Report on the activities of Turks residing in Switzerland, February 26, 1919, PA—AA, R 13,805, p. 195. See also Shakib Arslan (Berne) to Enver (Berlin), December 11, 1919, in Bardakçı, op. cit., p. 476.

88. Shakib Arslan, Sira dhatiya, ed. Sauthan -N. Nasr, Al-Muhtara, Ad-dar at-Taqaddumiyya, 2008, pp. 267–268; A. Galanté, Türkler ve Yahudiler: Tarihi, Siyasi Tetkik, Istanbul, Tan Matbaası, 1947, p. 92; Talat (Berlin) to Mustafa Kemal (Ankara), December 22, 1919, in Yalçın/Kocahanoğlu, op. cit., pp. 207–208.

89. Arif Cemil Denker, ‘İttihatçı Şeflerin Gurbet Maceraları’, ed. Y. Demirel, Arma Yayınları, Istanbul, 1992, p. 24.

90. For the affiliation of Unionists and their Muslim nationalist colleagues, see the letter head in Edwin Emerson (Berlin) to Mayr (Munich), July 5, 1921, https://1914–1918.europeana.eu/contributions/1303.

91. Das Selbstbestimmungsrecht der Unterdrückten: 14 Reden der Kundgebung gegen Völkerknechtung in Berlin am Pfingstsonnabend 1919, Deutsche Verlags-Anstalt, Stuttgart, 1919, pp. 22–23. For Dr. Nazım’s account on the CUP’s relation to the League of Oppressed Peoples, see A. Eyicil, Osmanlı İttihat ve Terakki Cemiyeti Liderlerinden Doktor Nazım Bey (1872–1926), Gün Yayıncılık, Ankara, 2004, p. 333. See also Captain Hüseyin Fevzi’s report on the Union of Muslim Revolutionary Societies, February 27, 1922, in M. Erşan, ‘Hüseyin Fevzi Bey’in, Enver Paşa - İslam İhtilal Cemiyetleri İttihadı - Anadolu Arasındaki İlişkilere Dair Raporu’, Turkish Studies 4(3), 2009, p. 959.

92. Enver (Moscow) to Cemal (Kabul), April 15, 1921, in Yalçın/Kocahanoğlu, op. cit., p. 75. For the League, see M. A. Ledeen, The First Duce: D’Annunzio at Fiume, Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, 1977, pp. 176–186; X. M. Nunez Seixas, ‘Unholy Alliances? Nationalist Exiles, Minorities and Anti-Fascism in Interwar Europe’, Contemporary European History 25(4), 2016, pp. 597–617.

93. P. Dumont, ‘Bolchevisme et Orient: Le parti communiste turc de Mustafa Suphi. 1918–1921’, Cahiers du monde russe et sovietique 18(4), 1977, p. 382; Y. Aslan, Türkiye Komünist Fırkası’nın Kuruluşu ve Mustafa Suphi: Türkiye Komünistlerinin Rusya’da Teşkilatlanması, (1918–1921), TTK Yayınları, Ankara, 1997.

94. J. Riddell (ed), To See the Dawn: Baku 1920 – First Congress of the Peoples of the East, Pathfinder, New York, 1993, p. 234.

95. A. Yenen, ‘The Other Jihad: Enver Pasha, Bolsheviks, and Politics of Anticolonial Muslim Nationalism During the Baku Congress 1920’, in T. G. Fraser (ed), The First World War and Its Aftermath: The Shaping of the Middle East, Gingko Library Press, London, 2015, pp. 273–293.

96. J. Riddell (ed), Toward the United Front. Proceedings of the Fourth Congress of the Communist International 1922, Brill, Leiden, 2012, pp. 729–730.

97. Yenen, Young Turk Aftermath, pp. 295–351; M. Yamauchi, The Green Crescent Under the Red Star: Enver Pasha in Soviet Russia, 1919–1922, Institute for the Study of Languages and Cultures of Asia and Africa, Tokyo, 1991, pp. 37–52.

98. ATASE, İSH 871–80 (June 6, 1920); ATASE, İSH 639–128 (September 13, 1920). See also: Z. Toprak, ‘Bolşevik İttihatçılar ve İslam Kominterni: İslam İhtilal Cemiyetleri İttihadı (İttihad-ı Selamet-i İslam)’, Toplumsal Tarih 8(8), 1997, pp. 6–13.

99. G. Kasuya, ‘Turkey between Pan-Islamism and Nationalism: The Activities of Ahmad Sharif al-Sanusi in Anatolia, 1918–1924’, in T. Sato (ed.), The Development of Parliamentarism in the Modern Islamic World, The Toyo Bunko, Tokyo, 2009, pp. 209–211; C. Aydın, The Politics of Anti-Westernism in Asia: Visions of World Order in Pan-Islamic and Pan-Asian Thought, Columbia University Press, New York, 2007. For other Islamic conferences in Anatolia, see also M. Kramer, Islam Assembled. The Advent of the Muslim Congresses, Columbia University Press, New York, 1986, pp. 73–79.

100. M. Naeem Qureshi, Mohamed Ali’s Khilafat Delegation to Europe, February-October, 1920, Pakistan Historical Society, Karachi, 1980; A. Özcan, Pan-Islamism: Indian Muslims, the Ottomans and Britain (1877–1924), Brill, Leiden, 1997, pp. 191–195.

101. C. Aydın, The Idea of the Muslim World. A Global Intellectual History, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 2017, pp. 127–32; N. Ardıç, Islam and the Politics of Secularism. The Caliphate and Middle Eastern Modernization in the Early 20th Century, Routledge, London, 2012, pp. 241–309; R. Schulze, Islamischer Internationalismus im 20. Jahrhundert. Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der Islamischen Weltliga, Brill, Leiden, 1990, pp. 77–83.

102. S. Sürmeli, ‘Cemiyet-i Akvam’a Müzaheret Cemiyeti-Türkiye’de Kuruluşu ve Prag Konferansı’, Ankara Üniversitesi Türk İnkılâp Tarihi Enstitüsü Atatürk Yolu Dergisi 25–26, 2000, pp. 181–200.

103. Mehmed Cemil Bilsel, Cemiyet-i Akvam’a Müzaharat Cemiyeti, Istanbul, 1923 (1339 R), p. 43; transcription by T. Z. Tunaya, Türkiye’de Siyasal Partiler, vol. 2, Hürriyet Vakfı Yayınları, Istanbul, 1986, p. 625.

104. Sürmeli, op. cit., p. 192.

105. Ahmed Tevfik Paşa, decree, 01/Ca/1340 (1921), Ottoman Archives [BOA] MF.MKT 1243–95.

106. Sürmeli, op. cit., p. 184.

107. Cemiyet-i Akvam’a Müzaharat Cemiyeti Nizamnamesi, Istanbul, 1338 R (1922), p. 3–4; transcription by Tunaya, op. cit., pp. 627–628.

108. On civic societies as means to extend state power cf. N. Özbek, ‘Defining the Public Sphere During the Late Ottoman Empire: War, Mass Mobilization and the Young Turk Regime (1908–1918)’, Middle Eastern Studies 43(5), 2007, pp. 795–809.

109. Meclis-i Vükelâ, notes, 07/R/1340 (1921), BOA MV 222–179.

110. David Davies, Resolutions by the British League of Nations Union on the revision of the peace treaty with Turkey, May 21, 1921, LONA R585–11–8694–8692.

111. Union Internationale des Associations pour la Société des Nations, Les Minorités Nationales. Rapport de la commission spéciale sur les minorités de race, de langue & de religion, présenté a la conférence plenière de l’Union Internationale des Associations pour la Société des Nations. Prague 5–8 Juin 1922, Brussels, 1922, p. 78.

112. On the humanitarian crisis see, K. Watenpaugh, ‘Between Communal Survival and National Aspiration. Armenian Genocide Refugees, the League of Nations, and the Practices of Interwar Humanitarianism‘, Humanity. An International Journal of Human Rights, Humanitarianism, and Development 5(2), 2014, pp. 159–181.

113. Union Internationale des Associations pour la Société des Nations, Les Minorités Nationales. Second rapport de la commission spéciale sur les minorités de race, de langue & de religion, présenté a la conférence plenière de l’Union Internationale des Associations pour la Société des Nations. Vienne 24–27 Juin 1923, Brussels, 1923, pp. 34–37.

114. ‘Griechische Schandtaten’, Liwa-el-Islam 1(3), July 15, 1921.

115. ‘The Lausanne Project’, launched by Ozan Ozavci and Jonathan Conlin in 2021, aims at a broad reassessment of the Lausanne Conference including its still underexplored transnational facets: https://thelausanneproject.com.

116. On internationalistic diversity see P. Clavin, G. Sluga (eds), Internationalisms. A Twentieth-Century History, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2017.

117. R. Jervis, System Effects: Complexity in Political and Social Life, Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1997; R. Jervis, ‘System Effects Revisited’, Critical Review: A Journal of Politics and Society 24(3), 2012, pp. 393–415.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Carolin Liebisch-Gümüş

Carolin Liebisch-Gümüş is Research Fellow for Global/Transregional History at the GHI Washington. She gained her PhD from Heidelberg University, Germany, in 2018 and is author of Verflochtene Nationsbildung: Die Neue Türkei und der Völkerbund, 1918-38 (2020).

Alp Yenen

Alp Yenen is an Assistant Professor for Modern Turkish History and Culture at Leiden University. He holds a PhD from the University of Basel. He works on the transnational and international history of Turkey in the twentieth century.