From Mudros to Lausanne: How Ahmed Emin&#39;s Perception of The &quot;Other&quot; Changed

Ahmet Abdullah Sacmali

This book explores the life and ideas of the eminent liberal journalist, Ahmed Emin (Yalman)’s changing perceptions of the “other” in the Armistice Period (1918-1923) and beyond. Throughout the work, Ahmed Emin’s perception of non-Muslim Ottomans, non-Turkish Muslims and the Western powers, as well as the changes in these perceptions are all analyzed through both qualitative and quantitative methods and based on content analysis. In addition to his editorials, published in the two newspapers Vakit and Vatan in Istanbul during the Armistice Period, his narration and reconstruction of the past events in his memoirs (one of which was composed in English) are also included in the comparative analysis. The work shows that, along with the continuous elements in his writings, such as his almost unchanging liberal-Westernist ideology, Ahmed Emin’s opinions were subject to change in accordance with changes on the ground and shifts in power configurations.

FROM MUDROS TO LAUSANNE: HOW AHMED EMIN’S PERCEPTION OF THE “OTHER” CHANGED AHMET ABDULLAH SAÇMALI BOĞAZİÇİ UNIVERSITY 2012 FROM MUDROS TO LAUSANNE: HOW AHMED EMIN’S PERCEPTION OF THE “OTHER” CHANGED Thesis submitted to the Institute for Graduate Studies in the Social Sciences in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in History by Ahmet Abdullah Saçmalı Boğaziçi University 2012 From Mudros to Lausanne: How Ahmed Emin’s Perception Of The “Other” Changed The thesis of Ahmet Abdullah Saçmalı has been approved by: Prof. Dr. Edhem Eldem (Thesis advisor) _______________________________ Prof. Dr. M. Asım Karaömerlioğlu _______________________________ Assist. Prof. Meltem Toksöz _______________________________ July 2012 Thesis Abstract Ahmet Abdullah Saçmalı, “From Mudros to Lausanne: How Ahmed Emin’s Perception of the ‘Other’ Changed?” This thesis explores an eminent liberal journalist, Ahmed Emin (Yalman)’s changing perceptions of the “other” in the armistice period (1918-1923). Throughout the work, how Ahmed Emin perceives non-Muslim Ottomans, non-Turkish Muslims and the Western powers, as well as the alteration of his receptions are analyzed through both qualitative and quantitative methods based on content analysis. Furthermore, having in addition to the analysis of his articles published in two newspapers Vakit and Vatan in Istanbul during the armistice period, his narration and reconstruction of the past events in his memoirs, one of which was composed in English, are also included in the comparative analysis. The consequence of the studies carried out within this thesis shows that along with the continuous elements in his writings, such as his almost unchanging liberal-Westernist ideology, Ahmed Emin’s opinions and stance were subject to change in accordance with the transformations in the conjuncture, and especially with the shifts in power configurations. Keywords: Ahmed Emin Yalman, Istanbul, Mudros Armistice, Turkish independence war, Lausanne Peace Treaty, armistice period, change, other, mandate question, late Ottoman and modern Turkish history, history of press, memoirs, reconstruction of the past. iii Tez Özeti Ahmet Abdullah Saçmalı, “Mondros’tan Lozan’a: Ahmed Emin’in ‘Öteki’ Algısı Nasıl Değişti?” Bu tezde Osmanlı son döneminin önde gelen liberal gazetecilerinden Ahmed Emin Yalman’ın öteki algısındaki değişimler mütareke dönemindeki (1918-1923) yazıları üzerinden inceleniyor. Çalışma boyunca, Ahmed Emin’in gayrimüslim Osmanlı, gayri-Türk Müslüman ve Batılı güçlere nasıl yaklaştığı ve bu yaklaşımların dönemi seyri içinde geçirdiği dönüşümleri içerik analizine dayalı nitel ve nicel yöntemlerle inceleniyor. Ayrıca, mütareke devrinde İstanbul’da çıkan Vakit ve Vatan gazetelerinde yayınladığı yazıları incelenerek, birisi İngilizce olan hatıratlarında geçmişi nasıl bir anlatıyla yeniden kurguladığı bu mukayeseli analize dahil ediliyor. Bu tez çerçevesinde yapılan çalışmaların neticesi şunu gösteriyor ki, neredeyse hiç değişmeyen Amerikan yanlısı, batıcı-liberal çizgideki fikriyatı gibi kimi süreklilik unsurlarının yanısıra, Ahmed Emin’in fikir ve kanaatleri konjonktür ve özellikle iktidar merkezlerindeki hareketliliklerle gayet yakından alakalı olarak hızla değişebiliyor. Anahtar kelimeler: Ahmed Emin Yalman, İstanbul, Mondros Mütarekesi, İstiklal Harbi, Lozan Barış Antlaşması, Mütareke Dönemi, değişim, öteki, manda meselesi, geç Osmanlı erken Türkiye tarihi, basın tarihi, hatıratlar, geçmişin yeniden inşası. iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Many others in addition to myself were involved in the process of writing this thesis. First and foremost, I would like to thank my advisor, Prof. Edhem Eldem, for his critical suggestions which had profound impact on the course of the thesis. Moreover, I owe a deep gratitude to the other members of my committee, Prof. Asım Karaömerlioğlu, and Assist. Prof. Meltem Toksöz, because they contributed to making the thesis much more qualified. During the hard times of research and writing process, the sincere and neverending support of my parents, Zehra Maraşlı and Ahmet Maraşlı, in both spiritual and material terms is unforgettable for me. Also, I would like to thank my brother and sister, Habib and Emine Sacmali for standing with me throughout the whole process. It would be unthinkable to be able to read quite complicated texts in Ottoman Turkish without the help of my elder sister Ayşe Seyyide Adıgüzel. Regarding the transcription of the articles, I have to thank my students in Ottoman Turkish courses in BİSAV (Foundation for Sciences and Art) for their help. And, the proof-reading of my dear friend Kian Alavy as a native speaker and meticulous revision of Oya Erez as the editor of the whole text, wiped out the grammatical errors of the text therefore they have my sincerest thanks. Especially during the research process, I owe a debt gratitude to the people who assisted me in finding the issues of the newspapers Vakit and Vatan between 1918-1923 in Taksim Atatürk Library, especially to Dr. Ali Mazak who had been the director of the institution at the time. This thesis has much to owe to İSAM (The Center for Islamic Studies) as well, for its vast number of books which forms the bedrock of the bibliography of this book and its quite favorable atmosphere for studying. My friends, A. Enes Tüzgen, A. Taha Orhan, Ali Bengü and Ersin Adıgüzel did not refrain their support at any point in this writing process. Especially regarding their help in consultation, I am indebted to each of them. Last but not least, I would like to thank my wife, Feyza Saçmalı, for her never-ending support and sincere help. Although this work has been produced with all this assistance, its errors and mistakes all belong to me. v CONTENTS CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION: CONTEXT AND THE METHODOLOGY…….1 Who is Ahmed Emin?................................................................................................2 Where did Ahmed Emin Stand Before the Armistice Period?..................................6 The Press in the Armistice Period…………………………………………………10 The Previous Studies and the Methodology of this Work………………………...18 CHAPTER II: FROM MUDROS TO LAUSANNE: AHMED EMIN’S CHANGING STANCES………………………………………………………….27 Between Mudros Armistice and the Malta Exile………………………………….27 From the End of Malta Exile (November 4, 1921) to the Beginning of Lausanne Peace Negotiations (November 20, 1922)………………………………………...37 During Lausanne Negotiations (November 20, 1922—July 23, 1923)…………...44 CHAPTER III: HOW TO CONSTRUE (DIS)CONTINUITIES IN HIS DISCOURSE……………………………………………………………...55 Ahmed Emin: A Consistent Liberal or Adaptive to a Variety of Conditions……..56 The Aftermath of the Foundation of the Republic………………………………...56 How does He Engage with the “Other”?.................................................................70 CHAPTER IV: CONCLUSION: UNDERSTANDING THE CONTRADICTING ACCOUNTS…………………106 Ahmed Emin After the Armistice Period………………………………………...106 A Theoretical Approach………………………………………………………….109 APPENDICES……………………………………………………………………..118 A: Original Quotes in Turkish…………………………………………………...118 B: Selected Articles from Ahmed Emin…………………………………………123 C: The List of the Articles of Ahmed Emin……………………………………...134 BIBLIOGRAPHY………………………………………………………………….164 vi CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION: CONTEXT AND THE METHODOLOGY Once more, Turkey's fate and mine were inextricably interwoven.1 Ahmed Emin The period between the Mudros Armistice and the Lausanne Treaty is called mütareke dönemi (armistice period) in Turkish historiography. It can be considered as a liminal period both belonging to a disintegrating empire and carrying the seeds of a new republic. Contrary to the expectations of many people it lasted quite long, five years, from the fall of 1918 to the summer of 1923. One of the reasons behind this long duration was that there happened a critical change in the identity of the political interlocutor to the allies. At the beginning of the period, the Istanbul government and the Sublime Porte were the representatives of the defeated side, whereas another power center emerged in Anatolia after a while with nationalists repudiating the legitimacy of the Istanbul government. In the aftermath of the Great War, an independence war was fought between the Anatolian resistance movement and the Greeks supported by mainly the British. The period ended with the long Lausanne Peace Conference confirming the independence of the modern Turkey. As a result of the slippery and chaotic nature of the time together with an unpredictable future, the Ottoman intelligentsia came up with various ideas to assure the survival of the homeland. Ahmed Emin (Yalman) is one of these people: a westernist 1 Ahmed Emin Yalman. Turkey in my Time, Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1956. p. 251. 1 intellectual, and the co-owner and the leading writer of an eminent daily newspaper, Vakit. After working for Vakit for a long time, he launched Vatan in 1923. This study is concentrated on the changes in Ahmed Emin’s perception of the “other”2 in the armistice period as measured by his memoirs composed years later. His life story is, by itself, worth studying since it intersects with almost all the critical turning points in the modern Turkish history. Going over the milestones of his life will give a clue about the “self” of the composer of the articles that are going to be elaborated later. Who is Ahmed Emin? He was born to a crypto-Jewish family in Salonika in 1888.3 The city was one of the most modernized cities of the empire in close cultural and economic relations with Europe. His later interest in journalism was highly influenced by his childhood experiences. His father and some relatives were involved in local journalistic activities. Firstly, he joined a private school founded by a Rufai sheikh who was an audacious, liberal-minded, progressivist and highly respectable figure in Salonika.4 After a year, he 2 This study highlights the Turkish-Muslim identity of Ahmed Emin due to his own self-identification in the articles. The inverse of this identity appears to be non-Turkish and/or non-Muslim. These categories will be extensively elaborated in the third chapter. 3 There is a consensus regarding his Sabetayist identity in the sources. Zürcher identifies him to be a crypto-Jewish. Erik J. Zürcher. Turkey a Modern History. New York: I.B. Tauris, 2004. p. 405. Tezcan argues that during his journalism in the republican period he was accused to be a dönme by various writers, one of which is Yunus Nadi in a pen-dispute with Ahmed Emin in 1937. The reports presented by the British embassy touches upon this part of his identity, stating that he was not embraced by his colleagues due to his dönme roots. Asuman Tezcan. “Ahmed Emin Yalman: Dönemi ve Gazeteciliği (1918-1938).” Diss. Ankara University, 2007. p. 12. Furthermore, during his exile years in Malta the British High Commissioner wrote a report mentioning his Sabetayist identity. Bilal Şimşir, Malta Sürgünleri. Ankara: BilgiYayınları, 1985, p. 67. Ahmed Emin Yalman. Yakın Tarihte Gördüklerim ve Geçirdiklerim: 1. İstanbul: Yenilik Basımevi, 1970. p. 15. 4 2 was transferred to Feyz-i Sıbyan school, later known as “Işık High School” in Istanbul. At the age of nine, he entered the Military Middle School in Salonika (Selanik Askeri Rüşdiyesi), representing a much “progressive” world for him, as he says so in his memoirs.5 His father was the teacher for writing in the same school.6 Firstly, in this school, he became aware of the opposition to the Hamidian regime.7 Because of some problems with his teachers he had in this Rüşdiye; his father Osman Tevfik Bey took him to the German School in Salonika.8 Because his father started working in the Matbuat Umum Müdürlüğü (Directorate General of Press) in Istanbul in 1903, they moved to Istanbul and Ahmed Emin started Beyoğlu German School. There, he learned German and English as additional languages to the French that he had acquired in the past. Equipped with these foreign languages, he started working as a Turkish-English translator at a daily newspaper, Sabah, in 1907.9 After graduation from the Beyoğlu German School, he entered Law Faculty at Istanbul Darülfünun while working both in Sabah and Bab-ı Ali Tercüme Odası (Translation Office of the Porte). Because of the multiplicity of works, he was unable to finish this school. In 1911, he went to the USA and joined the Faculty of Political Science at Columbia University. Thereafter, he got his Ph.D. degree from the same university with a dissertation titled, “The Development of Modern Turkey as Measured by its Press” and it was published in America.10 After his 5 Ibid., p. 24. 6 It was a reason for honor for Ahmed Emin that his father used to teach Mustafa Kemal, which is an honor for the teacher as well in Ahmed Emin’s words. Ibid., p. 10. 7 Ibid., p. 25. 8 Ibid., p. 30. 9 Ibid., p. 37. 10 Ibid. p. 200. 3 return to Istanbul in 1914, he served as a research assistant to Ziya Gökalp and Hasan Bey in Darülfünun (later reconstituted as Istanbul University).11 Along with his duty at the university he started working as a journalist for Tanin, the media organ of the İttihad ve Terakki Cemiyeti (Committee of Union and Progress, CUP). He was sent to the German fronts during the Great War; then, transferred to Sabah following his return.12 In October 22, 1917, together with Mehmed Asım, Ahmed Emin published Vakit, a daily newspaper and became its leading writer. He was involved in activities in the Wilsonian League, founded mainly by the editors of the Istanbul newspapers including himself.13 In the first year of the armistice, he extensively wrote in support of an American aid and the temporary share in the sovereignty connoting the offers of the mandate. Meanwhile, because of his attacks on the government and on Damat Ferit Pasha regarding corruption, he was exiled to Kütahya for three months between April 17 and July 14, 1919.14 In March 1920, due to his support for national movement in Anatolia, he was exiled to Malta with some other Unionists by the British.15 After his return from Malta in November 1921, he became engaged in a much closer relationship with the Ankara government and he was granted the privilege by Mustafa Kemal to go to the front as a journalist.16 11 Ibid. p. 211. 12 Ibid. p. 260. 13 Ibid. p. 324. 14 Yalman, Yakın Tarihte Gördüklerim ve Geçirdiklerim: 2, p. 7. 15 Ibid., pp. 76-218. 16 Ibid. p. 243. 4 In 1923, he left the partnership with Mehmed Asım and started publishing Vatan. In this newspaper, he opposed the Ankara government on a great number of issues, such as the foundation of the People’s Party (Halk Fırkası, PP), the proclamation of the Turkish Republic, the place of the new capital and so on. Vatan supported the Progressive Republican Party (Terakkiperver Cumhuriyet Fırkası, PRP) founded in November 17, 1924, as opposed to the PP. 17 In 1925, Sheikh Said, who was a Kurdish Nakshi sheikh holding power over the Kurdish region, started a mass rebellion with his followers against Ankara. It lasted approximately two months. In order to act freely outside of legal restrictions, the Prime Minister İsmet (İnönü) “had the assembly pass the Takrir-i Sükûn Kanunu (Law on the Maintenance of Order)”18. This law enabled the government to do almost whatever they wished. It was turned out to be quite an efficient vehicle for silencing the opposition. Along with the PRP, all other newspapers critiquing the government were shut down. Vatan was closed indefinitely under this law. Ahmed Emin stood trial in the İstiklal Mahkemeleri (Independence Tribunals)19 and was prohibited from that point on from taking part in the sector of journalism. He returned to the sector publishing Kaynak, a weekly newspaper, by the special permission of Mustafa Kemal in 1936. After a while he bought another weekly newspaper, Tan, with its printing house.20 In 1940, he started re-publishing Vatan. 21 The newspaper at that time attacked national socialism and defended liberal democracy. In 1952, a young student 17 Yalman, Yakın Tarihte Gördüklerim ve Geçirdiklerim: 3, p. 150. 18 Ibid., p. 171. 19 Ibid. p. 194. 20 Ibid. p. 222. 21 Ibid. pp. 268-269. 5 provoked by the nationalists of the time attempted to assassinate him; he was shot but survived this attack. After the transition to the multi-party period, Vatan sided with Democrat Party, the party in power. 22 Then, Ahmed Emin started criticizing the government23 and its policies, which were at odds with the west and America, as well as Prime Minister Adnan Menderes and his oppressive acts. This discord with the government made him appear in court several times. Due to his opposition, he was sentenced to one and a half year of prison in 1959.24 After the coup d’état on May 27, 1960, he was set free and went on publishing Vatan. Thereafter, Ahmed Emin left Vatan because the number of partners involved in the paper meant that he was not able to follow his own publishing policy. He started publishing Hür Vatan in 1961.25 Due to the insufficient interest in this newspaper, he closed it down and wrote columns for various dailies. In the last years of his life, he authored his memoirs composed of four volumes titled Yakın Tarihte Gördüklerim ve Geçirdiklerim. Then, he died on December 19, 1972. Where did Ahmed Emin Stand Before the Armistice Period? After the proclamation of the Second Constitution on July 24, 1908, a new period started, during which the Unionist oppression permeated every corner the country. Between 1908 and 1912, there was some opposition to the Unionists—for instance, 22 Yalman, Yakın Tarihte Gördüklerim ve Geçirdiklerim: 4, p. 38. 23 Ibid., pp. 240-241. 24 Ibid., p. 340. 25 Ibid., p. 399. 6 Osmanlı Ahrar Fırkası (Party of Ottoman Liberals) and those who wished to restore a religious system. Furthermore, a counter-revolution was carried out against the state in 1909. Having fought against the opposition, the CUP fortified its power by 1912 with sopalı seçimler (elections with a stick).26 This period had lasted till 1918 marking the decisive defeat of the Ottomans by the allies. The re-opening of the parliament was welcomed by especially the intelligentsia, due to the fact that this new period had ended the Hamidian “despotism” (istibdad).27 Shortly thereafter, the phrases “After the liberty”, “before the liberty” started to appear in the books. These referred to the beginning of the period. However, the Hamidian oppression was replaced by the Unionist one.28 PUP exerted its power relentlessly in every layer of the society. The censorship on press was in action, only did the identity of the censor changed. The PUP, composed of members attached to various ideological orientations, made Turkism the pivotal element of the state policies in this period at the expense of the resentment of the non-Turkish people of the empire.29 The number of the activities of the Turkish Hearths (Türk Ocakları) seriously increased. As a result of the harsh Turkist policies, firstly Albanians rebelled in July 1912.30 In Syria, the severe policies of Cemal 26 Zürcher, Turkey a Modern History, p. 103. 27 Feroz Ahmad. The Making of Modern Turkey. London: Routledge, 1993. p. 31. 28 Ibid. p. 40. 29 Ibid. Bilgin Çelik. İttihatçılar ve Arnavutlar: II. Meşrutiyet Döneminde Arnavut Ulusçuluğu ve Arnavutluk Sorunu, İstanbul: Büke Kitapları, 2004. pp. 446-461. 30 7 Pasha, one of the three most prominent Unionist leaders led to a deep discontent among the Arab subjects of the empire.31 The successive defeats brought about the rise of the ideological movements discussing the present and future of the country as well as seeing about the remedies to the social, political and cultural problems. The predominant ideologies of this period were Westernism, Islamism and Turkism.32 Islamism was the most influential vis-à-vis the others.33 The inescapable rise of nationalism all over the world and the fall of Abdülhamid II led to the decline of Ottomanism, therefore, one does not need to analyze this ideology as one of the crucial currents of thought in the Constitutional Period. However, the idea or the question marking this period as well as the armistice period is a quest for a salvation of the homeland. The never-ending defeats, unstoppable shrinking of the empire in terms of territory as well as the massive number of human losses led to a deep anxiety especially in the minds of the intelligentsia. The rise and the development of the intellectual movements can be more intelligible within such a framework, because they were all seeking for an answer for the same question: how to rescue the homeland. Before the First World War, despite all the efforts, no good relationship with the British and the French was established. Therefore, the only option appeared as the other western power, Germany. The role of Enver Pasha, the mighty Unionist leader, was quite significant in the convergence of the two empires. During this process, some 31 For further discussion of the atrocities of Cemal Pasha in the province of Syria see; Nevzat Artuç. Cemal Paşa: Askeri ve Siyasi Hayatı. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 2008. Rıdvan Akın. Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nun Dağılma Devri ve Türkçülük Hareketi: 1908-1918. İstanbul: Der Yayınları, 2002. p. 43. 32 33 Although Islamism is the most widespread and influential ideology in this period, it would not be wellunderstood unless its history going back to the nineteenth century is neglected. Mümtaz’er Türköne. Siyasi İdeoloji Olarak İslamcılığın Doğuşu. İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları, 1991. p. 282. 8 experts, weapons and ammunitions were brought from Germany to modernize the Ottoman army. Even during the Great War, German commanders were placed at high ranks to lead the army.34 The involvement of Americans in the war in April 1917 on the side of the allies upset the balances and the war came to an end at the end of 1918. The Mudros Armistice signed between the Ottomans and the allies on October 30, 1918 coincided with the end of this process. Ahmed Emin joined the CUP in 1908.35 He was away from Turkish politics between 1911-1914, since he was in the US for his graduate studies. In the aftermath of his return in 1914, he started working for Tanin, the media organ of the Unionists. In this newspaper he published an interview as if he had conducted a conversation with Enver Pasha in his absence. This interview created a tremendous impression in the public opinion. Because of this success he was sent to the German fronts by Enver Pasha, as a war correspondent.36 Ahmed Emin who was fully supportive of the pro-German policies of the Unionists, mentioned the corruptions of the war period for the first time in 1917 in another daily newspaper, Sabah. About this time, he was in a constant contact with Ziya Gökalp. He demonstrated his support for Germans as late as the end of 1917, by arguing that the elongation of war would lead to more advantageous peace terms for the central powers. 37 Regarding the Americans, while he was critical in 1917 for their policies during the war, after the defeat in 1918, he started talking about the importance of the 34 Tezcan, 42. Liman von Sanders is the most famous of these commanders. 35 Yalman, Yakın Tarihte Gördüklerim ve Geçirdiklerim: 1, p. 66. 36 Ibid., pp. 220-221. 37 Ahmed Emin. “Bundan Sonrası,” Sabah, 21 Ocak 1917. Cited in Tezcan, p. 47. 9 USA in the future of the world and of the development of the Turko-American relations. 38 As to his engagement with power, Vakit started critiquing the government by the middle of 1918.39 The level of the criticism gradually increased as the Unionist’s influence waned. The escape of the CUP (Committee of Union and Progress) triumvirate of Enver, Cemal and Talat Pashas on November 3, 1918 led to a big public reaction. In the following process, the Unionists were depicted to be the sole responsible for the defeat. The power vacuum created by the liquidation of the Unionists was filled by the Sultan and the old enemy of the Unionists, the Hürriyet ve İtilaf Partisi (Party of Freedom and Understanding, PFU). Even if the political power of the Unionists was crushed in the armistice period, Ahmed Emin did not prefer to openly criticize them until making sure that they were all wiped out. The Press in the Armistice Period Beginning with the First World War, Unionists exacerbated the repression on the press both in Istanbul and in Anatolia, thus censorship became the key element of this oppressive regime during the war. It was impossible to write and publish anything but what the government permitted.40 As a result of this harsh policy on the newspapers, the 38 Ibid., p. 55. In the following process, he continued writing for an American aid for more then a year. 39 Ibid., p. 52. 40 Orhan Koloğlu. Osmanlı’dan 21. Yüzyıla Basın Tarihi. İstanbul: Pozitif Yayınları, 2006. p. 107. 10 Anatolian press was wiped out by 1918.41 After the independence war broke out, the press in Anatolia was strengthened and started taking an important place on the politics.42 Most of the Anatolian press sided with the national resistance thanks to the distance to the center and to the inexistence of the censorship of the Sultan and the occupation forces. Furthermore, their geographical closeness with the centers of the national resistance played a role in this political inclination.43 As war goes on, the press in Anatolia solidified its strength, even got ahead of the Istanbul press. There were some newspapers standing against the occupation, even before the beginning of the preparations for the independence war.44 According to Yust, the relatively higher level of the press in Anatolia sided with the national resistance despite the modest amount of the territory can be explained by these three reasons. a) the Anatolian territory is the center of the national movement. b) The influx of the unemployed intellectual, civil servants and the merchants of the Western regions, Thrace and Istanbul. c) The war against Greeks which keeps the provincial press alive. The end of the war would mean the disappearance of these newspapers.45 Mustafa Kemal was strictly controlling the publishing policies of the press in Anatolia. They were to organize their newspapers so as to fit to the “national interest”. 41 K.Yust. Kemalist Anadolu Basını. Edited by Orhan Koloğlu. Ankara: Çağdaş Gazeteciler DerneğiYayınları, 1995. p. 200. 42 Yücel Özkaya, Milli Mücadelede Atatürk ve Basın (1919-1921). Ankara: Atatürk Kültür Dil ve Tarih Yüksek Kurumu, 1989. p. 54. 43 Ibid., p. 13-14. 44 Hukuk-ı Beşer in İzmir was an example to these newspapers. Koloğlu, p. 114. 45 Yust, p. 131. 11 The protection of the national rights was one of the crucial duties of the “national press”. Another task of them was to please and manipulate the European public opinion via their news and convince them that the national movement was pursuing a just cause against both the Sultan and the allies. The objective of this policy was winning them over to support their political activities.46 According to the conditions of censorship as accepted in the declaration of Sivas Congress, the media organs not in line with the national resistance were not allowed to survive. To make sure control over the press and to monitor the flow of the news, Mustafa Kemal seized the telegraph network in the regions which were not under the control of the Court. The arrival of any news via either newspaper or telegraph was strictly inhibited.47 For instance, in accordance with this policy, Ali Kemal’s Peyam-ı Sabah (an opponent Istanbul newspaper) was not allowed to enter Anatolia whatsoever.48 On January 5, 1920, Refi Cevat in Alemdar complained that the local authorities in the “unfortunate” regions controlled by the Kuva-yı Milliye (National Forces) took all the illegal measures to make their newspaper inaccessible to the reader. The addressee of this complaint was the Ministry of Interior Affairs.49 For the purpose of consolidating the control over the press, Mustafa Kemal paved the way for the foundations of the Anatolian Agency (April 6, 1920) and the Directorate-General for the Press (July 7, 1920). Thus, the political color of the news releases was homogenized.50 46 Özkaya, p. 24. 47 Koloğlu, p. 114. 48 Yust, p. 180. Refi Cevat, Alemdar¸ 5 January 1920 cited in İhsan Ilgar. comp. Mütarekede Yerli ve Yabancı Basın. İstanbul: Kervan Yayınları, 1973. p. 23. 49 50 Koloğlu, p. 114. 12 According to Koloğlu, there were eighty two publications in support of the national resistance.51 Some of them are İzmir'e Doğru,52 Doğru Söz (Balıkesir), Yeni Adana, Açıksöz (Kastamonu), Babalık, Öğüt (Konya), Küçük Mecmua (Diyarbakır), Albayrak (Erzurum), Emel (Amasya), Ahali (Edirne), İstikbal (Trabzon), Işık (Giresun), Ahali (Samsun), Anadolu (Antalya), Satvet-i Milliye (Elazığ), Amal-ı Milliye (Maraş), Türkoğlu, Dertli (Bolu), Yeşil Yuva (Artvin), İrade-i Milliye (Sivas), Hakimiyet- i Milliye (Ankara).53 The last two ones were founded by Mustafa Kemal. İrade-i Milliye (National Will) was started on September 14, 1919 following the arrival of Mustafa Kemal to Sivas and published twice a week.54 Hakimiyet-i Milliye (National Sovereignty) was launched in Ankara at the end of 1919. Its main objective was to announce the decisions of the Müdafaa-i Hukuk Cemiyeti (Society for the Defence of the National Rights).55 Two newspapers of Ankara, Hakimiyet-i Milliye and Yenigün transferred from Istanbul by Yunus Nadi, played a leading role for all the remaining nationalist press.56 Newspapers opposed to the national resistance were quite rare in Anatolia. Köylü in İzmir can be counted as such, since it was for a supply of expert guidance from America. These papers were gathered in occupied regions such as, İzmir, Bursa and 51 Ibid., pp. 115-116. 52 This newspaper was an excellent vehicle for the nationalist propaganda. It had a circulation figure of 2000. However this number is not equal to the number of the readers of the newspaper due to the fact that it was sent to the villages as well. Atatürk ve Basın. İstanbul: T.G.S. İstanbul Şubesi, 1981. p. 23. 53 Özkaya, p. 14. In the aftermath of the Mudros Armistice, Anadolu, Duygu, Ahenk and Köylü were in defence of an independence war. Afterwards, Köylü started following an editorial policy for an American support —as Ahmed Emin did in his column for a long time— and opposed the Kuva-yı Milliye. Ibid. p. 7. 54 Topuz, p. 128. 55 Ibid., p. 129. 56 Koloğlu, p. 115. 13 Edirne. According to Yust, they were attacking the nationalists with the articles dictated by the invaders and Europe-originated news.57 Istanbul press was far from being independent. Before the occupation, the Sultan’s censorship was prevalent, and after the de facto occupation of Istanbul in March 20, 1920, there was additional censorship by the allies.58 The British, French and Italian censorship was quite strict, therefore, sometimes three thirds of an article was removed after the monitoring of censors as expressed in the memoirs of Zekeriya Sertel.59 Due to the censorship, very rarely did the Istanbul newspapers talk about Mustafa Kemal and the national resistance movement in Anatolia until 1921. Moreover, the articles sent from Anatolia were not published because of the censors’ prohibitions.60 As of 1921, the Turko-French Treaty of Ankara and the military successes of Ankara government paved the way for the Istanbul press to publish news about them.61 The censorship pushed these newspapers to focus more on Istanbul and the political activities in the cabinet.62 Ahmed Emin, as well, wrote plenty of articles devoted to the inner politics of Istanbul in this period. However, he frequently elaborated foreign politics as a way to avoid crossing the red lines of the censorship. The inability of the Istanbul press on sending 57 Yust, p. 182. 58 Özkaya, p. 10. The censorship by the allies was carried out by a committee of three Ottoman major generals. Bünyamin Ayhan, Milli Mücadelede Basın. Konya: Tablet Kitabevi, 2007. p. 302. Zekeriya Sertel, Hatırladıklarım. İstanbul: Remzi Kitabevi, 2000. pp. 73-74. Actually this was a kind of manifestation of the reaction against the restriction on press. 59 60 Özkaya, p. 35. 61 Ibid., 10. 62 Ibid., p. 24. 14 correspondents to Anatolia and the distance between the journalists’ place and Ankara were the other reasons behind this indifference.63 During the armistice period, newspapers with different political inclinations were published. There were advocates of the national resistance on the one hand, and were its stiff opponents, on the other. İleri,64 Yeni Gün, Akşam and Vakit are examples to the former. Peyam-ı Sabah, Alemdar65 and Yeni İstanbul can be given as examples to the latter. Some of the writers of these papers described Mustafa Kemal as a dictator no different from the Unionist Cemal Pasha, known by his severe persecution of Arabs in Syrian province.66 Some others expressed criticism of the people around him as crazy adventurers.67 In addition, there were columns stressing that the present and the future of the state were not an issue for Mustafa Kemal and the national resistance. For the purpose of maintaining peace on the basis of sharia, they should have been relentlessly repressed by the Istanbul government.68 The rest had sympathy with the resistance, however they were not firm on this stance. Tasvir-i Efkar, İkdam, Tercüman and Tanin were not concealing their support for the Unionists. Sebilürreşad was a newspaper published by the Islamists.69 There were newspapers of the foreigners as well. For instance Stamboul was for the French national interests. Its publishers and writers as 63 Ibid. 64 İleri was almost the spokesman of the national struggle. Topuz, p. 122. 65 For an extended discussion of the opposition of the newspaper to the Unionists see; Alper Ersaydı, Alemdar Gazetesine Göre Mütareke Döneminde İttihatçılık. Uşak: Uşak Akademi Kitap Dağıtım Pazarlama Yayınevi, 2011. 66 For the original quote see; Appendix A. 67 For the original quote see; Appendix A. 68 For the original quote see; Appendix A. 69 Yust, p. 122. 15 spokesmen of one of the defeater powers opposed any resistance as of the beginning of the occupation. The Sultan was one and only representative of the people. Any unrest in Anatolia might have created a big chaos.70 Another influential newspaper was the Orient News published in Istanbul between 1919-1922. Its aim was making propaganda for the Greek assaults in accordance with the British policy on the Middle East.71 Their readers were Americans and the other occupation forces together with the British population.72 Vakit, which is the main object matter of this study, was launched by Ahmed Emin and Mehmed Asım (Us) with the help of the Unionist government73 on October 22, 1917. It was, in Yust’s quite accurate description, a liberal-oriented, Kemalist newspaper.74 Furthermore, it has close relations with the European financial and the American political circles.75 Ali Naci Karacan and Enis Tahsin Til were the first chief clerks respectively. Necmettin Sadak and Kazım Şinasi worked in Vakit before Akşam. Hakkı Tarık, Ahmed Rasim, Ahmed Şükrü, Reşat Nuri were among those who permanently wrote for the newspaper.76 The research while working on Vakit demonstrates that in addition to Ruşen Eşref, Hüseyin Cahid, Ziya Gökalp and Halide Edip,77 the following people wrote columns from time to time for the paper: Ağaoğlu Korkmaz Alemdar, İstanbul. Ankara: Ankara İktisadi ve Ticari İlimler Akademisi Yayınları, 1978. p. 146. 70 Nilgün G. Pazarcı. “İşgalin İmgeleri: The Orient News Gazetesi, 1919-1922.” Küresel İletişim Dergisi. 1 (Spring 2006), p. 1. 71 72 Ibid., p. 4. 73 Yust, p. 181. 74 Ibid. 75 Ibid. 76 Topuz, p. 123. 77 Ibid. 16 Ahmed, Ahmed Cevad, Ahmed Salahaddin, Alaaddin Cemil, Balizade, Bir Doktor Muallim (A Doctor Teacher), H. K., Hasan Vasfi, İbrahim Fazıl, M. N. (military correspondent), M. Remzi, Mehmed Asım, Ruşen Eşref, Yusuf Razi. During the armistice period Ahmed Emin wrote intensively against the government for the corruptions and he openly supported an American aid (müzaheret). When Ahmed Emin was exiled to Malta in March 1920, Mehmed Asım started to single-handedly manage the paper. During this process, Vakit fully adopted the political position of Mustafa Kemal.78 After the foundation of the People’s Party (Halk Fırkası) Mehmed Asım and his brother, Hakkı Tarık became almost the spokesmen of the party. Till the end of his life, Vakit became a semi-official media organ of the PP.79 Ultimately it came to an end with the death of Mehmed Asım Us in 1967.80 After the withdrawal from partnership with Mehmed Asım, Ahmed Emin started another newspaper, Vatan (Fatherland), on March 26, 1923. It was much more modernlooking and an American-inspired style among the others.81 Along with the other Istanbul press, such as Tanin and Tasvir-i Efkar, Vatan opposed some of the decisions and policies of the Ankara government, namely, the foundation of the People’s Party, the promulgation of the Republic, the authority of Mustafa Kemal and the abolition of the caliphate. The response to these criticisms came from the newspapers adopting the Kemalist ideology, Hakimiyet-i Milliye, Akşam, İleri, Yeni Gün (Cumhuriyet as of 1924). Ahmed Emin continued pro-American publications and writing for drawing the 78 Nuri Akbayar, Orhan Koloğlu. Gazeteci Bir Aile. Ankara: Çağdaş Gazeteciler Derneği Yayınları: 1996. p. 35. 79 Ibid. p. 48. 80 Ibid., p. 49. 81 Zürcher, Turkey a Modern History, p. 406. 17 American capital to Turkey. After the first attempt at democracy, Vatan supported the first opposition party, the PRP (Terakkiperver Cumhuriyet Fırkası). In the next years, the newspaper proved to be consistent on defending the liberal values and siding with American policies. The Previous Studies and the Methodology of this Work The armistice period has been an attractive subject for the historians of the late Ottoman and modern Turkish Republic. Especially because it comprises clashing multiple political actors and due to its chaotic character, researchers have tended to study this period. Moreover, for the foundation of the new republic, this period has a great significance, since it witnessed the making of the national hero, Mustafa Kemal, as well as the invention of the national enemy(s), Greeks in particular and “imperialists” in general. The independence war was fought between 1921-1922, and the basic differentiation between the “patriots” and the “traitors” is rooted in the armistice period. Therefore, many elements of the nation-creating process in the Republican period as a state-enterprise should be sought in these years. Because the period is crucial for the republican official ideology, there are a number of official histories of the period.82 These works approach the period as if everything revolved around Mustafa Kemal, which is apparently constructing the past in Ahmed Bedevi Kuran. Osmanlı İmparatorluğunda İnkılap Hareketleri ve Milli Mücadele. İstanbul: Çeltüt Matbaası, 1959; Ahmet Mumcu. Tarih Açısından Türk Devriminin Temelleri ve Gelişimi. İstanbul: İnkılap Kitabevi, 1996; Hamza Eroğlu. Türk İnkılap Tarihi. İstanbul: Milli Eğitim Basımevi, 1982; Türk İstiklal Harbi 8 vols. Ankara: Genelkurmay Basımevi, 1962; Enver Behnan Şapolyo. Kemal Atatürk ve Milli Mücadele Tarihi. İstanbul: Rafet Zaimler Yayınevi, 1958; Enver Ziya Karal. Türkiye Cumhuriyeti Tarihi 1918-1944. İstanbul: Milli Eğitim Basımevi, 1945; Tayyib Gökbilgin. Milli Mücadele Başlarken. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basunevi, 1959. 82 18 a way it would result in and justify today. A dualistic perspective tending to judge all the problems in binary oppositions permeates in these works. The sophisticated reality is reduced to a simple dualism. According to this caricaturization, Greeks and the allies are the outer enemies, Armenians, Rums and the Kurdish separatists are the inner enemies, the Istanbul press is the betrayer and it is called mütareke basını in order to humiliate and ostracize it, Mustafa Kemal is the legendary hero of Turkishness as a founder of the modern Turkish Republic and his friends, such as İsmet İnönü, Rauf Orbay and Refet Bele are the great commanders of the national struggle. In this equation, Istanbul is evidently positioned opposite to Anatolia. Besides the official histories of the period, there are some alternative approaches, as well. For instance, in the book titled The Unionist Factor, Zürcher claims that the struggles of the Unionists during the independence war cannot be disregarded, since they were fully involved in the war through clandestinely establishing underground networks and openly founding political organizations.83 For him, an explanation excluding them is doomed to be insufficient. Criss tackles the same issues and carries the argument a step further. Based on the British, American and French archives, she demonstrates the multiplicity in the period and argues that there was another resistance in Istanbul parallel to Anatolia, attracting the support of the people, consisting of the “major institutions in the city, such as the boatmen’s, porters’, coachmen’s, artisans’, and manufacturers’ guilds, women’s groups, certain religious institutions, and the Red Crescent Society”84. 83 Erik J. Zürcher, The Unionist Factor: The Role of the Committee of Union and Progress in the Turkish National Movement, 1905-1926. Leiden: Brill, 1984. 84 Nur Bilge Criss. Istanbul Under Allied Occupation, 1918-1923. Leiden: Brill, 1999. p. 160. 19 Moreover, she does not prefer analyzing the period in-and-of itself, rather she adds some outer elements, such as international treaties into analysis. So far, four theses and a dissertation have specifically dedicated to Ahmed Emin. Ergün Yıldırım, in his thesis titled “Batılılaşma Sürecinde Bir Şahsiyet: Ahmet Emin Yalman”, deals with Ahmed Emin’s ideas regarding state and society with the tools of sociology.85 In another study titled, “Demokrasi Kavramı ve Türk Gazeteciliğinin Çok Partili Yaşama Geçiş Sürecindeki Görünümü: Vatan Örneği” Mumay examines the role of Vatan in the transition process to democracy.86 In her thesis, Gürses explores the articles of Ahmed Emin published in Vakit and Vatan between 1919-1923.87 This study is, in a sense, a repetition of what was written in the period, rather than bringing a critical approach. The last thesis was written by Gök examines Vatan between 19501960.88 The central argument of the thesis is that the newspaper under the administration of Ahmed Emin Yalman supports the Democrat Party government towards the middle of the decade in as much as the party follows the western, especially pro-American policies. Asuman Tezcan’s dissertation titled “Ahmed Emin Yalman: Dönemi ve Gazeteciliği (1918-1938)” is the most comprehensive one discussing Ahmed Emin’s life story, his engagements with the Unionists during the First World War, the topics he dealt with in the armistice and finally his attitude towards the Kemalist regime.89 The Ergün Yıldırım. “Batılılaşma Sürecinde Bir Şahsiyet: Ahmet Emin Yalman, Yüksek Lisans Tezi.” MA Thesis İstanbul University, 1991. 85 86 Aynur Mumay, “Demokrasi Kavramı ve Türk Gazeteciliğinin Çok Partili Yaşama Geçiş Sürecindeki Görünümü: Vatan Örneği.” MA thesis Istanbul University, 1996. 87 Banu Gürses. “Ahmet Emin Bey'in Milli Mücadele'ye Bakışı.” MA thesis Gazi University, 2002. 88 Sanem Gök. “Türk Siyasi yaşamında Vatan Gazetesi (1950-1960).” MA thesis Ankara University, 2003. 20 work is based on Ahmed Emin’s articles, the newspapers published at the time, his memoirs, the relevant secondary literature and the British, German and American archives. The aim of this study is not to uncover the historical facts through the writings of Ahmed Emin. Nor is it to prove that how he had an inconsistent and disingenuous personality thanks to the fluctuations in his lifetime. Rather, the objective is to analyze the changing positions that Ahmed Emin embraced, especially vis-à-vis the “other”, as well as his engagement with the power centers during the armistice period (1918-1923) and to compare them with his book, Turkey in My Time, published in 1956 and his memoirs, Yakın Tarihte Gördüklerim ve Geçirdiklerim, composed of four volumes which came out in 1970. Because the armistice period is explored, the main primary source of the thesis is his articles as the lead writer of Vakit and Vatan published at the time. Along with his articles, the columns of the other journalists of the time were examined in order to demonstrate the context. In conducting this study, I have examined 1158 issues of Vakit and Vatan published in the armistice period. Among these newspapers I could not have access to 67 issues, which constitutes 0.8 % percent of the whole, which can be considered to be statistically insignificant. Out of those 1150 issues there are 750 articles written by Ahmed Emin, a list of which is added in the appendix. Since there is no signature on them, 49 of these articles are considered to be anonymous. However, by double-checking with the memoirs, it appears that a few of them were also written by him, so they were added to the list. 161 of these articles were 89 Asuman Tezcan. “Ahmed Emin Yalman: Dönemi ve Gazeteciliği (1918-1938).” Diss. Ankara University, 2007. 21 written by the other authors whose names were above mentioned. Lastly, 111 of these issues were excluded since no article was published in them. Regarding the methodology, the thesis takes a comparative perspective in the analysis. Ahmed Emin’s views are examined in relation to the historical context and they are compared on a chronological basis. For instance, his stance on a specific issue is analyzed considering the change during the whole process. Then, how he reconstructs history and his own approach in his book Turkey in My Time, and in his memoirs becomes part of the comparison of different Ahmed Emins in different periods. This book is quite crucial since it is a kind of memoirs which was composed for the AngloAmerican readers. His memoirs were published in 1970, after the experiences of both national and international innumerous critical events, such as single-party period, transition to democracy, a coup d’état and the student unrests. The research for this thesis demonstrates that changes in the center of the power and in the identities of the power-holders as well as the identity of the addressee is quite significant for understanding the changes in Ahmed Emin’s stances. As to the alterations in his perception of the “other”, one needs to analyze how Ahmed Emin defines his own identity before getting into his views on the “other”. The articles in Vakit and Vatan and his later writings manifest that he defines himself as a Turkish-Muslim, a combination of an ethnic and a religious identity. Sources show that he also had crypto-Jewish roots; however, during my research I did not encounter with his avowal of the Sabetayist identity. Therefore in order not to come up with conclusions based on conspiratorial speculations, it is preferred putting this debate in parentheses in this study. Having defined him to be a Turkish-Muslim, the opposite of this identity naturally appears to be non-Turkish and/or non-Muslim. Excluding the ones who are not 22 in direct relation with the Ottoman Empire at the time, the following nations/ethnic groups as the “other”s of Ahmed Emin are specified: 1. Non-Muslim Westerners: Americans, British, French, Italians, Russians, Germans, Bulgarians and Greeks. 2. Non-Muslim Ottomans: Rums (Ottoman Greeks), Armenians and Jews. 3. Non-Turkish Muslim Ottomans: Kurds, Arabs, Albanians, Circassians and Laz. To summarize the forthcoming chapters, an overview of the ideas of Ahmed Emin is provided in the armistice period with a specific emphasis on his perception of the “other” in the second chapter. A chronological sequence is followed so that the change based on the timeline becomes much more visible. In this chapter, the significant events, such as the wars, treaties and the clashes between Istanbul and Ankara governments and Ahmed Emin’s opinions about them are explained. The third chapter is dedicated to Ahmed Emin’s engagement with the power and the “other”. Within this framework, his undulating relationship with the Unionists as the previous power-holders and with Mustafa Kemal as the central person of the following period was closely examined. This kind of analysis is critical since it makes the moves in the articles much more intelligible and helps us put the intangible alterations in Ahmed Emin’s ideas within a meaningful framework. Furthermore, how his perceptions of the “other” as defined above are transformed during and after the armistice period is analyzed with the help of some charts. For the purpose of measuring his stance towards the other, two types of charts have been created. Whereas the first one shows how many times a nation, say, Americans, are mentioned in the articles in these five years (19181923), the second chart shows the change in his view of them. In order to be able to 23 sketch a graph, a reductionism became inevitable. Therefore, I have qualified three categories showing his stance as positive, neutral and negative. “1”, “0.1”90 and “-1” are used respectively to represent these stances. Fig. 1 The chart showing the number of times the word "American" is mentioned in the articles 90 A quite practical reason is behind why it is not a “0” but a “0.1”. Because the latter is much easily distinguishable on the chart, I have assigned this number representing for neutral. 24 Fig. 2 The chart showing the changes in Ahmed Emin's stance towards Americans To exemplify the “positive” as the first category, the article titled “İstikbal Düşünceleri II” can be examined.91 In the article, he openly supports an American aid to Turkey, and to strengthen his cause, explains the “superior” features of America in detail.92 However, there are degrees of this category which, unfortunately, cannot be reflected upon the chart. For instance, in the article, “İktisadi Tehlikeler”,93 he writes in praise of the Bulgarians stating that the Bulgarian peace delegates avoided extravagancy in dressing whereas in Turkey a lot of money is spent for jewelries. It is evident that the latter cannot be compared to the former as to the writer’s positive approach, since the first one is the demonstration of a passionate full support, while the second one is only an appreciation of an attitude. This problem is valid for the negative articles as well. At the 91 Ahmed Emin. “İstikbal Düşünceleri II,” Vakit, 1 December 1918. 92 A few examples of America’s superiority, for Ahmed Emin, are their competency in cultivating experts, building dams and other building in Panama, Philippines and Cuba, their material and moral influence all over the world as well as their unwillingness to have political aspirations on Turkey. 93 “İktisadi Tehlikeler,” Vakit, 23 August 1919. 25 same time, I have assigned the numbers to the articles according to the scale, which makes the methodology pretty subjective. These are the drawbacks of this methodology. However, these charts allow the reader to see the long-term changes in attitude at first glance. Furthermore, because it demonstrates how many times the nations are mentioned in the articles, it enables one to come up with some interpretations looking at how the bars are scattered on the graph. Nevertheless, it is not the claim of this thesis that these graphs are the reflections of the truth. To avoid this trap, in this thesis, the qualitative analyses of the article against the historical context are added. In other words, the contents of the articles are not overlooked in favor of the numerical data. Rather, these charts are instrumentally used in the interpretations. In the last part of the third chapter, a theoretical discussion is carried out around Ahmed Emin’s different ideas at different times. The approaches of Peter Burke and Charlotte Linde are drawn upon in order to explain the patterns of the changes in the positions of Ahmed Emin and how he reconstructs the past as well as his erstwhile ideas after a long time. His manner of reconstruction is explained by the categories of sharpening, leveling, condensation and displacement. Furthermore, the pursuit of coherence of both the “self” and the “society” is made use of as a theoretical tool for understanding the complexity embedded in the texts composed at different times, against different backgrounds and appealing to different addressees. 26 CHAPTER II: FROM MUDROS TO LAUSANNE: AHMED EMIN’S CHANGING STANCES In this chapter, I will lay out the evolving stances and opinions of Ahmed Emin in the armistice period. This period, starting with the Mudros Armistice concluded between the warring sides, includes the Paris Peace Conference, the establishment of the League of Nations, the Greek invasion of Anatolia and the nationalist resistance to this assault, the Sèvres Treaty, the Mudanya Armistice, and the long process of the Lausanne Peace Conference. Therefore, although it looks like a short amount of time, it comprises multiple critical turning points regarding the fate of a declining empire. Against this background of events, I will trace the position of Ahmed Emin, which was subject to change as all these historical events took place. In doing so, I will break down the period into smaller parts in accordance with the major events of the time and the turning points in his life. The periodization will be as follows: (1) Between the Mudros Armistice and the Malta Exile, (2) from the end of the Malta Exile to the beginning of Lausanne Peace Conference; lastly, (3) the Lausanne Negotiations Period. Between Mudros Armistice and the Malta Exile Between the Mudros Armistice (October 31, 1918) and the Exile to Kutahya (March 10 - July 14, 1919) Just after the end of the Great War, the predominant feeling in the Ottoman capital was anxiety and uneasiness regarding the fate of the country. Ahmed Emin was not an 27 exception. Following the de facto invasion of Istanbul by the Allies (British, French and Italians), two weeks after the conclusion of the armistice94, he wrote on this question for a couple of months, elaborating upon the possibility of the invasion, partitioning, and dismemberment of the Empire. However, as the first shock of the defeat disappeared, he came up with various opinions as to the best solution in such a chaotic atmosphere. He exhibited different stances towards a variety of developments taking place in this period. During long years of the Unionist oppression, the members of Liberty and Entente Party were exiled and persecuted. The aftermath of the First World War provided them with the opportunity to take revenge from the Unionists. The political polarization and the unstable atmosphere are reflected upon the press as well.95 The first issue that he placed a great emphasis upon was unity (vahdet) among the members of the homeland.96 He made references to the never-ending rivalry between the Unionists and their enemies, specifically to the demonization of the Unionists right after the War, who were considered to be war criminals since they deported Armenians from eastern and western Anatolia and caused an immense number of deaths.97 In spite of these accusations and the crimes of the Unionists, Ahmed Emin held that it was not proper to take a position that damaged the unity of the people. He called this kind of position 94 The armistice was concluded on 31 October 1918, between the delegates of the Allies, Admiral Calthorpe, and an Ottoman delegation headed by Rauf Bey. Its twenty-five clauses, in essence, envisioned the surrender of the Ottoman Empire. Zürcher, p. 133. 95 Tezcan, p. 52. 96 “Yeni Müdahale,” Vakit, 13 November 1918. 97 “Fikri Münakaşa Sahasında,” Vakit, 16 November 1918; Briton C. Busch, Mudros to Lausanne: Britain's Frontier in West Asia, 1918-1923. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1976. p. 166; Sina Akşin. İstanbul Hükümetleri ve Milli Mücadele I. Ankara: Türkiye İş Bankası, Kültür Yayınları, 2004. p. 30. 28 “partisanship” (fırkacılık)98, and denounced it on the grounds that it deteriorates the unity needed during an invasion. As asserted above, the war crimes attributed to the Ottoman administrators during the war were one of the critical questions at the time. Among these war crimes were the deportations of Armenians, the protraction of the war, and the mistreatment of war captives.99 The Armenian question was the most significant for Ahmed Emin in the early months of the occupation, as it was for many other intellectuals. He repeatedly mentioned and discussed the issue in his articles, coming up with suggestions to solutions. According to him, what was needed was the liquidation of the past, and building the future (maziyi tasfiye, istikbali inşa).100 What he means with this phrase is to hold the war crimes trials and the punishment of the criminals (the liquidation of the past), and to found a modern state that envisions a state-society relationship on the basis of citizenship rather than any blood tie or ethnic characteristics (building the future).101 At this time, Ahmed Emin was much more sympathetic, or at least empathetic, towards Armenians; commiserating with their sorrows, and condemning the harsh policies towards them.102 However, it is hard to find this kind of a mild approach towards the 98 “Yeni Mücadele Cepheleri,” Vakit, 4 January 1919; “Roosevelt'in Vefatı,” Vakit, 10 January 1919. 99 “Hakikati Görmek Cesareti,” Vakit, 21 December 1918; “Sulhun Şekli,” Vakit, 24 December 1918. 100 “Sulh Hazırlığı II,” Vakit, 22 November 1918. 101 “Sulh Hazırlığı I,” Vakit, 21 November 1918. 102 As time runs, towards the end of the period, this sympathy dramatically decreases in his articles due to the changing political circumstances to the detriment of the Armenians in Turkey. 29 Ottoman Greeks (Rums). He criticized them harshly, arguing that they betrayed the state and supported Greek aspirations and the invasion of Anatolia.103 Directly related to the situation and the fate of the Ottoman Armenians, the Russian assault on Turks was one of the major issues brought into question in the articles of Ahmed Emin. Most probably with the intention of mitigating the impact of the accusations of Armenian massacres, by the west, against Turks, he frequently mentioned the bad treatment of the Turkish war captives by Russians.104 Furthermore, Russian patronage for Armenians ended in failure. However, prior to the protection and the intervention of the foreign powers, Ottomans had had peaceful relationships with all non-Muslim minorities. This was not peculiar to Russian patronage; other attempts to protect Ottoman Christians negatively affected the lives of those who were intended to be patronized.105 In addition to the question of patronage, the new ideology of Russia was an opportunity of criticism for Ahmed Emin. At those times, he continuously highlighted the Bolshevism as an ideology which is at odds with the liberal/capitalist ideals of the West and specifically of the United States.106 One of the other crucial issues of the time written about by Ahmed Emin was the political stance that needed to be taken by the Ottoman government towards the Allies. According to him, the Ottoman government should inspire confidence in the Allies by 103 “Sulh Hazırlığı III,” Vakit, 23 November 1918; “His ile Akıl Arasında,” Vakit, 25 November 1918. According to Criss, the position of the Rums was clearly unfavorable to the Turks. For instance, for her there is a possibility that the Üsküdar fire in 1919 was an arson organized by the Rum inhabitants of the neighborhood in order to drive the Turks out of the area. Criss, p. 109. 104 “Rusyadaki Esirlerimiz,” Vakit, 24 January 1919. 105 “Kabiliyet Meselesi,” Vakit, 2 March 1919. 106 Here is an emphasis, since Ahmed Emin during all the period wrote as a sincere supporter of America. His articles in which he makes an effort to promote the Turco-American relationship are innumerable. 30 demonstrating the ability of the country to govern itself independently.107 The ideals of “the purification of the past and building the future” are linked to this consideration in that Ottomans were able to judge and punish their criminals and fairly treat all the members of the country. The ideal of the modern state appears to be significant, envisioning a country in which all the rights of the minorities will be under the protection of the constitution. Keeping in mind that this was one of the most crucial issues for the Western Powers, he attempted to prove that Ottomans were able to achieve the same goal without being coerced by foreign countries. As a solution to the problems that the country was going through, Ahmed Emin co-founded the Wilsonian League, along with other eminent intellectual figures, lawyers, and chief editors of some major newspapers in Istanbul.108 The main purpose of the society was to achieve the independence of the country as envisioned by the famous fourteen principles of Wilson, the president of the United States at the time.109 In addition to this goal, a desire for an American aid110 was shared by the members of this society. Ahmed Emin was also a passionate defender of an American aid. The famous 107 “İtilaf Devletleriyle Münasebetimiz,” Vakit, 9 February 1919. 108 The representatives of the prominent newspapers held a meeting in Vakit Printing House and decided to send a note to Wilson who was in Paris at the time. The essence of this note was the demand that the USA provides Turkey with peace for a certain period of time as well as financial assistance to Turkey and founding a new regime by sending experts to Turkey. Halide E. Adıvar, Türk'ün Ateşle İmtihanı. İstanbul: Özgür Yayınları, 2004. p. 23-24. “Bir İzah,” Vakit, 7 December 1918. While he stresses the sovereignty of nation, he does not neglect to praise the dynasty and states that the sultan should not misunderstand this attitude. This is because, he argues, those committed to the fourteen points of Wilson continue to keep their respect for the dynasty. “Karilerimle Bir Hasbihal,” Vakit, 15 November 1918. Furthermore, in January 1919, he calls the Ottoman dynasty as the pioneer of the idea of reform, and sacrificed plenty of members of it. “Bir Tarihi Ananemiz,” Vakit, 18 January 1919. 109 110 The famous word used for this meaning was müzaheret. However, it was never understood to be only a backing by the opponents of idea of mandate. Those who were for the foreign support/protection had long been accused to be the advocates of mandate, which is a suspect word according to the official ideology of the new Turkish republic. 31 word used as a counterpart to “aid” was müzaheret. Although it is only an “aid”, it was never understood to be just a backing by the opponents of idea of mandate. Those who were for the foreign support or protection had long been accused of being the advocates of mandate, which is a suspect word according to the official ideology of the new Turkish republic.111 Ahmed Emin extensively wrote on this issue, in pursuit of an American “aid”, in his words. While he was writing tacitly in the early months of the period, following the coming of the American council for inspection led by Admiral Bristol, he started writing on the issue almost every day getting into the details of his arguments for mandate. In March 1919, Ahmed Emin was exiled to Kütahya by the Ottoman government, since he raised criticisms very harshly in his articles and revealed some government acts of corruption.112 He spent four months in Kütahya in exile. From the End of the Kutahya Exile (July 14, 1919) to the Malta Exile (March 21, 1920) After returning from Kütahya to Istanbul, he continued writing in support of the American mandate. During these months, the amount of articles written on this issue skyrocketed. Not only did he demonstrate his support, he also devoted full articles to discussing the issue of “why we should ask for protection.” Concentration on this specific issue, to a great extent, was related to the trip of the Inter-Allied Commission of 111 In order to see how these accusations are carried out see; Mine Erol. Türkiye’de Amerikan Mandası Meselesi, 1919-1920. Giresun: İleri Basımevi, 1972. 112 Before his exile, he criticized the government both for its inability to govern the country in the face of all the threats, and for some cabinet members’ involvement in corruptive acts. For instance, he tells the story of how he reveals some secret contract made between the government and some millers. Yalman, Yakın Tarihte Gördüklerim ve Geçirdiklerim: 1, pp. 335-337. 32 Inquiry composed of American, British, French, and Italian delegates under the leadership of the American delegate Admiral Mark Bristol.113 Ahmed Emin’s aspiration for persuading the insiders (Istanbul government and the Anatolian movement) and the outsiders (American administration) faded as time elapsed, and ultimately, in March 1920, he admitted that it was no longer one of the political solutions. Instead, he mentioned Sweden as a possible protector for Turkey from Europe.114 While he was striving for American protection, the possibility of independence in accordance with “self-determination” as envisioned by Wilson’s fourteen points was one of the crucial issues for him. He made a great effort to prove that Anatolia and its Turkish and Kurdish populations deserved to have an independent state. For him, the unity of the territory inhabited by Turks and Kurds should be preserved.115 Here is an exclusion of Rums, Armenians and Jews. He gets around this problem by various arguments, one of which is that Rums are not loyal to the country, so they cannot be considered citizens of the new state. Armenians collaborated with the enemy forces and 113 “The Smyrna inquiry commission, which adopted for its official name the title of ‘Interallied Commission of Inquiry on the Greek Occupation of Smyrna and Adjacent Districts,’ held a total of fortysix meetings between August 12 and October 15, 1919. While the initial and concluding sessions took place in Constantinople, the bulk of the Commission’s labors was accomplished in the field. Twenty meetings were held in Smyrna; the remainder were called in other towns over which the Greeks had extended their control: Menemen, Magnesia, Aivili, Aidin, Girova, Nazili, and Oudemisch. In all, the Commission took the testimony of one hundred seventy-five witnesses. These included not only Turks and Greeks but also Americans, Englishmen, Italians, and Frenchmen, as well as members of various minority groups such as Armenians and Jews. When all witnesses had been heard, one fact emerged most clearly: Greeks and Turks accused each other, and the testimony of neither was honest.” Buzanski, Peter M. "The Interallied Investigation of the Greek Invasion of Smyrna, 1919." The Historian 25, no.3 (1963), pp. 329330. 114 “Siyaset İhtiyacı II,” Vakit, 16 March 1920. 115 “Kürtler ve Kürdistan,” Vakit, 14 August 1919. Actually, his mind is a bit confused about Kurds. At times he defends autonomy for them, and in some other cases he maintains that Turks and Kurds are inextricably intermeshed. Especially during the negotiations on the fate of Mosul in Lausanne he was a passionate advocate of the latter argument. For further analysis of the issue see; “İngiltere ve Biz,” Vakit, 25 August 1919; “Türkler ve Ermeniler,” Vakit, 20 September 1919; “Ümit Meselesi,” Vakit, 29 September 1919. 33 killed thousands of Turks during the First World War.116 Although Jews were not as disloyal as the others, some of them “forgot their Ottomanness.”117 The status of Arab lands and the fate of Arab peoples was not a matter of debate: Modern Turkey had no claim on the Arab lands; they should be allowed to found their own states.118 For Ahmed Emin, it was a burden for Turks to be responsible for what was going on in Arab lands and to sacrifice Turkish troops in faraway lands.119 The only way to deal with this population problem was to include those of the non-Muslims who were loyal to the state and to exclude the others, such as “Rums-with-Greek sentiments,” treating them as foreigners.120 The practical method of this exclusion was clear for Ahmed Emin: population exchange (mübadele).121 Therefore, his views on citizenship cannot be considered as inclusive. Nevertheles, he is bold enough to defend ceding a sufficient amount of territory in Eastern Anatolia to the Armenians.122 Therefore, it is safe to argue that he is definitely against fetishizing territory. 116 “Yunanlılık Meseleleri,” Vakit, 5 November 1919. 117 “Namzet Listemiz,” Vakit, 7 December 1919. 118 “Balfour'un Beyanatı,” Vakit, 30 November 1919. 119 “İktisadi Esarete Karşı,” Vakit, 7 February 1923. He reiterates his ideas regarding the independence and the borders of the new state, just after the First Lausanne Conference, when the capitulations and the territory of Turkey would be at the heart of the debate. 120 “Yunanlılık Meseleleri,” Vakit, 5 November 1919. 121 According to Ahmed Emin, before First World War, Venizelos proposed to exchange the Rums defending Greece and the Turks in Macedonia, which is quite a reasonable proposal. “Gayr-ı Müstahlas Rumlar,” Vakit, 27 February 1922. However, according to Galip Kemali (Söylemezoğlu), the Ottoman ambassador in Athens in 1914, first he brought this idea about during a negotiation with Venizelos as the exchange of the people of Muslims in Macedonia and the Rums living in Aydın province. Galip Kemali Söylemezoğlu, Canlı Tarihler, Hatıralar, Atina Sefareti (1913-1916), İstanbul: Türkiye Yayınevi, 1946. pp.101-102. Cited in Mehmet Yılmaz, “Balkan Savaşı’ndan Sonra Türkiye’den Yunanistan’a Rum Göçleri.” Türkiyat Araştırmaları Dergisi no.10 (Spring 2001), p. 30-31. London: I.B. Tauris, 2004. p. 175 “Siyaset İhtiyacı II”, Vakit, 16 March 1920. He gives the example of Crete for which how Ottomans suffered so much just to retain a piece of land. 122 34 While he was striving for American protection, by mid-September he started writing articles in support of the Anatolian resistance movement. He suggested that the members of this movement are positive and moderate nationalists as opposed to the Unionists—who are the extremists attracting the wrath of Allies123—and they would not go through an authoritarian system under the leadership of one man.124 For Ahmed Emin, this new movement was tolerant to other ethnic groups, and unlike the harsh assimilationist policies of the Unionists, especially during the Second Constitutional Era. Within this framework, he was pleased with the withdrawal of French troops from the Adana region, which to some extent resulted from local resistance.125 Furthermore, Ahmed Emin interpreted the deteriorating relations between France and Russia to be positive for Turkey.126 Towards the end of 1919, the Paris Peace Conference was nearing its conclusion. It was understood that the USA would not meddle in the problems of the Middle East.127 As a product of this long-lasting conference, “[o]n 18 January the Peace Conference of Paris met, on 25 January a commission was named to draft a Covenant for a League of Nations, on 13 February a tentative draft of the Covenant was agreed upon and on 14 February this draft Covenant was reported to the conference”.128 However, the USA, as 123 This emphasis on their non-alignment with Unionists is because they were the war criminals in the eyes of Allies. 124 “Beyanname-i Hümayun,” Vakit, 22 September 1919; “Milliyetin Hedefi,” Vakit, 23 September 1919; “Harekat-ı Milliye,” Vakit, 7 October 1919. 125 “Hakkaniyete Doğru,” Vakit, 18 February 1920. 126 “Fransa'nın Sesi,” Vakit, 25 February 1920. 127 Zürcher, Turkey: A Modern History, p. 175. 128 Pitman B. Potter, "Origin of the System of Mandates Under the League of Nations." The American Political Science Review. 16.4 (1922), p. 569. 35 the most powerful country in the world, did not accept membership in this organization, resulting in the abortion of the initiative.129 In the meantime, Ahmed Emin, argued that the USA should participate in the peace negotiations and the independence of Turkey, as they did for Bulgarians.130 In addition, he rigorously rejected the Rum newspapers’ accusation that Turks were inclined to cooperate with Germans.131 His defensive attitude appeared in the case of British claims that Turks pursued the goal of Turanism;132 however, for Ahmed Emin, this was absolutely false. The Ottoman parliament in Istanbul was raided by British troops on March 16, 1920 along with the de facto occupation of the city, and some of the nationalist deputies were arrested and exiled to Malta.133 Towards the end of March, Ahmed Emin was also sent into exile to Malta, together with a number of prominent figures of the time, most of whom were members of the CUP. They were accused of being involved in the Armenian massacres. 134 His major fault was that he published articles in Vakit in support of the resistance movement in Anatolia. 129 Busch, p. 359. 130 “Amerika'nın Müdahalesi,” Vakit, 18 January 1920. 131 “Bir Propaganda Silahı,” Vakit, 10 January 1920. 132 “İngiltere Siyaseti,” Vakit, 5 February 1920. 133 In this wave of arrestments, the most prominent members of Karakol (the organization founded by some of the Unionists in the aftermath of the Great War in order to protect the members of the CUP from the revenge of the Allies) as well, were interned on Malta. Erik J. Zürcher, The Unionist Factor, p. 122. Arrestments started at the beginning of 1919. On May 28, 78 people were sent to Malta. The exiles started in March 1919 and it had lasted till November 1920. In this period of 20 months, 144 people were sent to Malta. Tezcan, 102. Bilal Şimşir argues that according to the documents in the British archives, he had arrived in Malta on 31 March 1920, while A. Emin gives the date as 27 March. Bilal N. Şimşir. Malta Sürgünleri. İstanbul: Milliyet Yayınları, 1976. pp. 136, 181. Ahmed Emin details his experiences before and after his exile in his memoirs. Yalman. Yakın Tarihte Gördüklerim ve Geçirdiklerim: 2, p. 55. 134 36 From the End of Malta Exile (November 4, 1921) to the Beginning of Lausanne Peace Negotiations (November 20, 1922) Between the Return from Malta (November 4, 1921) and the Genoa Conference (April 10, 1922) Nearly one and a half years of Ahmed Emin’s exile in Malta witnessed several critical turning points and events, the most critical of which was the Peace Treaty of Sèvres (August 10, 1920) signed between the allies and the Ottoman government. According to this treaty, all the remaining Ottoman lands were to be partitioned among the western powers.135 Against the Greek invaders, the Anatolian resistance responded harshly and a new war erupted after long years of devastation. When Ahmed Emin returned to Istanbul, the Turkish side came a long way in this conflict, and some cities were recaptured from the Greek armies, such as, Zonguldak and Antalya.136 After Sèvres, the nationalist resistance movement won the battles of Inonu I-II (January, April 1921) 137 and Sakarya Battle (September 1921).138 In his first articles after returning home, in accordance with the political and military context, he supported the success of the Anatolian movement. According to him, they had grounded their initiative well and avoided partisanship and one-man 135 Sina Akşin, Turkey from Empire to Revolutionary Republic: The Emergence of the Turkish Nation from 1789 to the Present. Washington Square, N.Y: New York University Press, 2007. pp. 156-160. 136 Ibid. p. 166. 137 Ibid. pp. 163-165. 138 Ibid. pp. 168. 37 tyranny.139 Furthermore, in order to introduce the leader of the movement, he published an interview with Mustafa Kemal, which narrated the details of his life.140 Under his leadership, several cities and towns continued to be recaptured, such as Antep, Adana, Mersin, and Osmaniye.141 However, atrocities committed by the Greeks were going on in Izmir and for Ahmed Emin a call for a commission of inquiry needed to occur.142 In the meantime, since the Ankara Agreement was concluded in October 20, 1921, he did not hide his contentment about this situation. This is because, in his articles during the period, French modernism and civility along with their specific importance for Ottomans were frequently mentioned. The wave of friendship starting with Italians continued with the French.143 However, the political stance of Britain under the leadership of Lloyd George was still hostile to the nationalist movement.144 During these months, even if the US was not deeply involved in Middle Eastern politics, they withdrew to a great extent, (they did not participate the Paris Conference held among the foreign ministers of the allies145), Ahmed Emin maintained his everlasting interest in America. In the context of a shattered economy, American capital would play an important role in the task of recovering it. Furthermore, in another 139 “Sağlam Temel,” Vakit, 5 November 1921. The very early years of Turkish Republic proves not to be true this over-optimistic opinion. 140 “Büyük Millet Meclisi Reisi Müşir Gazi Mustafa Kemal Paşa Hazretlerinin Tarihçe-i Hayatı,” Vakit, 10 January 1922. 141 Utkan Kocatürk. Atatürk ve Türk Devrimi Kronolojisi, 1918-1938. Ankara: Ankara Üniversitesi Basımevi, 1973. pp. 200-201. 142 “Ekalliyetlerimiz ve Tarih,” Vakit, 17 November 1921. 143 “Canlı Misal,” Vakit, 7 November 1921. 144 “İngiltere'de Dahili Vaziyet,” Vakit, 7 March 1922. 145 Busch, pp. 334-35; Laurence Evans. United States Policy and the Partition of Turkey, 1914-1924. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1965. pp. 359-65. 38 context, he mentions an association, University Club (Darü’l-fünun Kulübü) founded by the Americans in Istanbul, whose goal was to create a collective mind in Istanbul, which would bring the different communities together in shared social and intellectual spheres. He went on supporting this attempt by getting into details of it.146 While he was supportive of Americans at the time, regarding the British he held critical stance. Between 22-26 March 1922, the Paris Conference was convened as aforementioned. At the beginning of this conference, Lord Curzon, the foreign minister of the UK, proposed an armistice between the Turks and the Greeks.147 Thereon, Ahmed Emin stated that this would not be advantageous for the Turkish side. In the aftermath of the conference, when the British defended the proposal that the Greeks should be granted some parts of Eastern Thrace, he repudiated this and suggested that Greece failed to achieve the task of “deputation”.148 For him, without the meeting of the minimum requirements determined by the Turkish side, an armistice was beside the point. Regarding the Russians he was ambivalent in that he denounced the new regime of Russia and communism as a rival to capitalism of the USA but Russia started taking sides with Turkey. In January 1922, for instance, the Soviet ambassador visited the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ankara government, Yusuf Kemal Bey and Mustafa Kemal, the commander of the Turkish army.149 Even though this was a sign of positive 146 “Gounaris'in Mevkii - Bir İçtima Münasebetiyle,” Vakit, 13 May 1922. 147 Laurence, 362; Eliot G. Mears, Modern Turkey: A Politico-Economic Interpretation, 1908-1923 Inclusive, with Selected Chapters by Representative Authorities. New York: Macmillan Co, 1924. p. 603; “Mütareke Teklifi,” Vakit, 24 March 1922. 148 “Devletlerin Notası,” Vakit, 30 March 1922. 149 Kocatürk, p. 203. 39 relations between Soviets and Turkey, for Ahmed Emin this does not mean that there had been completely peaceful relations between the sides since then. For instance, The day after May 1, 1922, the Workers’ Holiday, he wrote that of what Turks are in need is not solidarity among workers, but a unity of nation. He argued that “we have got to postpone the pleasure of class and party conflicts to a remote future and to seek for only unity for today.”150 Apart from the issue of solidarity of workers versus national unity, he did not approve the rapprochement between the Soviets and Germany.151 According to him, from then on, there was nothing in common with Germany and Turkey, “it became a distant and foreign northern country.” He maintained the line of thought that most of the German newspapers—especially the nationalist ones—supported the Greek military campaign to Ankara in order to annihilate the Turkish presence in Anatolia.152 His ambivalent stance is confirmed by the other developments as well at the time. For instance, while the friendly foreign policy of Soviet Russia regarding Turkey was very 150 For the original quote see; Appendix A. 151 “Çürük Bir Silah,” Vakit, 5 May 1922. “The Treaty of Rapallo between Germany and Soviet Russia, by-product of the Genoa Economic Conference, was signed 16 April 1922. According to Articles I and II of the Treaty, all mutual claims between the two countries were annulled; Article III restored full diplomatic relations; Article IV introduced the most favored nation clause into the commercial dealings of the two parties; and in Article V the German government declared its readiness to encourage trade between German industry and Soviet Russia.” Gordon H. Mueller. "Rapallo Reexamined: a New Look at Germany's Secret Military Collaboration with Russia in 1922." Military Affairs: the Journal of Military History, Including Theory and Technology. 40.3 (1976), p. 109. According to Norman Paech, this treaty was the first proof that two countries of different ideologies can come to terms, provided they manage to be respectful for the other’s sovereignty and right to self-determination. Peach, Norman. "The Role of the Treaty of Rapallo in International Law and the Principle of Peaceful Coexistence." International Review of Contemporary Law. (1988), p. 51. 152 “Çürük Bir Silah,” Vakit, 5 May 1922. 40 well received by Ahmed Emin, their interest in the protection of the non-Muslims of Turkey—if it remains in the past—leads to his indignation153. From The Genoa Conference (April 10, 1922) to Lausanne Peace Negotiations (November 20, 1922) Closer to the end of the period, the Anatolian resistance movement began to get the upper hand against the Greek armies in the western Anatolia. Although the clash of arms continued, for instance, two Greek warships bombed Samsun in July 1922,154 it became clear that the Turkish army was militarily superior to the Greeks. The Battle of Dumlupınar (August, 30, 1922) was the last battle fought between the sides, and the winning party was the Turkish army.155 Following this victory, some critical cities were recaptured from the Greek forces, such as, Afyon, Iznik, Aydın, Manisa, Bursa, and Izmir in August and September. These victories were the initial signals of the peace negotiations starting with the Mudanya Armistice followed by Lausanne negotiations. From his writings, during this period, one gathers that Ahmed Emin was a passionate supporter of the Turkish resistance in Anatolia. In June, he argued that the Greeks started acknowledging the inevitability of defeat but he was against 153 On 23 May 1922, he published an article, titled “Tarihteki Tekerrürler” (“The Repetitions in History”) narrating how Russians provoked the non-Muslim communities of Ottoman Empire pretending that their rights will be protected during the last seventy five years. “Tarihteki Tekerrürler,” Vakit, 23 May 1922. 154 Emrullah Nutku, “Samsun Bombardımanı ve Kahramanlık Yarışı”, Yakın Tarihimiz. 4.41 (1962), p. 59. Cited in Coşkun Topal, “Doğu Harekatı Sonrasi Batı Cephesinin Lojistiği ve Karadeniz’in Güvenliği Sorunu.” Trakya University Journal of Social Science. 10.1 (2008): p. 109. 155 Yahya. Akyüz, Türk Kurtuluş Savaşı Ve Fransız Kamuoyu. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 1988. p. 367. According to Mete Tunçay, between Sakarya Battle and the Battle of Dumlupınar, Ankara government did not pretend to be detached from the USSR, rather, this year witnessed good relations between Turkey and the Soviet Union. Mete Tunçay, Türkiyeʼde Sol Akımlar, 1908-1925. Ankara: Bilgi Yayınevi, 1967. p. 131. 41 discontinuing the war until the enemy is defeated absolutely. In relation to the consequences of the war and post-war Greco-Turkish and Turco-Armenian relations, he elaborated the idea of population exchange (mübadele). He gave the example of the exchange of the Greek and Bulgarian populations carried out in Macedonia.156 He continues to discuss the same idea in September and October. For instance, when M. Miletios, the Orthodox Patriarch of the Phanar, went against the deportation of the Rums, he criticized him arguing that Greeks carried out propaganda against Turkey in Europe writing “black books” and spread the perception that Anatolia was a place for persecution. Then he asked how it can be consistent to oppose leaving country and introducing it as a torture chamber.157 He calls them ungrateful and promotes the idea of exchange of not only the population but also of property.158 Upon all the complaints on atrocities committed against non-Muslims, a call for inquiry was made by Britain, and that was followed by the affirmation of the US in June.159 Ahmed Emin told this news excitedly and suggested that Turkey and the US 156 “Mübadele Meselesine Dair,” Vakit, 13 July 1922. 157 “Zafer ve İtidal,” Vakit, 9 September 1922. 158 “Yeni Muhaceret-i Akvam,” Vakit, 16 October 1922. 159 “The affair that touched American policy most deeply was that of the commission of inquiry proposed by the British in the spring of 1922. The commission was not important in itself; it never actually conducted an inquiry and by the time it had been organized Anatolia was in the process of being reconquered by the Nationalists, from whom it would be necessary to request permission to conduct a field survey-an unlikely occurrence under the circumstances. On May 15, 1922, British Ambassador Geddes wrote to Secretary Hughes, referring to the reported massacres and deportations of Christians by the Angora authorities in Anatolia. The British government had assumed a ‘serious responsibility’ toward the Christians of Turkey by its proposals regarding them in the terms of a peace treaty with Turkey put forward in March, said Geddes, and the British government therefore proposed that Britain, France, Italy, and the United States each appoint an officer to a commission which would investigate the reports of massacres and other atrocities. On the heels of this note came a cable from Bristol, who had been informed by his British colleague of the approach to the United States, recommending that the United States decline to participate in the inquiry and giving six reasons for his opinion. They were: first, that the events which prompted the inquiry had taken place a year before and were the result of French actions in Cilicia; second, the behavior of the Greek Army at the time of the occupation of Smyrna in 1919, and the Greek atrocities in the summer campaign of 1921; third, there were many indications that the British were using 42 should have had good relations. Furthermore he aspired to draw the support of Americans in Lausanne.160 However, in the meantime, when the US diplomats expressed their apprehension on American institutions in Turkey, Ahmed Emin stood against this attitude. Although he criticized this specific attitude, he did not include all Americans. In his approach, there were some people in the US who were against Turks; however, this should not allow one to assume all of them to be of one mind.161 On October 20, 1922, the Armistice of Mudanya was concluded between Turkey and Britain, France, and Italy. Under the terms agreed, “Turkey retained all of Anatolia and Eastern Thrace.” 162 Regarding the situation of the Turks remaining in West Thrace, Ahmed Emin claimed that there was ongoing persecution by the Greeks. Although stressing that the new Turkey was not an imperialist country, he reminded that in case the harsh treatment did not cease, Turkish troops would intervene in the region. Since the British backed Greece unconditionally throughout the war, he did not hide his reservations about them. He concentrated his criticisms on a core cadre within the ministry of foreign affairs in the UK, no matter which government comes to power. The fact that Lloyd George, prime minister, no longer continued to be in power did not lead the recently published report on these events-which was the immediate occasion of the inquiry proposal-as anti-Turkish propaganda to strengthen their position in the Near East; fourth, the plight of the minorities had been well known for a long time, and it was significant that the present outcry coincided with British attempts to induce the French to take a strong line with the Nationalists; fifth, the publicity which the British were giving the inquiry proposals indicated that its purpose was political propaganda.” … “On July 19, however, the British Charge informed the Secretary that, in deference to French opinion, it had been decided, in view of the fact that the Allies were still at war with Turkey, to place the inquiry in the hands of the International Red Cross. Events in Anatolia caught up with this new proposal and the Red Cross did not carry out the investigation.” Evans, pp. 341-43. 160 “Amerika'nın İştiraki,” Vakit, 8 June 1922. He reiterates the same argument in November too. 161 “Amerika'nın İttihamları,” Vakit, 10 June 1922. 162 Joseph C. Grew, “The Lausanne Peace Conference of 1922-1923.” Proceedings of the Massachusetts Historical Society. Third Series, 69, (Oct., 1947 - May, 1950), p. 351. 43 to any major change in British foreign policy.163 In short, the unfriendly British approach towards Turks was not ameliorated upon a government change. Just before the beginning of Lausanne negotiations another major historical event took place. On November 1, 1922, the sultanate was abolished by the Turkish Grand National Assembly and Mehmet IV departed the country after sixteen days, on November 17.164 At the time, Ahmed Emin wrote a few articles on this event, which can be considered among his most emotional ones. Although he expressed his hate of the last sultan overtly, he claimed that his thoughts were based on moderate reasoning. This sentence helps us understand his feelings: “This man whom we cannot avoid denouncing whenever he comes to our mind, will be similarly treated as a curse by all the Muslims of the world following his escape known to everybody.”165 In brief, he celebrated the departure of the last sultan at the time, contrary to his previous excessive respect for the Ottoman dynasty. During Lausanne Negotiations (November 20, 1922—July 23, 1923) Between the First and Second Lausanne Conferences (November 20, 1922—April 23, 1923 During the whole Lausanne period, Ahmed Emin was very interested in the details of what was going on regarding the negotiations. Every day he both reported the news about what was new in Lausanne, and he conveyed his personal comments in the 163 “İngiliz Kabine Tebeddülü,” Vakit, 21 October 1922; “İki Şıktan Biri,” Vakit, 26 November 1922. 164 Ahmad, pp. 50-51. 165 For the original quote see; Appendix A. 44 articles. In these comments, he stood by the position of the Grand National Assembly (GNA), and defended the full independence of Turkey in both political and economic terms.166 Within this context, he focused mainly on two issues, one of which was the capitulations. Turkey should be unfettered from these economic handcuffs.167 The second important issue was the “national oath” (misak-ı milli) and the territorial unity envisioned by this pact.168 As an important part of this oath, the question of Mosul came to the fore. Ahmed Emin’s stance towards the Greeks and Rums falls into line with the official position of the Turkish administration, which is completely negative. For him, Rums betrayed Ottomans standing by the allies during the occupation. Moreover, the Greeks committed atrocities against the Turks in the Balkans. Turkey was not pursuing imperialist goals and was willing to remain in Asia Minor, however if these atrocities were not stopped, a military intervention would be obligatory.169 He sustained this line of thought in the successive months throughout the course of negotiations, arguing that 166 Rahmi Doğanay, “Misak-ı Milli’ye Göre Lozan.” Fırat University Journal of Social Science. 11.2 pp. (2001), p. 288. 167 “Yanlış Yol,” Vakit, 22 November 1922; “Amerika ve Sulh,” Vakit, 23 November 1922; “Gafilane Bir Siyaset,” Vakit, 28 November 1922. Furthermore, he criticizes the British of striving to maximize their interest in the issue of capitulations rather than adopting a principle-driven position. “Çıkar Yol,” Vakit, 5 January 1923. 168 “National oath” (misak-ı milli) is a declaration accepted by the last Ottoman National assembly on 28 January 1920 as the minimum conditions of a peace treaty after the war. In this pact, the territorial borders of Turkey are clearly determined and it became principal reference text for Turkish delegation during Lausanne negotiations. Especially one of the reasons behind the deadlock of the Mosul question and the insistence of the Turkish side is again the same oath which can be considered the manifesto of the Turkish national resistance movement. M N. Yengin, Türkiye'de Ulus Devletin Dinamikleri. İstanbul: Bir Harf Yayınları, 2006. p. 35. For a further discussion of the pact regarding it significance in the transformation of an empire to a nation-state see; Taner Akçam, From Empire to Republic: Turkish Nationalism and the Armenian Genocide. London: Zed Books, 2004. p. 5. For a few examples of how Misak-ı Milli is perceived by the American press see; Osman Ulagay. Amerikan Basınında Türk Kurtuluş Savaşı. İstanbul: Yelken Matbaası, 1974. pp. 212, 264, 282, 301. 169 “Yunanistan'daki Türkler,” Vakit, 24 November 1922. 45 Greeks should be punished for their encroachment in Anatolia.170 His severe attitude continued in another issue about the Greek presence in Turkey. Regarding the fate of the Rum Orthodox Patriarchate of Phanar in Istanbul, his thoughts differed from the Turkish delegates in Lausanne. For him, it was unacceptable to continue to have the patriarchate from then on, because it is the place for intrigues against the Turkish state in relation to foreign powers.171 While he adopted these kinds of thoughts on the Greeks, his feelings on the Armenians do not differ much. As the negotiations continued, he addressed accusations made by the League of Nations against Turks of kidnapping and hiding Armenian children by asking why no one inquired about Turkish children imprisoned and tortured in Armenian institutions.172 In addition to this criticism based on a comparison, he maintained that Armenian politicians and their supporters involved in various intrigues in the name of the Armenian homeland were the obstacles in the way of peace.173 Regarding the Americans, he maintained his positive approach, and promoted the amelioration of the relationship between Turkey and the USA. While he remained sympathetic to Americans, he also became critical of them because of the fact that they were only interested in the troubles of the Eastern Christians, overlooking the sorrows of Muslims, especially the Turks in Crete and Macedonia.174 As the negotiations continued, 170 “Tasfiye Yolu,” Vakit, 21 January 1923. 171 “Patrikhane Dirilemez,” Vakit, 23 December 1922. 172 “Cemiyet-i Akvam ve Biz,” Vakit, 22 December 1922. 173 “Fransa'nın Rolü,” Vakit, 11 January 1923. 174 “Yunanistan'daki Türkler,” Vakit, 24 November 1922. For further discussion of the policy of the USA towards Christians in Anatolia during Lausanne negotiations see; Leland J. Gordon, American Relations with Turkey, 1830-1930: An Economic Interpretation. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1932. pp. 31-34. 46 he raised similar criticisms towards the American delegate in Lausanne because they were not involved in issues other than the situation of Eastern Christians. In Ahmed Emin’s words, “they do play the mute”.175 Together with these criticisms, as an American-sympathizer, he called for the arbitration of the USA in the financial problems with France after First Lausanne Conference had ended.176 In addition, when an American Admiral Chester attempted to take over the railway concession177, he supported the attraction of American capital into Turkey, boosting the qualities of Americans. The British, during this period, were the primary obstacle in front of peace for Ahmed Emin. Up until January 1922, he discusses the negative attitudes of the British, especially Lord Curzon, the foreign minister. In Ahmed Emin’s mind, he was the politician who imposed a Sèvres-like treaty, in pursuit of partitioning Anatolia. As an extension of this goal, they gave full support to the Greeks.178 On the straits question, their objective was domination over other countries, and to deprive them of the tools of 175 “Mr. Childs'ın Hataları,” Vakit, 15 January 1923. 176 “Son Vaziyet ve Devası,” Vakit, 21 February 1923. “Chester İşi,” Vakit, 7 April 1923. On 9 April 1923 Turkish Grand National Assembly passed a bill allowing the Chester Concession, named after Admiral Chester who led the US syndicate. The concession’s “terms had specified that the American group was to construct and manage a 2.000 km railway and in return be allowed mining rights within an area of 20 km. on each side of the railway (a total area of 8,000 square km.)”. However, after a while, the project was not realized by the American group. Akşin, From Empire to Revoluitionary Republic, p. 83. For further discussion of this project and its repercussions see; Orhan. Duru, Amerikan Gizli Belgeleriyle Türkiye'nin Kurtuluş Yılları. İstanbul: Türkiye İş Bankası Kültür Yayınları, 2001. pp. 145, 154; Eliot G. Mears, “Transportation and Communication.” In Modern Turkey: A Politico-Economic Interpretation, 1908-1923 Inclusive, with Selected Chapters by Representative Authorities, edited by Eliot G. Mears. New York: Macmillan Co, 1924. p. 235. For the discussion of the project in American press see; Ulagay, pp. 260-61, 282-85, 290-97. 177 “Sevr'in İkinci Tab'ı,” Vakit, 31 January 1923; Akşin, From Empire to Revolutionary Republic, pp. 182-183. For a few examples of Lord Curzon’s sarcastic attitude towards Turkish delegation see; Joseph C. Grew, "The Peace Conference of Lausanne, 1922-1923." Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society. 98.1 (1954), p. 4. 178 47 defense.179 However, right after the end of the First Conference, he maintained that by the time there were only a few subjects of disagreement between Turkey and the British180, while France turned out to be the major rival against the Turkish delegates this time. Taking a look at Ahmed Emin’s approach to the attitude of the British delegates, there appears a nuanced distinction between the Britain in general, and a small fraction within the foreign ministry in particular181, or between the British people and some delegates in Lausanne. The most heated debates were held on the Mosul question among the other spaces of contention with Britain. Ahmed Emin defended one of the major arguments of the Turkish delegate, stating that, Turks and Kurds were inseparable from each other, so the total sum of their population was a majority in Mosul. Hence, the city should be left to Turkish side.182 Apparently, the British delegates opposed this argument. He put forth that the call for peace of Bonar Law, the prime minister, and the wish for the British delegate to be policemen in the city constituted a contradiction.183 Towards the end of the First Conference, he started lowering his voice and argued that the Mosul question could be postponed to a future time and at the beginning of the second, reiterated the 179 “Gayelerini Söyleyebilirler mi?,” Vakit, 7 December 1922. 180 “Roller Değişti,” Vakit, 6 February 1923. 181 For numerous examples of this line of thought see; “İngiliz Parlamentosunda,” Vakit, 16 February 1923; “Engel Olan Kim?,” Vakit, 27 February 1923. “Musul Petrolleri ve İngiltere,” Vakit, 27 November 1922. The Turkish delegation headed by İsmet Pasha, elaborates the thesis that Kurds and Turks are descended from the same racial origin, and both sides have got to co-exist and separation is absolutely dangerous. Kurds ought to embrace the Independence War, since the war belongs to them as it belongs to the Turks. Tarık Z. Tunaya, Türkiye’de Siyasal Partiler 2. İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları, 2003. pp. 210-11; Zürcher, Turkey: A Modern History, 161. 182 183 “Tazyikin İki Şartı,” Vakit, 4 December 1922. 48 same view; whereas previously during the First Conference, he emphasized the “national oath” and the full independence of the country on the same issue184. Similar to the British, Ahmed Emin changed his attitude as the French foreign policy moved back and forth. Since he took a nationalist position during the time, the diplomatic attacks of the French, especially in the sphere of economy, displeased him and this was reflected in his writings. At the inception of the conference, Ahmed Emin wrote that the Italians and French left the floor to the British and constituted an allied front against Turkey, although they supported previously.185 For him the French pursued a quite independent and clear policy on the Eastern question, making reference to the Ankara Agreement (October 20, 1921). Nevertheless, due to the involvement of Britain, and because they have lost the French good sense (akl-ı selim), which would have facilitated the resolutions of the conflicts, the Turko-French relationship during Lausanne did not go well.186 He expressed his disappointment in the French, of whom he did not hide his admiration in the past. During the months of February, March, and April of 1922, the intercession period, he elaborated the French insistence on financial issues and the resolution of the Turkish party on full economic independence. The French’s economic considerations were not peculiar to Turkey; they intended to cripple Germany financially by adding heavy conditions to the treaty as well.187 184 “Anlamadıkları Hakikat,” Vakit, 10 January 1923; Besides, he maintains the same idea between the First and Second Conferences. “Tefsir ve Tatbikat Farkları,” Vakit, 6 March 1923. 185 “Makus Neticeler,” Vakit, 5 December 1922. 186 “Fransa'nın Rolü,” Vakit, 11 January 1923. 187 “Tasfiye Yolu,” Vakit, 21 January 1923; “Cihan Siyaset Sahnesinde,” Vakit, 28 February 1923; “Projemiz ve Devletler,” Vakit, 12 March 1923. For further discussion of Turko-French relations on economic issues and the relentless policy of the French towards Germany see; J. W. W-B. “The Lausanne Conference.”Bulletin of International News. 9.1 (1932), p. 5; Arnold J. Toynbee, “The East After 49 While he was disappointed in the general attitude of the French, regarding the Italian policy in Lausanne he held more optimistic feelings. However this does not mean that he completely adopted the policies of the Italian delegation and did not raise any criticisms. He criticized the Italians, for instance, for joining the allied front led by the British delegation188 and counted them as the representatives of imperialism189 along with the British and the French. Furthermore, immediately before the Second Conference he reminded the Italian government that domination, under no circumstances, could be a means for creating opportunities for Italian capital and labor190. Nonetheless, his criticism did not overweigh his general positive approach. Hence, he promoted the possibility of friendship between Fascist Italy and Turkey both during and after the First Conference.191 What makes this friendship possible was partly the dismemberment of the allied union among the Great Powers. Second Lausanne Conference (April 23, 1923—July 24, 1923) and Its Aftermath In April 23, 1923, the second phase of the peace negotiations started in the same city. As many, Ahmed Emin was hopeful about the culmination of this process, as well; even though at the inception, he expressed some doubts on the uncompromising attitudes of Lausanne.” Foreign Affairs. 2.1 (1923), pp. 84-85; Howard, Harry N. The Partition of Turkey: A Diplomatic History, 1913-1923. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1931. pp. 308-311. 188 “Makus Neticeler,” Vakit, 5 December 1922; Italy, together with France, followed the British foreign policy managed by Lord Curzon, which is the formation of an allied front against “excessive” Turkish demands. Michael. Dockrill, "Britain and the Lausanne Conference: 1922-1923." Milletlerarası Münasebetler Türk Yıllığı. 23 (1993), p. 5. 189 “Çıkar Yol,” Vakit, 5 January 1923. 190 “Cevabımızı Beklerken,” Vakit, 8 April 1923. 191 “Londra'da Yeni İstidatlar,” Vakit, 8 January 1923; “Faşist İtalya,” Vakit, 5 March 1923. 50 the Great Powers, keeping in mind the hostile policy pursued by the previous prime minister of Britain, Lloyd George. In addition, the French delegation’s stiff demands on financial issues adversely affected his expectation of peace.192 Nevertheless, at the end of the day, their willingness to come together as negotiators was the primary sign of a positive consequence. During the Second Conference period, he raised harsh points of criticism against the French delegate of being inflexible in the course of negotiations. The French maintained that Turks violated their rights in Syria. As a response, the Turkish side blamed them for breaking the terms of the Ankara Agreement.193 However, the problem was solved by changing the French delegate. The head of the Turkish delegation, İnonü, and the French delegate, General Pellé fastened the solution of the problem.194 Ahmed Emin was quite pleased with this development, comparing the disagreement between the two countries to the resentments between children. Ahmed Emin, in order to emphasize friendship with France, rejected the authenticity of the news spread by some French sources that Turkey collaborated with the Germans. He pointed out that Turkey had no sympathy or attachment to them. However, looking at his writings on the attitude of the French towards Germans, it is clear that he found the French policy on economic issues 192 “Son Buhranın Mahiyeti,” Vakit, 8 February 1923. Italians’ claim on an island which is so close to the Turkish coast is another negative situation for Ahmed Emin He reminds the cession of the Dodecanese Islands previously and argues that that insistence on one island would lead to distrustfulness. “Lozan'da Vaziyet,” Vakit, 29 April 1923. 193 “Lozan'da Fransızlar,” Vakit, 4 May 1923. 194 Howard, pp. 312-313. For a detailed discussion of the negotiations between the heads of Turkish and French delegations, İsmet Pasha and General Pellé, see; Dockrill, pp. 13-14. 51 very harsh, aiming at paralyzing them.195 Since France adopted similar policies towards Turkey,196 Ahmed Emin’s criticisms were not interrupted during the period. Whereas the negotiations with the French delegation proceeded very uneasily, because regarding many issues, the two countries had disagreements; there was a much more positive atmosphere in Turco-British relations. In this period, he does not mention his differentiation between the British people, who are good, and a fraction within Foreign Ministry who pursues offensive polices on Turkey. At the beginning of the period, he criticizes them of having personal greed.197 Then, regarding the Mosul question, he tells that the British should leave the city,198 since the reason of being obliged to stay there due to the promises made to the Arabs is not plausible. Ahmed Emin maintained his critical attitude toward the non-Muslim peoples of Turkey, particularly, Rums and Armenians. He thought that they provoked the West in legal issues and in the legal framework binding non-Muslims.199 Another space of contention was Turkey’s demand for compensation, and the Venizelos’ offer of Karaağaç. Although Ahmed Emin, together with the Turkish delegation, thought that the ceding of Karaağaç could not correspond to the demanded amount of war reparation. As a result of the pressure of the Great Powers, Turkey ended up receiving only the 195 “Gerginliğin Zevaline Doğru,” Vakit, 5 May 1923. 196 He continuously criticizes France’s demanding policy on financial issues, leaving no room for independence Turkey during April, May and June, 1923. 197 “Konferans'ta Esen Rüzgarlar,” Vakit, 26 April 1923. 198 “Türk Emperyalizmi Var mı?,” Vakit, 12 May 1923. For a full discussion of the British claim on Mosul and its detailed reasons raised in the course of Lausanne negotiations see; Esra Değerli, “Lozan Barış Konferansı’nda Musul.” Balıkesir Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi. 10.18 (2007), pp. 135136. 199 “Son Müşkilat,” Vakit, 1 June 1923. 52 Karaagaç train station.200 Another issue between the sides was the population exchange, which had been supported by Ahmed Emin for a long time. He talked about the problem of the lack of population in Anatolia, and for him, this problem should be resolved by drawing Turks from the Balkans and Russia.201 However, he stated that Greece was unwilling to let the Turks who did not create trouble for the government leave the country, in order to continue to benefit from their labor power.202 Rums, as well, did not want to leave Turkey after the conclusion of the treaty.203 Ahmed Emin, nevertheless, maintained that they should go along with the terms of peace regarding population exchange, since there was no more trust for them in Turkey. While he has varying attitudes towards many countries, when it came to Americans, he almost had an unchanging position. In this period, even if it was not a big necessity, he mentioned the USA. For instance, when he tried to emphasize the everchanging political climate of Ankara, he gave the example of the USA about which one cannot express an opinion without visiting there every year.204 Additionally, although he previously supported the complete ban on alcohol production and consumption, he “Tamirat ve Hüküm,” Vakit, 26 May 1923; “Tamirat İtilafı ve Neticeleri,” Vatan, 29 May 1923. “The Turkish side handed over 100 pages of amendments to the draft treaty it had been given in February. At the end of March, after its experts had studied the amendments, the Entente invited the Turks to reopen negotiations and, on 23 April, the parties reconvened. The Greek and Turkish delegations soon solved their bilateral problems, Turkey receiving a small border correction in Thrace in exchange for renouncing its claim to war reparations.” Zürcher, Turkey: A Modern History, p. 162. 200 201 “Muhacirlerin İskanı,” Vakit, 15 May 1923. 202 “Mübadele Hazırlıkları,” Vakit, 2 August 1923. 203 “İstanbul Rumluğu,” Vakit, 3 June 1923. For a quite detailed discussion of the unwillingness of Rums to leave Istanbul, and the commitment of the Ankara government to include them into the population exchange (mübadele) see; Nihat Erim, “Milletlerarası Daimî Adalet Divanı ve Türkiye.” Ankara Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi. 3.2 (1946), pp.68-70. 204 “İstikbal Hazırlıkları,” Vakit, 10 August 1923. 53 started criticizing the same practice. What is interesting is the alterations in his positions in accordance with the changes in the American policy on alcohol.205 After the conclusion of the treaty, he turned back to his more moderate mood. While its terms were discussed in the Grand National Assembly, he defended that although it was not a perfect treaty, everybody should comply with it. Furthermore, the foreign soldiers in Istanbul were from then on guests in Turkey, so they should be welltreated. On the one hand, he kept his optimism about the treaty, and called it a victory206, on the other hand, he suggested that it was not a victory, since the southern border remained undetermined.207 All in all, Ahmed Emin was going through numerous critical historical events with different perspectives and ended up taking a nationalist view along with an aspiration to draw American support. 205 “İçki Derdine Deva,” Vakit, 20 August 1923; “Cihanın Merkez-i Sıkleti,” Vakit, 21 March 1919; “Dahili Düşman - I,” Vakit, 18 June 1919; “Fırsatı Kaçırmamalıyız,” Vakit, 30 January 1920; “Yüksek Vatanperverlik,” Vakit, 20 February 1920. 206 “Nasıl Muvaffak Olduk?,” Vakit, 20 July 1923. 207 “Cenub-i Garbi Hududumuz,” Vakit, 23 August 1923. 54 CHAPTER III: HOW TO CONSTRUE (DIS)CONTINUITIES IN HIS DISCOURSE Having discussed Ahmed Emin’s changing stances during the armistice period in various respects, this chapter seeks for analyzing him as an intellectual journalist with a liberal ideology, who witnessed all the milestones of the formative years of the Turkish Republic. To be much more specific, I will pursue analyzing his editorials in-and-of themselves and compare and contrast these writings with his memoirs published later, in 1970 and Turkey in my Time which is a kind of memoirs written for Anglo-American readers in 1956. Therefore, there will be three historical periods (armistice period, 50s and 70s) against which two different materials (the articles and the memoirs), will be examined. Regarding the articles, I will strive to analyze his engagement with the national and ethnic groups outside of the Turkish Muslim identity.208 As for his memoirs, what I will try to do will be to demonstrate what he remembers as well as what he forgets or pushes into oblivion. 208 He defines himself as Turkish-Muslim. Here are the articles in which this phrase is used: “Türkçülük ve Memleketçilik,” Vakit, 20 October 1919; “Milliyetperverlik Siyasi bir Moda mıdır?,” Vakit, 10 February 1919; “İtalyan Siyaseti ve Biz,” Vakit, 16 January 1920; “Siyaset İhtiyacı I,” Vakit, 15 March 1920; “Yeni İslam Alemi II,” Vakit, 15 April 1922; “Nüfus Boşluklarımız,” Vakit, 4 May 1922; “İkinci Fetih,” Vakit, 10 September 1922. 55 Ahmed Emin: A Consistent Liberal or Adaptive to a Variety of Conditions The Aftermath of the Foundation of the Republic It will be helpful to give a brief history of the historical period between the Lausanne Treaty and 1970 when Ahmed Emin’s memoirs were published, before comparing and contrasting the articles during the armistice and the memoirs. Because if this historical background is overlooked, it will be quite difficult to understand the textual style of the memoirs, what is included, what is excluded and to uncover the reason behind all these choices. The armistice period of five long years (1918-1923) had ended on October 6, 1923, a few years after the Lausanne Peace Treaty. By this symbolic date, the political figures of the ancien régime (eg. Unionists and the people of the Court) are liquidated and replaced by the new ones after the recapture of Istanbul by the Anatolian movement.209 Mustafa Kemal, an erstwhile Unionist, filled power void as a natural charismatic leader thanks to his military successes during the independence war. In the aftermath of the armistice the first critical step was the promulgation of the Republic on October 29, 1923. This was followed by the abolition of the caliphate in 1924. Sheykh Said rebellion erupted in 1925 and the Takrir-i Sükun Kanunu (Law on the Maintenance of 209 Erik J. Zürcher, The Unionist Factor, pp. 136-144. 56 Order) was passed by the assembly under the oppressive influence of Mustafa Kemal, and instrumentalized to silence the opposition.210 After all these acts consolidating the power in the hands of the government, Cumhuriyet Halk Fırkası (Republican People’s Party, RPP) became the state party and Mustafa Kemal ascended to the one man who was able to control whole country. He took very bold steps towards the westernization of the state and society, most of the time at the expense of the freedom and the will of the people. As a result of the laïcité as state policy, religion and the visibility of religion in public space were wiped out and parallel reforms were made one after another. Meanwhile, two opposition parties were established during this period, Terakkiperver Cumhuriyet Fırkası (Progressive Republican Party) and Serbest Cumhuriyet Fırkası (Progressive Republican Party) and they were closed in 1925 and in 1930 respectively.211 Up until his death in 1938, Mustafa Kemal maintained his power as the most powerful man in the country. Throughout the period, the new regime actualized a series of policies in pursuit of popularizing the ideal of nationalism. In order to make a society composed of various ethnicities a Turkish nation, from exchange of populations to the nationalist indoctrinations in the schools especially through the history classes, various policies were carried out. Türk Tarih Kurumu (Society for the Study of Turkish History, 1931) and Türk Dil Kurumu (Society for the Study of the Turkish Language, İsmail Kara, Cumhuriyet Türkiyesi'nde Bir Mesele Olarak İslam. İstanbul: Dergah Yayınları, 2010. p. 264. “The liquidation of the Progressive Party by measures indicated in the [Takrir-i Sükun Kanunu]Law to Maintain Public Order, initiated the trend of squelching political opposition, as expressed in political parties, by military force.” Robert W Olson and William F. Tucker. "The Sheikh Sait Rebellion in Turkey (1925): a Study in the Consolidation of a Developed Uninstitutionalized Nationalism and the Rise of Incipient (Kurdish) Nationalism." Die Welt Des Islams. 18.4 (1978), p 210. 210 211 Ahmet Yıldız, Ne Mutlu Türküm Diyebilene: Türk Ulusal Kimliğinin Etno-Seküler Sınırları (19191938). Cağaloğlu, İstanbul: İletişim, 2001. p. 183; Erik J. Zürcher, The Unionist Factor, p. 160-61. 57 1932) were founded212 and thus the language and history of the Turkish nation was invented. After the death of Mustafa Kemal, İsmet İnönü, who used to be the head of the Turkish delegation during Lausanne negotiations and an eminent figure of the RPP became the president. Thanks to the global influence of democracy movement, in 1946 the first elections (if it is shady one) with an opposition party were held. As a result of these elections, Democrat Party got into the parliament and came into power under the leadership of Adnan Menderes in 1950. This government ran the country up to the 1960 coup d’etat. During this period, they took the way to loosen the harsh secular policies of the RPP, such as allowing people to recite the adhan (call for prayer) in Arabic after its replacement with a Turkish one. However, the opposition and the media accused them of oppressing the universities and the youth as well as the populist policies disregarding the distant future of the country.213 As a consequence of the military intervention, Adnan Menderes and two other ministers were executed. The constitution drawn up in 1961 was relatively democratic. Türkiye İşçi Partisi (Worker’s Party of Turkey) was founded by a number of trade unionists214 in the same year. Parallel to the rising global power of the Soviets, the leftist movement in Turkey came to gather strength and became much more visible. “After the 27 May coup the Democrat Party was abolished by a court decision. … Later the Justice Party (JP) under the leadership of Süleyman Demirel won Hilmi Z. Ülken, Türkiyede Çaǧdaş Düşünce Tarihi: İkinci Baski. Istanbul: Ülken Yayinlari, 1979. p. 346 212 İlkay Sunar. “Populism and Patronage: The Demokrat Party and its Legacy in Turkey”, In State, Society and Democracy in Turkey, edited by İ. Sunar İstanbul: Bahçeşehir University Publication, 2004. p. 123. 213 214 Zürcher, Turkey: A Modern History, p. 246. 58 over the whole of the DP's electorate and went on to win both the 1965 and the 1969 elections.”215 Within the political panorama at the beginning of the 70s is the leftist movement as an arising ideology, the conservative masses started to be emancipated from the yoke of the one-party regime and at the same time the maintenance and assurance of the Kemalist ideology especially within the state as proved by the military and its interventions into the civil politics. An Analysis of His Position As the Center of Gravity Keeps Changing The Late Ottoman and the early Turkish Republican period witnessed a plenty of intellectuals with a chaotic mind. Ahmed Emin is not an exception to this generalization. In his writings, one can find a number of changes in his mind. However, this does not mean that he has no line of thought and an ideology. It can be extracted from his writings in their entirety, irrespective of the change in time and the context, manifest or latent, he maintained his support for America and liberalism in politics, and for capitalism in economics. Thus his opposition to the left has also been out of debate. Looking specifically at the armistice period, what is happening is, in a sense a trauma or tension experienced by a Westernist but Eastern intellectual inhabiting in the Ottoman capital under the occupation of the troops coming from the cradle of civilization in his mind. That is why, an effort for coming up with explanations frequently appears in the articles, because there is a situation which needs to be explained. This challenge is a 215 Sina Akşin, Turkey from Empire to Revolutionary Republic, p. 270. 59 civilizational and mental one as military as it is. On the one hand, in this process Ahmed Emin has an objective to protect the Muslim-Turkish interests, on the other hand, strives to restore the Turko-Western relationship to what he considers the good old days. The USA shines out within the vast category of the west. In the first year of the armistice he defends the American assistance and keeps mentioning the USA in his articles. Interestingly enough, even though the USA was not that much involved in the Middle Eastern politics at the time, it is the third most-mentioned country after Greece and the UK in his articles. Despite keeping his line of thought and ideological stance, he is flexible enough to alter his position constantly in accordance with the fluctuant conjuncture. While he defends a modern state based on the idea of citizenship at the beginning of the period, he ends up with championing Turkish nationalism excluding the non-Muslim minorities. No wonder, since this change was not independent of the change in the political sphere marking the victory of the Kemalists. During the period of the Unionist administration beginning with 1913 (Bab-ı Ali Coup), most of the members of the PFU were exiled. Those who were in exile during the First World War, found the opportunity to take revenge from the Unionists at the end of the war.216 The political instability and the polarization between the PUP and the PFU were reflected on the press of the period. Within this context, his attitude towards the Unionists can be a good example to his general stance. When a witch-hunting campaign was started against the Unionists right after the armistice and Enver-Cemal-Talat Pashas 216 Tezcan, p. 39. 60 left the country,217 Ahmed Emin resists this campaign although he comes up with some criticisms along with the others, especially regarding the Armenian massacres and the harsh Turkist policies.218 Nevertheless, it should be kept in mind that at the time even though the Unionist cadre received a severe blow, the structure was not completely dissolved. According to Erik J. Zürcher and Nur Bilge Criss, during the independence war they organized the resistance and made a great contribution to the smuggling a large amount of weapons and ammunition from Istanbul to Anatolia, the nationalist forces.219 At such a time, Ahmed Emin, taking a quite secure position, keeps away from both a strong opposition and a full support for the Unionists. After the establishment of the Republic and all the Unionists were completely liquidated and removed from the power center, he does not mention them with gratitude in his memoirs.220 Furthermore, even between the two stages of Lausanne negotiations and before the April 1923 elections, he maintains that “the major opposition is the remnants of the Unionists who does not abstain from their aspirations and the best thing is the burial of the Unionists to history and the liberation of the citizens who are not under any personal accusation to serve for the country”.221 It is worthy of notice that while Ahmed Emin quotes this sentence from his article in the memoirs, chooses not to remember this part in the same article: “What does the Unionist mean? Everybody uses this word in various meanings. If it means that 217 Tunaya, Türkiye’de Siyasal Partiler 2, p. 75. 218 For a few examples of these criticisms see; “Fikri Münakaşa Sahasında,” Vakit, 16 November 1918; “Devlet İşleri ve Cemaat İsleri,” Vakit, 5 December 1918; “Müstakil Arnavutluk,” Vakit, 14 December 1918; “Sulhun Şekli,” Vakit, 24 December 1918; “Maziyi Tasfiye,” Vakit, 31 January 1919. 219 Criss. pp. 121-126; Zürcher. Unionist Factor, 68-106. 220 Yalman. Yakın Tarihte Gördüklerim ve Geçirdiklerim: 2. pp. 46, 259, 321. 221 For the original quote see; Appendix A. 61 a man who became a member of the CUP at any time, then all the people are Unionist.”222 Therefore it is possible to talk about three Ahmed Emins in three different periods related to his position towards the CUP. Even though he is not that sharp in all three periods, at the beginning of the armistice, when the Unionist power is still there223, he takes a middle position; once it appears to a great extent that the Unionists are not going to be the major power in the future of Turkey, he sharpens his position as against them and suggests that the Unionist should be buried in history. Because there is no longer any Unionists, he does not refrain from openly criticizing in his memoirs published in 1970. At this point, the matter of censorship comes into the picture, as a critical one to be kept in mind in the analyses. In this period, as it was in the past, before the newspaper is printed, they were inspected by the censor officials and the parts which are seen as dangerous are removed.224 These parts are easy to see in the articles of Ahmed Emin. For instance, in the middle of the article, there is a big blank part at the center of which reads, say, “Forty lines are dismissed”.225 The censorship has twofold functions, one of which is hiding the “dangerous” parts in the articles that can constitute a threat against the power-holder, the Allies in this case. The second one is that it can serve as a pretext for remaining silent as is frequently seen in the case of Ahmed Emin. It is quite hard to prove this argument, however, his high speed of change in position gives some hint. For 222 For the original quote see; Appendix A. 223 In the armistice period, as a continuation of the CUP, Teceddüt Fırkası (Renovation Party) was founded. Tarık Z. Tunaya. Türkiye'de Siyasal Partiler 2. pp. 112-153. 224 For further discussion of the censorship in the armistice period see Chapter I. 225 Here are some examples to the articles with censor; “Amerika'nın Vaziyeti,” Vakit, 1 November 1919; “Yunanlılık Meseleleri,” Vakit, 5 November 1919; “Disraeli'ye Doğru,” Vakit, 5 December 1919. 62 instance, once in a dispute with Hüseyin Cahit, he tells that he struggled against the evil deeds of the government during the war as hard as possible before the abolition of censorship and as severely as possible after the abolition.226 Furthermore, he explains his uncritical stance towards the Sultan by the existence of the censorship and oppression; however it can be observed that the reason might have been different. Within such a context it can be seen plausible not to openly criticize the Sultan, but once Ahmed Emin cheerfully talks about a declaration issued by the Sultan which was printed in one thousand and two hundred newspapers in the USA. The specific emphasis upon the protection of the country’s future by the Wilson’s fourteen points is of interest.227 Keeping in mind that Ahmed Emin is one of the founders of the Wilsonian Leauge,228 it becomes much more intelligible why he sides with the Sultan in this case. Needless to say, this is not mentioned in his memoirs, since siding with Sultan in the past is not that much favorable at the time. Having a look at the divergence between the articles written during the armistice period and the memoirs composed after fifty years, what Ahmed Emin “remembers” and “forgets” are the most remarkable matters of consideration. Although plenty of events took place in that period, Ahmed Emin forgets some of them whereas he remembers some others in full detail. It is not so hard to notice that there is a pattern in both of these acts. Basically Ahmed Emin writes in detail about the people and the events sacralized during the Republican era, and glorifies them as they are extolled by the regime. 226 “Hüseyin Cahid Bey'e Cevap,” Vakit, 25 February 1923. 227 “Beyanat-ı Mülükane,” Vakit, 9 December 1919. It can be considered understandable to address the Sultan with long and flamboyant expression which had been a traditional etiquette. For a detailed discussion of Wilson’s fourteen points see; Laurence Evans, United States Policy and the Partition of Turkey, 1914-1924, pp. 49-85. 228 Ahmet E. Yalman. Turkey in My Time. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1956. p. 73. 63 However, he does not remember the moments that diverged from the viewpoint of the official ideology regarding the period. In this respect, I will elaborate two examples: (1) His engagement with Mustafa Kemal and (2) his position on the mandate question. It is worth mentioning how Mustafa Kemal as a commander and a politician is handled in Ahmed Emin’s articles. Among the issues of Vakit and Vatan that I have accessed, Mustafa Kemal’s name is mentioned for the first time on December 31, 1921.229 Actually this information is by itself meaningful, since Ahmed Emin does not talk about the hero of the national struggle for approximately two and a half years, keeping in mind that Mustafa Kemal sets in the stage on May 19, 1919 to save the nation as narrated by the official ideology.230 Yücel Özkaya argues that this is a general policy for all the Istanbul press; they mentioned neither national struggle nor Mustafa Kemal till 1921, the year of the critical military success of the resistance in Anatolia. The reason behind this attitude, for him, is apparently the existence of the stiff censorship in Istanbul.231 According to my research this does not hold true at least for Vakit. Especially in the aftermath of Sivas Congress, both Mustafa Kemal and the national resistance starts appearing in the headlines at the first page of the paper, though the coverage is not comparable to the period after the military success of Anatolia.232 It is remarkable that Ahmed Emin does not prefer to deal with this issue in the column which 229 “Büyük Millet Meclisinin Reis-i Sanisiyle Mülakat,” Vakit, 31 December 1921. 230 Although he was in exile between March 20, 1920 and November 4, 1921, it is surprising that he does not talk about Mustafa Kemal approximately for a year till the beginning of his exile, including the Erzurum, Sivas and Balıkesir Congresses and the French occupation of Maraş and Urfa etc. 231 Özkaya, p. 10. Actually, Özkaya’s point is confusing to some extent, since in the same book he argues that Tasvir-i Efkar published interviews with the prominent leaders of the national resistance and printed the pictures of Mustafa Kemal and his friends. 232 For the original quote see; Appendix A. 64 is next to these news releases. However, as of the beginning of 1922, Mustafa Kemal happens to appear more frequently in his articles. Additionally, after his return from Malta he receives the privilege from Mustafa Kemal to make news in the front.233 No wonder, Mustafa Kemal’s deeds and strong personality as a hero are narrated in these news stories. Although there take place some disagreements, for instance, over where the new capital is going to be located234, Ahmed Emin prefers not to have a direct confrontation with him. A simple numerical calculation is going to help one understand the divergence between the memoirs and the armistice period. Mustafa Kemal’s name was mentioned in 57 out of 750 articles (8 percent) published during the period, whereas it is mentioned in 80 pages out of 429 page (19 percent), the part covering the armistice period in the memoirs composed of 1600 pages in total.235 The interviews with M. Kemal are quoted almost without any abridgement. Likewise, in the articles of the period, Ahmed Emin mentions his name in high terms on February 7, 1922 for the first time, after the decisive victory of the Anatolian resistance on battlefield.236 Nevertheless, in spite of all the extolling words for him, he admits that there is an anxiety over the likelihood that Mustafa Kemal can be a dictator one day in the future. However, in the memoirs, interestingly enough only in the eleventh page, talking about the second half of 233 Yalman, Yakın Tarihte Gördüklerim ve Geçirdiklerim: 2, pp. 242-243. 234 “Merkeze Dair Münakaşa I,” Vatan, 18 August 1923; “Merkeze Dair Münakaşa II,” Vatan, 19 August 1923; “Ankaralılar'a Cevap,” Vatan, 26 August 1923. 235 Yalman, Yakın Tarihte Gördüklerim ve Geçirdiklerim: 1, pp. 318, 335, 340. Yalman, Yakın Tarihte Gördüklerim ve Geçirdiklerim: 2, pp. 3, 5, 19, 20, 21, 25, 26, 27, 28, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 37, 41, 42, 43, 53, 240, 241, 242, 244, 250, 251, 252, 254, 266, 267, 269, 275, 276, 281, 282, 283, 284, 285, 297, 304, 305, 309, 314, 315, 316, 318, 321, 326, 328, Yalman, Yakın Tarihte Gördüklerim ve Geçirdiklerim: 3, pp. 5, 8, 9, 11, 12, 23, 25, 26, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 41, 44, 52, 56, 57, 65, 67, 70, 71, 72, 76, 77, 78. I have excluded the part covering the Malta exile in order to be able to make them comparable. 7 Şubat 1922. Zürcher. Unionist Factor, p. 130. Feroz Ahmad, The Making of Modern Turkey, p. 90; Yahya Akyüz. Türk Kurtuluş Savaşı ve Fransız Kamuoyu. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 1988. p. 275. 236 65 the nineteenth century, he recounts that his father was honored to be a teacher to M. Kemal. In the following pages, he is very frequently praised as the hero of the nation.237 All in all, a quantitative and qualitative comparison of the articles of the armistice and the memoirs demonstrates that Ahmed Emin carefully follows the changes in the shift of power center and positions and re-positions himself every time. Secondly, he elaborates the mandate question at length rather than keeping silent. However it is palpable that the reason behind this choice is not to show that he was at the same point with the Kemalists at the time, during the first year of the armistice. Rather, he endeavors to make an explanation or to interpret his position so that it fits into the dominant ideology, Kemalism. He might have kept silent at this issue as he did in some others, however, due to the fact that he devotes numerous articles to the mandate question, promoting a temporary American aid with a supply of expert guidance,238 it was not that easy to disregard this issue. As a response to all the charges against him to 237 For the original quote see; Appendix A. For the articles discussing the mandate question, see; “Sulh İçin Hazırlık,” Vakit, 17 November 1918; “Sulh Hazırlığı II,” Vakit, 22 November 1918; “His ile Akıl Arasında,” Vakit, 25 November 1918; “İstikbal Düşünceleri II,” Vakit, 1 December 1918; “Kendi Kendimizi Aldatmayalım,” Vakit, 2 December 1918; “Bir İzah,” Vakit, 7 December 1918; “Hastalığın Teşhisi ve Tedavisi II,” Vakit, 18 December 1918; “Hakikati Görmek Cesareti,” Vakit, 21 December 1918; “İdame-i Mevcudiyet Meselesi,” Vakit, 29 January 1919; “Tasfiye Ameliyesi Hakkında,” Vakit, 5 February 1919; “Kabiliyet Meselesi,” Vakit, 2 March 1919; “İstikbalimiz ve İnkişafımız,” Vakit, 7 March 1919; “(Vahdet-i Milliye) ve Hükümet,” Vakit, 8 March 1919; “Mevkufiyet Tahassüsatı,” Vakit, 13 March 1919; “Cihanın Merkez-i Sıkleti,” Vakit, 21 March 1919; “Bir Mevcudiyet Meselesi,” Vakit, 22 March 1919; “Vekalet ve İstiklal,” Vakit, 7 June 1919; “Amerika Ayanında,” Vakit, 25 July 1919; “İstiklal Yolu,” Vakit, 31 July 1919; “Ermeni Meselesi,” Vakit, 1 August 1919; “Müzaheret ve Kabiliyet,” Vakit, 2 August 1919; “Müzaheret Mektebi,” Vakit, 7 August 1919; “Sütten Ağzı Yanan,” Vakit, 8 August 1919; “Türk Taraftarlığı,” Vakit, 13 August 1919; “Çin Milliyetperverliği,” Vakit, 22 August 1919; “İktisadi Tehlikeler,” Vakit, 23 August 1919; “Bizim Propagandamız,” Vakit, 24 August 1919; “İngiltere ve Biz,” Vakit, 25 August 1919; “Ekalliyetleri Himaye,” Vakit, 26 August 1919; “İstiklal Aleyhdarlığı Var mı?,” Vakit, 1 September 1919; “Müzahir-i Devlet,” Vakit, 1 October 1919; “Amerika'nın Vaziyeti,” Vakit, 1 November 1919; “Teehhür ve İntizar,” Vakit, 3 December 1919; “Hangi Devlet,” Vakit, 9 January 1920; “Siyaset İhtiyacı II,” Vakit, 16 March 1920. The envisioned time period for an American assistance will be between 15 and 25 years. Erol. Türkiye’de Amerikan Mandası Meselesi, 1919-1920, p. 41. 238 66 be mandacı (mandatist)239, this time, memoirs function as a text which exonerates its author. As of the inception of the occupation, since November 17, 1918 up until March 16, 1922, he keeps writing about the idea of American mandate over Turkey. This is already one of the main objectives of the Wilsonian League among whose founders is Ahmed Emin.240 However, in that period, it is highly probable that he forehandedly prefers harnessing the terms müzaheret (aid) and muavenet (cooperation) instead of the terms mandate and himaye (protection), and elaborates the idea that it is necessary to benefit from a mürşit (guide; which is apparently America) without submission to the foreign tutelage.241 In these articles elaborating the American aid, the reasoning operates in this way: ‘If a benevolent, strong, civil, modern and democratic country exists on the surface of the earth, we should be protected and developped beneath its merciful wings.’ In the article titled, “Thoughts on the Future”, he summarizes the general poor situation of the country and then maintains that “we” should inspire confidence to the west instead of adopting an aggressive foreign policy which is far from being rational, as followed by the Unionists. He further develops this argument and asks: What country 239 Ahmed E. Yalman. Turkey in My Time, p. 223. 240 Erol. Türkiye’de Amerikan Mandası Meselesi, 1919-1920, pp. 35-44. 241 “İstiklal Aleyhdarlığı Var mı?,” Vakit, 1 September 1919. Actually, he does not explicitly support the idea of mandate, instead, he talks about the reform which should be carried out by the experts from the West. However, we know that, at that time, no intellectual who was for the mandate expressed her/his opinions in an undisguised manner. This is because, under those circumstances when an independence war was going on, talking about these possibilities was an indisputable reason for being charged with treason. Just after the success of the independence war, following the Lausanne Treaty, a hundred and fifty people, who were charged with treason, were reserved and, later, denationalized by the Turkish government. İlhami Soysal. 150'likler. İstanbul: Gür Yayınları, 1985. p. 5. For instance, Ali Kemal, who was a professor in the university and a journalist, opposed to the Kemalist movement, was executed in Kocaeli by nationalists just after the independence war. Osman Özsoy. Gazetecinin İnfazı. İstanbul: Timaş Yayınları, 1997. pp. 275-80. 67 should take over this task? For his analysis, first possibility is to call these experts from various countries at the same time, namely, the USA, the UK, France and Italy. However, this could have resulted in discordance and rivalry among these experts. Thus, the conflict among these people coming from various countries all of which wanted to have an authority in Middle Eastern politics would bring about deficiencies in the implementation of the project. Therefore, the country from which the experts come should not be more than one. Now, the problem turns out to be focused on exactly which one should be chosen. If the countries which ought not to be chosen are determined, the only option would appear. Keeping in mind that there have been centuries-old enmities among European states, one should understand that this assistant country should be the USA. He mentions some other qualifications of America which evokes him to make this decision. According to him, Americans were very good at architecture and charity foundations. Because they are far from the Turkish soil, they cannot pursue any political objective outside of their boundaries. Besides, the United States is recognized as the defender of some high values of modernity in the international arena. So this made her much more respectful and powerful vis-à-vis the other power centers.242 The opinions of Ahmed Emin on the mandate question are highly criticized by various intellectuals during and after the period. A columnist from Türk Dünyası, Ahmet Cemal, entirely rejects mandate as an option, and argues that accepting a mandate is “submitting to captivity”. A nation that used to live independently and shed blood for its honor cannot even think of such an idea. This is because that should be considered as an 242 “İstikbal Düşünceleri II,” Vakit, 1 December 1918. 68 insult to its history and ungratefulness to the forefathers.243 As Ahmet Cemal, Muslihiddin Adil from Tarik suggests that ideas of mandate and independence are impossible to juxtapose and asks Ahmed Emin how he offers these kinds of solutions that would obliterate independence providing he is sincere in his stance.244 In İleri, Celal Nuri writes that being a mandatist is antithetical to dignity and self-respect. After the establishment of Republican Turkey the criticisms go on in the press. In 1937, for instance Yunus Nadi frequently critiques him to be mandatist during the armistice period as a side of the debate between two newspapers of the time, Tan and Cumhuriyet.245 While his position is as described above during the armistice period, in his memoirs he strives to prove how nationalist and patriot he was, responding to his critics. He states that he never became a mandatist, only did he promote the idea that foreign experts come and guide us “in reorganization of the country and in forming bonds of mutual tolerance between the various elements in our heterogeneous population which, for centuries, had been distinguished by religious divisions called “millets”, each inwardly governed by its own patriarch, who was appointed by the sultan-khalif”246. Narrating his exile days in Kütahya, he mentions an article247 that he wrote “under the influence of new hopes” injected by the resistance developed by Mustafa Kemal in Anatolia.248 However, the content of the article is full of promotion of the mandatist 243 Ahmed Cemal. “Manda Meselesi,” Türk Dünyası, 2 October 1919. Cited in Salih Tunç, “İşgal Döneminde İstanbul Basını (1918-1922).” Diss. İstanbul University, 1971. p. 200. 244 Muslihiddin Adil. “Yine İstiklal Hakkında,” Tarik, 2 September 1919. Cited in Tunç, p. 256. 245 Celal Nuri. “İstiklal,” İleri, 13 Eylül 1919. Cited in Tezcan, p. 82. 246 Yalman. Turkey in My Time, pp. 73-74. 247 “Vekalet ve İstiklal”, Vakit, 7 June 1919. 248 Yalman. Yakın Tarihte Gördüklerim ve Geçirdiklerim: 2, p. 21. 69 ideas. He argues that regarding the selection of the mandate, “we” should be free and the Leauge of Nations should not coerce us. This means that he does not have any doubt on whether a foreign guide takes over a partial sovereignty or not. Only does he have a reservation on the method on the selection of this “guide”. It would be unfair to criticize Ahmed Emin for occupying completely different political positions. However, it is evident that he was not defending the same principles as the Kemalists at the time.249 His explanation that the concept of cooperation differs from mandate250 is not sufficient to prove that he was one of the Turkish patriots who were for full independence. Moreover, he, himself, is not so tolerant to the others regarding the selection of the concepts. For example, once he states that the Russian claim for the “protection” of the Armenians is nothing but a pretext to conceal their hidden agenda.251 Consequently, it remains unexplained how to restore the independence after sharing the sovereignty with foreign super-power. How does He Engage with the “Other”? It is critical to discuss Ahmed Emin’s perception of the “other”, dealing with the transformation of his ideas and changes in his positions in the armistice period and its aftermath. This is significant that he is an intellectual of a country which had experienced a number of wars, cease-fires and peace treaties during a couple of decades. 249 Although Mustafa Kemal was not completely opposed to the idea of mandate, after Sivas Congress he abandons mandate as a political solution. Sina Akşin. İstanbul Hükümetleri ve Milli Mücadele, pp. 548551. 250 Yalman. Turkey in My Time, pp. 73, 223. 251 “Tefrikanın Hakiki Sebepleri,” Vakit, 8 May 1922. 70 Thus within such an environment, one should, first, determine how he defines himself, in which category he forms his identity, then should understand what other categories are formed as opposed to the author’s self and how he engages with them. Due to the complex nature of the identity question during the late Ottoman Empire in general, there is no category on which people have a consensus. However, the roots of the Turkish national identity of the Kemalist regime should be sought in the period of the national struggle. During the war against the common enemy, the identity was defined in a wider sense under the umbrella of Islam to contain all the Muslim communities along with the Turks. The reelpolitik pushed the leaders of the resistance to promote the ethnic pluralism. However, in the following period, the religious definition is radically displaced and “the republican character of the Turkish national identity became the basic identifier”.252 Because the corollary of the events are unknown to everybody, and due to the existence of multiple projects, aspirations and the predictions on the future during the armistice period, the definition of the country gets further sophisticated. Since the term Türkiye refers to one ethnic group, and the political existence of the Ottoman Empire is under threat of extinction, it gets harden to define the state and the territorial attachment as well. That is why he refrains from using the term “Ottoman” as an upper identity.253 Rather, he prefers to use, only, “us” or “our country”, showing his confusion to determine which one is best to define the “self”. 252 Yıldız, Ne Mutlu Türküm Diyebilene, p. 16. 253 Actually, although he claims that the term “Ottoman” is the best one to encompass and define everybody as equal citizens, subsequently, he, himself, does not use this term for this purpose. For a long discussion of these concepts see; “Türkçülük ve Memleketçilik,” Vakit, 20 October 1919. According to Tezcan, there is a parallelism between his approach to the identity problem and the ideas of Prens Sabahattin. He borrowed the idea of decentralization and the necessity to have an overarching identity, “Ottomanness” like “British” or “American” rather than the ethnic categories. Furthermore, his attacks on Unionists because of their Turkist policies should be understood within this framework. Tezcan, pp. 40, 94. 71 In the light of his writings both in the armistice period and of his memoirs, he defines himself referring to ethnic and religious identities, namely, Turkish and Muslim.254 Ahmed Emin, in his articles discusses whether the term “Turk” is an ethnic or an overarching upper identity. Approximately a year after the armistice, he puts forth that “Turk” cannot be a defining category for everybody, and it can only include the “Turkish speaking Muslims” despite the efforts to widen the meaning. It is significant to keep in mind that when these are discussed by Ahmed Emin, Erzurum and Sivas Congresses were held255, the Anatolian resistance grew up and the hopes for selfdetermination rights were still continuing. Even though he states that the concept of “Turk” includes the Muslim identity, he goes on to add “Muslim” as an element, maybe in order to emphasize that side of the identity or for not being able to make a clear-cut definition. 254 He states that there are some citizens who both claim to be Ottoman, and supporting the dismemberment of the homeland at the same time. Hence the usages of terms “Turk”, “Turkish and Muslim” becomes a necessity. His solution for this problem is to use the term Ottoman and excluding the citizens who are not attached to the Ottoman territory. It can be said that he is quite forward-looking for this kind of identity definition, since it is fairly similar to the Kemalist Turkish national identity. For the original quote regarding his thoughts on the identity question see; Appendix A. 255 Erzurum Congress was held by the assembly of the delegates from the eastern provinces in Erzurum on 23 July 1919. Mustafa Kemal was elected chairman on the first day.” … “On 4 September the second and more important congress opened at Sivas, attended by delegates from all over the country. Once again Mustafa Kemal was elected chairman, and directed the discussions of the meeting. The main business of the congress was to extend to the whole country the decisions taken at Erzurum, and to modify the organization established there accordingly. The 'Association for the Defence of the Rights of Eastern Anatolia' now became the 'Association for the Defence of the Rights of Anatolia and Rumelia', with a permanent Representative Committee headed by Mustafa Kemal, and this new organization became the instrument of the political struggle ahead. The political aims expressed at the Sivas congress were neither clear nor united. The delegates began by taking an oath never to revive the Committee of Union and Progress, and sending an address to the Sultan; they then went on to consider whether they should concern themselves with politics or not, and were by no means unanimous in agreeing to do so. Even there, the idea of an American mandate, popular in some circles in Istanbul, was raised by some delegates, only to be rejected by the great majority. The congress instead reaffirmed the principles of the Erzurum manifesto, and indeed strengthened the wording at some points, demanding the preservation of territorial integrity and national independence, and envisaging armed action against the occupying powers if necessary.” Bernard Lewis. The Emergence of Modern Turkey. London: issued under the auspices of the Royal Institute of International Affairs [by] Oxford U.P, 1968. pp. 248-249. 72 Due to the fact that he defines himself to be Turkish and Muslim, its “other” should be either non-Turks or non-Muslims. Departing from this inference, I will try to analyze how Ahmed Emin engages with these nations excluding the ones which are in direct and close connection with the Ottomans at the time: Americans, British, French, Italians, Russians, Germans, Bulgarians, Greeks, Rums (Ottoman Greeks), Armenians, Jews, Kurds, Arabs, Albanians, Circassians and Laz. During the analysis, I will examine both the changes within the armistice period and the variations in the book titled, Turkey in My Time256 and in the memoirs regarding his approach to the same nations. For the sake of facilitating to see the changes and the fluctuations I have added the graphs showing how many times these nations are mentioned in the armistice period, as well as the second type of graphs showing the change in his attitude towards them. In determining his attitudes I used three categories as explained in the introduction: positive, negative and neutral. They are depicted as “1”, “-1” and “0.1” respectively. The last one is depicted “0.1” rather than “0” just to make it visible on the axis. Then I have graded all the articles based on this scale. My point is not that these graphs are the reflections of the complicated truth on the mirror. They only serve to help understand a process over the articles of an intellectual of the time by reducing plenty of approaches to three categories. Furthermore, these charts are not the sources of the analysis; rather 256 This excerpt from the book would define its aims and the target reader. This manuscript was sıarted in 1938 and 1939 during a long visit in New York in connection with the World's Fair. i continued to work on it while in San Francisco in May and June, 1945, on the occasion of the United Nations Conference, and tentatively finished it in Turkey in the summer of 1954. Revisions continued to 1956, when the manuscript was accepted for publication.” Yalman, Turkey in my Time, p. v. “I feel especially gratefuI to Miss Eleanor Bisbee, research associate in the Hoover Institute and Library, former professor of philosophy in Robert College and the American College for Girls in Istanbul, and author of The New Turks, for helping me to rewrite the manuscript with regard particularly to the interests of AngloAmerican readers.” [Emphasis is mine] Ibid. p. vi. 73 they are just the consequences. Such a framework will contribute to making a complex period intelligible. Table 1 Table Showing the Times These Nations and Ethnic Groups are Mentioned in Ahmed Emin's Articles during the Armistice Period 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Nations Greeks British Americans French Russians Germans Armenians Rums Italians Bulgarians Kurds Arabs Albanians Jews Circassians Laz Count 1314 1049 832 650 404 285 221 219 174 116 80 49 31 25 6 3 74 Fig. 3 The chart showing the number of times the word "American" is mentioned in the articles Fig. 4 The chart showing the changes in Ahmed Emin's stance towards Americans 75 Fig. 5 The chart showing the number of times the word "British" is mentioned in the articles Fig. 6 The chart showing the changes in Ahmed Emin's stance towards British 76 Fig. 7 The chart showing the number of times the word "French" is mentioned in the articles Fig. 8 The chart showing the changes in Ahmed Emin's stance towards French 77 Fig. 9 The chart showing the number of times the word "Italian" is mentioned in the articles Fig. 10 The chart showing the changes in Ahmed Emin's stance towards Italians 78 Fig. 11 The chart showing the number of times the word "Russian" is mentioned in the articles Fig. 12 The chart showing the changes in Ahmed Emin's stance towards Russians 79 Fig. 13 The chart showing the number of times the word "German" is mentioned in the articles Fig. 14 The chart showing the changes in Ahmed Emin's stance towards Germans 80 Fig. 15 The chart showing the number of times the word "Bulgarian" is mentioned in the articles Fig. 16 The chart showing the changes in Ahmed Emin's stance towards Bulgarians 81 Fig. 17 The chart showing the number of times the word "Greek" is mentioned in the articles Fig. 18 The chart showing the changes in Ahmed Emin's stance towards Greeks 82 Fig. 19 The chart showing the number of times the word "Rum" is mentioned in the articles Fig. 20 The chart showing the changes in Ahmed Emin's stance towards Rums 83 Fig. 21 The chart showing the number of times the word "Armenian" is mentioned in the articles Fig. 22 The chart showing the changes in Ahmed Emin's stance towards Armenians 84 Fig. 23 The chart showing the number of times the word "Jew" is mentioned in the articles Fig. 24 The chart showing the changes in Ahmed Emin's stance towards Jews 85 Fig. 25 The chart showing the number of times the word "Kurd" is mentioned in the articles Fig. 26 The chart showing the changes in Ahmed Emin's stance towards Kurds 86 Fig. 27 The chart showing the number of times the word "Arab" is mentioned in the articles Fig. 28 The chart showing the changes in Ahmed Emin's stance towards Arabs 87 Fig. 29 The chart showing the number of times the word "Albanian" is mentioned in the articles Fig. 30 The chart showing the changes in Ahmed Emin's stance towards Albanians 88 Fig. 31 The chart showing the number of times the word "Circassian" is mentioned in the articles Fig. 32 The chart showing the changes in Ahmed Emin's stance towards Circassians 89 Fig. 33 The chart showing the number of times the word "Laz" is mentioned in the articles Fig. 34 The chart showing the changes in Ahmed Emin's stance towards Laz 90 There are two periods of criticism of America as seen on the graph, one of which is at the beginning of the period and the other one is during the Lausanne negotiations. In the first one, the negative opinions are made while talking about the hate rising against Turks in Europe and the USA after the Great War.257 In this sense, it would not be fair to consider them to be strong points of criticism. He asserts that there is a hatred for Turkey; however, it is our responsibility to correct this perception. However, a year before, during the war he was bold enough to accuse Woodrow Wilson of escalating the war and described him to be a poor captive of the British.258 After a few months, all this criticism ceases, and the positive articles come out one after another. During Lausanne negotiations, there appear a few criticisms again. In this period, he criticizes America for acting mute.259 He claims that Americans do not care about victim Muslims as they pay attention to the Eastern Christians. However these criticisms cannot be compared to the ones towards Greeks and the Russians, since he is much tolerant to the Americans. Here, what is worth noticing is that neither in Turkey in My Time nor in the memoirs does he talk about these in the parts devoted to the Lausanne Peace Treaty. Remembering when these works were published (1956 and 1970 respectively), it seems plausible to “forget” the annoying events of the past, while Turkey was siding with America during the cold war with the USSR.260 As is seen on the graph, America is mentioned very frequently 257 Following the defeat of the Ottoman Empire in the World War I, the allies accused the Turks of committing atrocities against the Armenians and within such a context Armenians demanded to have an independent Armenia. Temuçin Faik Ertan, “Lozan Konferansı’nda Ermeni Sorunu.”, KÖK Araştırmalar KÖK Sosyal ve Stratejik Araştırmalar Dergisi. 2.2 (Spring 2000), p. 212. 258 Tezcan, pp. 55-56. 259 “Mr. Childs'ın Hataları,” Vakit, 15 January 1923. 260 After World War II, there started close economic and military relationship between the US and Turkey. “With the Truman Doctrine, U.S. men and material began pouring into Turkey. A joint U.S. Military Mission for Aid to Turkey was established and served as the focal point for U.S.—Turkish military 91 from the beginning of the period up until March 1920, his exile to Malta. The impact of the concentration on the mandate question should be taken into consideration in this frequency. One of the reasons behind the fact that he keeps almost all the time a positive position towards America—as clearly seen on the graph, is the noninvolvement of the USA in the war. His approach differs, for instance, towards the British and the French since there happened a shooting war between the sides. As the graph shows, although these two states are not exactly the same, there is a striking resemblance. At the beginning, there are some positive articles, then positive and negative ones are together, after his return from Malta there appear a few positive articles, ultimately during Lausanne, the number of the articles with severe criticism runs up. Having a look at this path with ups and downs as well as doing a content analysis of these articles, it can be interpreted as follows: While he is optimistic about the policies of two great invading powers regarding the signing of a peace treaty, he starts criticizing more and more, as the treatment of the allies gets violent. Looking at the first critical articles, it will be seen that the resistance movement gets strengthened and the hawkish politician Lord Curzon becomes the British foreign minister in October 1919. These criticisms cease following the de facto British occupation of Istanbul and his exile to Malta in March 1920. Indeed this tendency and change in reception is not peculiar to Ahmed Emin but it is followed relations. The Turkish army was modernized and reorganized along U.S. lines. The air force was a major recipient of U.S. assistance, which provided it with an interdiction capability. A great deal of emphasis was placed by the United States on reconstructing and resurfacing airfields and constructing intelligence monitoring stations and new air bases, such as that at Incirlik/Adana, which would host U.S. attack planes and heavy bombers capable of delivering atomic and later nuclear weapons.” M L. Evriviades. "Turkey's Role in United States Strategy During and After the Cold War." Mediterranean Quarterly. 9.2 (1998), pp. 33-34. 92 by the rest of the press in Istanbul.261 After his return from Malta he does not oppose the allies, except a few articles. Nevertheless, it would not be reasonable to consider these articles as the signs of full support.262 He keeps his hope and optimism for the British and the French during the Paris (March 1922) and Genoa Conferences (April 1922). Throughout the Lausanne Conference, nevertheless, all the conflicts between the Turkish and the British and the French delegation are reflected upon his articles as harsh criticisms. For both the French and the British, he constantly carries out a dual analysis. For Ahmed Emin there are no monolithic British and French categories. Rather, there are true, original representatives of civilization on the one hand, and two states which forget their identity and mission, on the other. Especially at the beginning of the period during the Crimean War (1853-56)263, he reminds particularly the political role of the French and emphasizes how important guide she was for the Ottomans. That is why he astonishingly raises criticisms of the French policies against Turks and Muslims.264 He 261 Mustafa Özdemir. “Mütareke Dönemi Siyasi Akımların Türk Basınındaki Yansıması.” p. 23. Çağdaş Türkiye Tarihi Araştırmaları Dergisi. 7.16-17 (2008), p. 223. 262 For instance, he views what Lord Curzon said as significant, wishing justice for all before Paris Conference. “İngiltere'nin Şark Siyaseti,” Vakit, 17 March 1922. 263 “[A]fter the Crimean War, the Foreign Ministry adopted French as a- perhaps, the-principal language of communication within the Ottoman diplomatic service. The Tercüme Odası or Translation Department, created in 1823, became in effect by the sixties and seventies an adjunct of the Foreign Ministry. Clippings from the European press first began to reach the Foreign Ministry in large number during the Crimean War.” J C. Hurewitz. "Ottoman Diplomacy and the European State System." The Middle East Journal. 15.2 (1961), pp. 150-151. 264 This point is frequently elaborated both in the articles and in the memoirs. At the beginning of the armistice period, he maintains that the French guided the Ottomans as being the center of civilization, in order to support his eagerness for an American aid. “Müzaheret ve Kabiliyet,” Vakit, 2 August 1919. Within this context he reiterates the distinction of “old British” and “new British” in his memoirs. Yalman, Yakın Tarihte Gördüklerim ve Geçirdiklerim: 1, pp. 166, 83; Yalman, Yakın Tarihte Gördüklerim ve Geçirdiklerim: 2, pp. 81-82; Yalman, Turkey in my Time, pp. 64-66. For further examples of this dual analysis in the articles see; “İngiltere Siyaseti,” Vakit, 5 February 1920; “Dünkü Celse,” Vakit, 10 February 1920; “Sulhün Anahtarı Eski Ellerdedir,” Vakit, 2 December 1922; “Tazyikin İki Şartı,” Vakit, 4 December 1922; “Engel Olan Kim?,” Vakit, 27 February 1923; “Meclisin Kararından Sonra,” Vakit, 9 93 maintains this line of thought in his memoirs too and argues that it became very detrimental for the Ottomans when these western powers quit the mission of guidance.265 However when he relates these parts he places much more emphasis on the British rather than the French. For instance although it is mentioned four times in the articles, he does not include the disappointment of Ali Pasha after the French was defeated by the Germans in 1871 in his memoirs.266 Here, probably the reason for this choice is not an enmity for the French, however, his sentimental closeness with the Anglo-Saxon culture can play a role. Furthermore, the disagreement between France and Turkey over the Hatay question extended to 1930s267 can make this selective remembering more meaningful. Although he has positive feelings for the British, he keeps a critical position as a person on the Turkish side before and during the armistice due to the military and political conflicts with the Ottoman Empire. The dual analysis constantly appears both in the articles and in the memoirs. With such a discourse, he both accommodates the westernist policies of Turkey and succeeds in remaining sufficiently nationalist. Although the graph for Italians resembles to the British and the French in shape, it is much more scattered. Because even though Italy sides with the other allies and their political decisions were mostly in common, she was not as influential as the other actors, March 1923; “Emperyalizme Muhalefet,” Vatan, 28 March 1923; “Lord Rotrmor'un Makalesi,” Vatan, 28 April 1923. 265 Yalman, Yakın Tarihte Gördüklerim ve Geçirdiklerim: 1, p. 229. 266 Ibid. pp. 58, 298. “France in 1871 was defeated and occupied by German armies. What had been its eastern defenses were now in the new German state. The French government had to attend to the Paris Communards, suppress a revolt in Algeria, and settle a staggering reparations bill.” William Moul. "Power Parity, Preponderance, and War between Great Powers, 1816-1989." The Journal of Conflict Resolution. 47.4 (2003), p. 481. 267 M. B. and H. G. L. “Syria and Lebanon: The States of the Levant under French Mandate.” Bulletin of International News. 17.14 (1940), p. 847. 94 and Ahmed Emin thought so.268 In addition, the fact that the Italians were the first allied power retreating Anatolia might have reduced the number of the articles with criticism against them.269 However what is of interest is that while he composes an article titled “Fascist Italy” and argues that “fascist Italy and the nationalist Turkey can be quite good friends, provided that they respect each other’s right”270, these are not mentioned in his memoirs. Keeping in mind when the memoirs are published, because fascism is no longer a legitimate ideology especially after the experiences of Mussolini and A. Hitler, he prefers not to remember what he wrote before on this issue. Ahmed Emin has a clearer stance towards Russia who sided with the allies during the Great War then left the block with the Bolshevik revolution. On the graph it is clearly seen that there is no positive article on Russians during the first year of the period. Firstly, he never forgets the Russia’s role on the Crimean War (1853-56), the Russo-Turkish War (1877-78)271 and on the “provocation” of the Armenians against the state, and thinks that Russia exerted seriously destructive impact for the Ottoman Empire.272 Secondly, although Russia was part of the allies in the war, she is not a direct military counterpart whose troops are in the capital during the armistice. Thus, it is much 268 He seldom talks about the Italian policies during Lausanne both in the armistice period and in the memoirs. In Turkey in my Time, they are even never mentioned. Yalman, Yakın Tarihte Gördüklerim ve Geçirdiklerim: 2, p. 20; Yalman, Turkey in my Time, p. 72. 269 A treaty was signed between the sides on March 13, 1921. Ahmet Özgiray. "Türk-İtalyan Siyasi İlişkileri (1921-1930)", Tarih İncelemeleri Dergisi. 5. (1990), p. 126. 270 “Faşist İtalya,” Vakit, 5 March 1923. 271 This is a war between Russia and the Ottoman Empire lasting two years between 1877-78. It was ended with a decisivie defeat of the Turkish side. “After the Russo- Turkish war of 1877-8 Turkey ceded the provinces of Ardahan, Kars, Batum, and Bayazid to Russia under the terms of the Treaty of San Stefano”. J. R. “The Background of Russo-Turkish Relations.” The World Today. 2.2 (1946), p. 63. 272 “Mevcudiyet Namına Mücadele,” Vakit, 19 November 1918; “Harici Tehlike Karşısında,” Vakit, 21 August 1919; “Bizim Propagandamız,” Vakit, 24 August 1919; “Ekalliyetleri Himaye,” Vakit, 26 August 1919. 95 easier to criticize. However, towards the end of the period, during the Genoa Conference and Lausanne negotiations, he emphasizes the friendship with Russia, bearing in mind that Moscow Treaty (a treaty of amity) was signed between Soviet Russia and Turkey in March 16, 1921.273 In effect, these articles cannot be considered to show full support, however, Ahmed Emin evaluates the Russian policies over Turkey within a framework of friendship. However, these positive approaches are dismissed quite meaningfully; rather, there is consistent criticism of the Russians in the memoirs. It is a good example for the transformation of the past by the standards of the present that Ahmed Emin as an open pro-American intellectual does not mention these articles in the Cold War years. Regarding Russians, roughly speaking, there is a shift from positive to negative from the articles to the memoirs. However, the direction of change is just the opposite for the Germans. It can be extracted from his memoirs that his opinions for the Germans are basically positive. He states that he spent six years at the German school in Istanbul,274 and the teachers struggled to instill a love for Germans.275 In addition, when he went to the US in 1910, he says, he was affiliated with the German associations and involved in German circles.276 Furthermore, during the First World War he openly supports Germans and promotes developing the Turko-German relations, most probably because the government of CUP sided with them when he returned from America to Istanbul in 273 “The renunciation of tsarist claims on Turkish territory and of Russian participation in the capitulatory regime were for the enhancement of Turkey's political and economic self-determination; moreover, the quantities of material aid, both in military equipment and in financial grants, substantially improved the situation of the Turkish national forces.” John R. Broadus. "Soviet Historical Literature on the Last Years of the Ottoman Empire." Middle Eastern Studies. 18.1 (1982), pp. 106-107. 274 Yalman, Turkey in my Time, p. 19. 275 Yalman, Yakın Tarihte Gördüklerim ve Geçirdiklerim: 1, p. 41-45. 276 Ibid., p. 131. 96 1910.277 His shift to an opposite position is criticized by the other writers during the period.278 Despite the criticisms, he continues to keep his new position, not to mention them during the armistice period as much as possible, being aware of the fact that it would be dangerous to appear to be siding with Germans. The graph explicitly shows how rarely he talks about them in this period. It is quite interesting that there are no directly positive articles whereas a number of neutral ones appear. Because, he prefers implicitly criticizing the French policies towards Germany, especially referring to the Treaty of Versailles,279 even if he says that he openly criticized in the memoirs.280 One of the most important considerations of Ahmed Emin in this period is to prove that (1) there is no political relationship between Germany and Turks and (2) Germany had never been a cultural center in history.281 He constructs the past in a way in which he supports Germany, since by the time his memoirs were published, Germany got rid of 277 Tezcan, p. 218. For instance he argues that Germans did not follow a cultural imperialism as the others, imposing their language and traditions to the other people. For the original quote see; Appendix A. 278 For instance Ali Kemal accuses Ahmed Emin being on intimate terms with Germans basically due to his economic considerations on Vakit. While he was supportive of the Unionists, he argues, Ahmed Emin became a major opponent of them. For him, Ahmed Emin is not a trustworthy and a consistent man. For the original excerpt from his article see; Appendix A. 279 In the aftermath of the WWI, on June 28, 1919, the Treaty of Versailles was signed between the Allied Powers and Germany. It was marked by the humiliation of Germans especially by the efforts of France. Alan Sharp. "The Enforcement of the Treaty of Versailles, 1919-1923." Diplomacy and Statecraft. 16.3 (2005), p. 423. 280 While he shows his resentment for the death agony of Germans under the Versailles Treaty, this attitude does not make its way into the article in which the same topic was elaborated. “Nasıl Muvaffak Olduk?,” Vatan, 20 July 1923. 281 He tells that German soldiers ate food while the Turkish soldiers went hungry, and describes this scene in full detail. “Bir Propaganda Silahı,” Vakit, 10 January 1920. However, he argues that narrow-minded politicians led to the faults of Germans during the war. Yalman, Turkey in my Time, pp. 48-49. Furthermore, while he denounces Germans, exalts the French as the representatives of civilization and their language and culture played an important role in the Ottoman Empire. 97 the accusations of imperialism and the baggage of fascism.282 He chooses not to remember his criticisms of them. As towards Germany, he tries to keep Bulgarians at a distance in the armistice period. Especially at the beginning of the armistice he occasionally mentions the Bulgarian massacres which, for him, provoked by the Russians. The disputes over the border during Lausanne are reflected upon the articles of Ahmed Emin.283 The positive articles seen on graph are not as strong as the others, such as for Americans or the British. For instance, he appreciates that they protect the solidarity after the war contrary to Turks who were involved in conflicts of fırkacılık (partisanship). 284 Yet, in memoirs, only once does he talk about the Bulgarian massacres (1897-1908)285, apart from this they are not considered to be powerful actors. The disagreements between the Turks and the Bulgarians during Lausanne are not seen worthy to deal with. Probably because Bulgaria proves not to be a critical political actor up until 1970s, Ahmed Emin rewrites the period in such a way. His criticisms of the Greeks in the articles and in the memoirs are completely consistent. Throughout the armistice period he elaborates that the Greeks are brutal, invasive, ineffective in administration and agitators. Only once does he tell that there is closeness between the Turks and the Greeks in the USA because of the distance. Here are some words that he uses for them: “Greek atrocity”, 286 “monstrous Greek flocks”, 287 282 A. Sa'adah. "Regime Change: Lessons from Germany on Justice, Institution Building, and Democracy." Peace Research Abstracts Journal. 43.5 (2006), pp. 303-04. 283 “Balkan Sulhü,” Vakit, 2 November 1922; “Garp Hududumuz,” Vakit, 25 November 1922; “Garbi Trakya ve Balkanlar,” Vakit, 30 November 1922; “Fransa'nın Rolü,” Vakit, 11 January 1923; “Tamirat İtilafı ve Neticeleri,” Vatan, 29 May 1923; “Balkanlar'da Vaziyetimiz,” Vatan, 30 May 1923. 284 “Yegane Ümit Kapısı,” Vakit, 11 January 1919; “İktisadi Tehlikeler,” Vakit, 23 August 1919. 285 Yalman, Turkey in my Time, p. 15; Yalman, Yakın Tarihte Gördüklerim ve Geçirdiklerim: 2, p. 310. 286 “Allah'ın Bu Günü de Varmış,” Vakit, 3 October 1922; 98 “butcher Greece” 288, “the Greek aggressors” 289. Thus it is reasonable to argue that there is a by and large continuity in the articles and the memoirs. It should be taken into consideration that there had not happened big changes in the Turkish foreign policy on the Greeks from Lausanne until the 1970s. Taking a look at the graph for the Rums, although it is similar with the Greeks in shape, it is much more scattered. In other words, wherever Greeks are mentioned, Rums, who for him are their accomplices, are included in the analysis. However, since the war is fought against the Greeks they are mentioned more frequently. He severely criticizes Rums both in the articles and in the memoirs and accused them of treason.290 However, he differentiates the Rums-with-Greek-sentiments and the Anatolian Rums and appreciates the behaviors of the latter. 291 This is almost exactly copied to the memoirs.292 Taking a look at the historical context of the time, Hürriyet ve İtilaf Fırkası (Party of Freedom and Understanding) and the minorities took a decision not to participate in the elections.293 Yet, the aforementioned Anatolian Rums were an exception. Furthermore, in his writings, Ahmed Emin openly supports the Anatolian Rums’ intention to hold an election independent of the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate. It is obvious that what underlies this effort is to promote the Turkish policies in pursuit of undermining the power of the patriarchate rather than supporting 287 “Yanlış Hesaplar,” Vakit, 18 April 1922. 288 “Ankara'dan Cepheye Giderken,” Vakit, 27 January 1922. 289 “Komisyonun Kararı,” Vakit, 13 October 1919. 290 “Yunanistan'daki Türkler,” Vakit, 24 November 1922. 291 “Yunanlılık Meseleleri,” Vakit, 5 November 1919. 292 Yalman, Yakın Tarihte Gördüklerim ve Geçirdiklerim: 2, p. 46. Tarık Zafer Tunaya. Devrim Hareketleri İçinde Atatürk ve Atatürkçülük. Ankara: Turhan Kitabevi, 1981. p. 183. 293 99 one fraction of the Rums in Anatolia. While the story is narrated in the memoirs in such a way, in the book written in English, his thoughts about the Rums are as follows: “The extent of the tragedy was recognized years afterwards when the Greek emigrants, who were culturally 100 percent Turks, speaking only Turkish even in their church services, suffered homesickness for the land of their birth and the loss of prosperity enjoyed in underpopulated Turkey, while they lived from hand to mouth as refugees in overpopulated Greece.”294 The reason behind this emphasis should be the tendency to please the addressee who apparently had sympathy for the Greeks. Adopting the discourse of the official ideology, Ahmed Emin devotes quite a number of pages to the Rum and the Armenian refugees who wished to come back to their homeland and harshly opposes to their effort to return. 295 He even describes the situation as follows: “From the Turkish standpoint it was a tragic but necessary amputation of hostile elements in the population of Turkey, essential to peace and political health in the Near East. These people were to follow their personal loyalty to another country.”296 The graph quite explicitly shows that he continuously criticizes the Armenians although there are a few positive articles at the beginning of the period. At this point, Taner Akçam’s analysis becomes crucial. In the aftermath of the Great War, Ottoman intellectuals show empathy for the Armenians under the accusations of the Armenian massacres and in the absence of a strong Anatolian resistance. However, as the Turkish side gets the upper hand, they return to the previous position towards the Armenians. Ahmed Emin is not an 294 Yalman, Turkey in my Time, p. 131. 295 Yalman, Yakın Tarihte Gördüklerim ve Geçirdiklerim: 3, pp. 114-126. 296 Yalman, Turkey in my Time, pp. 130-31. 100 exception to this analysis.297 While the Armenians are vilified, say, twelve pages are devoted to the question of the return of Armenian refugees in the memoirs written after many years; he does not prefer to elaborate this issue, or just to talk about it in the Turkey in my Time, most probably because of some strategic reasons, not to bother English-speaking readers. Moreover, relating the conversation with his would-be assassin, he tells that Üzmez blamed him of an American mandatist and defending ceding some of the Ottoman territory to the Armenians. In his response, he only answers to the mandate accusations,298 there is no explanation for the other side of the criticism, sheerly because, this is a reflection of reality. These words are from his article titled “Turkism and Homelandism (Memleketçilik) II”: “Turks should wish to add some territory to the Armenian Republic to contain the refugees in accordance with the Tevfik Pasha memorial and the formation of an Armenia with an ability to survive. The Armenians not feeling any allegiance to the Ottoman homeland should be called on to acquire Armenia’s citizenship whether they leave for Armenia or remain among us.” 299 While Rums and Armenians are frequently mentioned in both the articles and in the memoirs, Jews who are another non-Muslim minority, are seldom mentioned. Although 297 Following the armistice, Turks were exposed to severe denigrations and accusations. For instance, Lloyd George told that “the Turks had turned Mesopotamia, the ancient cradle of civilization, into a wasteland, and Armenia into a graveyard, adding that the areas of this cradle of civilization ‘shall not be left to the incendiary and destructive brutality of the Turks’. It would thus be no exaggeration to claim that the reaction to this denigration and ostracizing was an important motif during the Turkish War for Independence.” Akçam, p. 73. 298 Yalman, Yakın Tarihte Gördüklerim ve Geçirdiklerim: 4, p. 292. 299 “Türkçülük ve Memleketçilik II,” Vakit, 21 October 1919. This idea is criticized by some other intellectuals. For instance Falih Rıfkı Atay suggests that Ahmed Emin came up with these ideas after the national struggle started contrary to his self-defense that by the time there was no unified national front and the country was in a suffocating situation. F.Rıfkı Atay, “Biz Bunları Unutmayız”, Ulus, 25 October 1945. Cited in Tezcan, 74. 101 there are a few criticism as a result of the elections in which they do not take part,300 he positively writes about them in general. In his memoirs, he asserts that they were exposed to many persecutions, say, the Nazi atrocities and Varlık Vergisi (capital tax on wealth).301 There can be two reasons behind this infrequent coverage of the Jews. Firstly, the Jews had not been influential political actors and they did not rebel against the Ottomans. Secondly, evern if it is hard to prove, the dönme (crypto-Jewish) identity of Ahmed Emin might have impacted his choices. Out of the non-Turkish Muslims, following the change in his writings on Kurds is the most interesting one. Both within the armistice period and in the memoirs there is a quite fast change in his attitudes. At the beginning while criticizing the Unionists, he argues that the Turkist policies led to the national awakening among Kurds along with the other ethnic groups. Again in the same period, in the first year of the armistice, he supports the Kurds’ right to independently develop in accordance with his promotion of the Wilson’s fourteen points. In August 1919, he puts forward that one should not get afraid of the usages of the words, “Kurd”, and “Kurdistan”, then even defends the autonomy of Kurds.302 Yet, towards the end of 1919, at the end of the Paris Conference, in a situation in which the possibility for a mandate no longer exists and the national resistance is a serious military and political rival against the Greeks, for the first time in November 30, 1919, he maintains that Kurds should be developed but Turks and Kurds 300 “Adem-i İştirakin Manası,” Vakit, 13 December 1919. 301 Varlık vergisi is a capital tax levied upon wealthy non-Muslim citizens, whose amount is arbitrarily determined by the state officials. The purpose was to annihilate the non-Turkish bourgeoisie as the critical actors of the economy. For a detailed discussion of this law as a punishment to luxurious consumption in İstanbul see; Ayhan Aktar. Varlık Vergisi ve Türkleştirme Politikaları. Cağaloğlu, İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları, 2000. pp. 153-214. 302 “Kürtler ve Kürdistan,” Vakit, 14 August 1919. 102 are indissociable so Kurds ought not to have an independent state contrary to Arabs.303 After a short while, he is exiled to Malta, he does not talk about Kurds for a long time after his return to Istanbul. When the Mosul question emerges in the Lausanne negotiations, he sides with the Turkish official thesis emphasizing the brotherhood between the Turks and the Kurds and Mosul should be included into the Turkish territory for him. 304 He says that in his memoirs he strongly attacked the British policies for establishing hegemony in the region through Kurds, 305 by making references to the article titled “England and Kurdishness” 306. However, in the same memoirs he does not remember his other article titled “Kurds and Kurdistan” proposing to give autonomy to the Kurds. He, very badly describes them both in the memoirs and in the Turkey in my Time. 307 He implies that the real criminals of the Armenian massacres are the Kurds.308 During the national struggle, he argues, those who really made a sacrifice are Turks except a few Kurds and Arabs.309 Furthermore, he explains the Sheikh Said rebellion as a reactionary, separatist one provoked by the British.310 Especially the shifts in his stance 303 “Balfour'un Beyanatı,” Vakit, 30 November 1919. 304 He asserts that it is unfair that the League of Nations becomes a counterpart in Mosul question. Because, although Arabs live there, the major part of the population is composed by the Kurds and the Turks. Kurds are just the same as Turks to be the sons of this country. “Cemiyet-i Akvam ve Biz,” Vakit, 22 December 1922. “Kurds are not minority in the eyes of this country. They are the owners and the lords of the country together with Turks. Their patriotism has been severely tested and they proved to be an indivisible part of the majority.” “İngiltere ve Kürtlük,” Vakit, 26 January 1923. 305 Yalman, Yakın Tarihte Gördüklerim ve Geçirdiklerim: 3, p. 33. 306 “İngiltere ve Kürtlük,” Vakit, 26 January 1923. 307 Kurds are mentioned twice in Turkey in my Time. Both of them is within the context of Kurdish separatism, so in a negative sense. Yalman, Turkey in my Time, pp. 150-51, 250. 308 Yalman, Yakın Tarihte Gördüklerim ve Geçirdiklerim: 1, pp. 332-33. 309 Ibid., p. 261. 310 Yalman, Turkey in my Time, pp. 150-151. At the same time, he argues that Sheikh Said served the Russians as a provoker. Yalman, Yakın Tarihte Gördüklerim ve Geçirdiklerim: 3, p. 160. 103 on the Kurdish question constitute a good example of how fast he is able to side with the power centre. It is quite meaningful to forget what he wrote before on the Kurds whose existence with a separate identity were denied and some of whom are assimilated through migration, education and other means during the Republican era.311 While the Kurdish question is one of the most critical ones, Arabs are not frequently mentioned both in the memoirs and in the articles. At this point it is a crucial factor that Arabs no longer occupy an important place in Turkish foreign policy.312 Only in the first year of the period, does he argue that Arabs should be separated and have their own sovereign states emphasizing the self-determination rights. In the same period, he puts forth that Arabs along with the other non-Turkish Muslims were persecuted by the Unionists and thus the Arab nationalism was awakened. 313 In the following years, they are not discussed as a factor in the political equation. During the negotiations on the Mosul question in the Lausanne Conference, he prefers to address the British rather than Arabs, even though they were a part of the debates on the distribution of population of the city. 314 In the memoirs too they are only a few times mentioned and they are not presented as a side to the conflicts. Albanians, as Arabs, are exhibited as a nation persecuted by the Unionists. For Ahmed Emin, however, they should have been developed.315 Yet, they 311 Soner Çaǧaptay. Islam, Secularism, and Nationalism in Modern Turkey: Who is a Turk? London: Routledge, 2006. pp. 19-24. 312 Cagaptay argues that the Arab and Circassian population constituted less than 1 percent of the whole, so they can be considered as demographically insignificant. Ibid., p. 19. “Fikri Münakaşa Sahasında,” Vakit, 16 November 1918; “Tegallüb Siyasetinin İzleri,” Vakit, 27 February 1919; “Milliyetperverliğin Hududu,” Vakit, 17 September 1919. 313 “Musul Petrolleri ve İngiltere,” Vakit, 27 November 1922; “Cemiyet-i Akvam ve Biz,” Vakit, 22 December 1922; “Dost mu Düşman mı?,” Vakit, 25 January 1923. 314 315 “Müstakil Arnavutluk,” Vakit, 14 December 1918; “Milliyetperverliğin Hududu,” Vakit, 17 September 1919; “Türkçülük ve Memleketçilik,” Vakit, 20 October 1919; “Tesanüdlerin Tevafuku ve Tearuzu,” Vakit, 3 January 1920. 104 are considered important to be mentioned neither in the following years, nor in the memoirs. Circassians and the Laz, despite his sympathy for them, are only mentioned along with the other Muslims as noneffective and passive elements of the Ottoman Empire. He follows the suit in the memoirs as well. 105 CHAPTER IV: CONCLUSION: UNDERSTANDING THE CONTRADICTING ACCOUNTS Ahmed Emin After the Armistice Period Ahmed Emin maintained his influence on media in the aftermath of the armistice period as well, after leading two critical dailies, Vakit and Vatan and writing for Tanin and Sabah. The first problem of the new period regarding the media was the disagreement between the Istanbul and Ankara press. Besides, after the debates on the place of capital in the spring and the summer of 1923, the way the Kemalists proclaimed the Republic became another space of contention between the sides. The Istanbul Press based their opposition to Ankara upon the argument that the one-party system would bring about dictatorship, driving forward the words of Kazım Karabekir: “I am a supporter of the Republic but an opponent of a personal sultanate.”316 Mustafa Kemal organized a meeting in Izmit, in order to end this conflict and to convince the Istanbul press. Ahmed Emin was among the participants of this meeting and he wrote, in his memoirs, that Mustafa Kemal conveyed his arguments in a very persuasive manner.317 However, this meeting did not stop his criticisms in Vatan as the leading columnist. Moreover, he openly lends his support to the PRP founded in 1924 against PP. He was offered to be in the founder’s committee, but he preferred to remain 316 For the original quote see; Appendix A. 317 Yalman, Yakın Tarihte Gördüklerim ve Geçirdiklerim: 3 pp. 28-32. In this meeting Mustafa Kemal demanded the support of Istanbul press especially on the issue of abolition of the caliphate. 106 outside of politics.318 His opposition was punished by the Ankara government by the closure of Vatan under the law of Takrir-i Sükun.319 Ahmed Emin made a break in journalism for ten years. In this period, first he wrote one of the volumes for a series on the Social and Economic History of the World War upon the request of his teacher at Columbia University, Prof. James T. Shotwell. Yale University Press published this volume titled, Turkey in the World War, in 1930.320 In the meanwhile, he was involved in commercial activities. During this process, Julian W. Gillespie, the American commercial attaché helped him a lot, especially providing Ahmed Emin with a business network in US. By the help of Gillespie, Ahmed Emin started an importing business and became the Turkish agent for the Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company. Then he formed a company and established a dealer organization all over Turkey, together with his brother Rıfat Yalman. Shortly after, they added to their first line Dodge Brothers, Caterpillar, Curtiss-Wright, Sperry, and other American agencies. He specialized in the sphere of government contracting. The company doubled the American exports to Turkey between 1927 and 1929.321 He started publishing a weekly political paper, Kaynak, by Mustafa Kemal’s permission in 1936.322 This newspaper did not become so successful and Ahmed Emin was not satisfied with a weekly paper. Then, he bought the printing plant from İş Bankası that he sold to them previously and launched a daily, Tan, together with 318 Ibid., pp. 139-140. 319 Ibid., p. 188. 320 Ahmed Emin, Turkey in my Time, p. 166. 321 Ibid., p. 160. 322 Ibid., p. 161. 107 Zekeriya Sertel and Halil Lütfü Dördüncü. Ahmed Emin wrote as the leading writer of this newspaper as well, until 1938. In this period, he and Sertel severely criticized the rising fascism in Europe against some other intellectuals in the Turkish press, such as Peyami Safa. However, he retired from the paper, since it was suspended for three months by the government. The reason behind this suspension was that Ahmed Emin published a well-displayed article on the front page of Tan on August 27, 1938. It was “about Atatürk’s health and the right of the Turkish nation to know the truth day by day, and stating the importance of staying alert and united in such days of trial”323. The government sent him “to New York in charge of a general publicity campaign in connection with Turkey's participation in the New York World's Fair”.324 He spent more than a year in the US between 1938-1939. In 1940 he returned to Turkey and started republishing Vatan on August 19.325 He was almost obsessed with the control over the editorial policy of the paper. That is why, he did not allow anybody to have a large amount of share. In this newspaper he intensively criticized Nazis, and continued proAmerican publishing policies in the aftermath of the Second World War. Ahmed Emin incessantly gave support to the government in the first half of the Democrat Party period (1950-55) due to the pro-American policies. However, thereafter, he started opposing the party in power because of the deviation from this line and of the oppressive tendencies of Adnan Menderes, the prime minister. In 1959, he was sentenced to one and a half year of prison due to his opposition. Democrat Party government was overthrown by the 1960 coup d’état. 323 Ibid., p. 171. 324 Ibid., pp. 171-172. 325 Ibid., p. 187. 108 Ahmed Emin left Vatan for not being able to follow a publishing policy as he wished, due to the multiplicity of the partners. He started publishing Hür Vatan in 1961. Up until 1963 he had been the leading writer of this newspaper as well. However, Hür Vatan had not been as influential as he expected. Ahmed Emin who headed the Institute for Turkish Press between 1963 and 1968, composed his memoirs in the last years of his life. A Theoretical Approach In this thesis, my aim has not been assessing what Ahmed Emin wrote in the armistice period and in his memoirs by the criteria of the “historical facts”. Rather, my objective is to show how the changes took place from the armistice until the 1970s are reflected upon in the memoirs and in Turkey in My Time which are works reconstructing the past from the perspective of the author. Furthermore, I target to explain what these alterations in his writings composed in different times mean with the help of some theoretical tools. It is no longer a valid thesis that a work of a historian or a biographer tells what happened in the past as it was in the past without any distortion or intervention to the text. Instead of this approach, it is generally accepted that many factors are involved in the writing process while narrating the past. “In both cases [histories and memories] historians are learning to take account of conscious or unconscious selection, interpretation and distortion. In both cases they are coming to see the process as conditioned, or at least influenced, by social groups.”326 The writer of a memoir 326 Peter Burke. Varieties of Cultural History. Ithaca, N.Y: Cornell University Press, 1997. p. 44. 109 constructs the text in a way in which its coherence is appreciated by the reader.327 Ahmed Emin, as well, strives to present his life as coherent as possible, which covers all the late nineteenth and the three-fourth of twentieth century witnessing great political transformations, say, the demise of the Ottoman Empire and two Great Wars, the birth of the Turkish Republic and the Cold War. This pseudo-coherence is carried into effect by some tools, namely, sharpening, leveling, condensation and displacement. 328 Taking the political-social-cultural norms as a basis, the parts which are in parallel with these norms are sharpened, but the “risky” parts are leveled. For instance, he prefers leveling the articles on mandate or American aid concentrated in the first year of the armistice period. He chooses to displace some articles on the Kurdish and the Armenian questions (autonomy for Kurds, territory cession to the Armenians), maybe because it is a little bit hard to level. Even though he sided with the national resistance especially after his return from Malta, he keeps comparatively moderate position. Yet, he sharpens his patriotism in the memoirs. To serve this purpose, he deliberately highlights the articles attacking the Sultan and the British. According to Charlotte Linde, the process of creating coherence is not, all the time, a matter of choice, rather it may be a social obligation which implicitly forces the individual to make the life story a coherent one.329 However, the state can be another actor that coerces the people to go along with its ideals as well. In the case of Ahmed Emin, this kind of analysis can be much more helpful in understanding this complexity. 327 Charlotte Linde. Life Stories: The Creation of Coherence. New York: Oxford University Press, 1993. p. 12. Actually, Linde deals with the life stories, however, here I apply this theoretical approach to the memoirs of Ahmed Emin. 328 Burke, Varieties of Cultural History, pp. 54-55. 329 Linde. Life Stories: The Creation of Coherence, p. 16. 110 Because the new Turkish state is not that merciful to the opposition or critics, and perhaps for the possibility of a witch-hunting towards the people who used to be a member of “armistice press” (mütareke basını)330 in the past, Ahmed Emin drew a much patriotic picture of his life. As a consequence of the need “to exist in the social world with a comfortable sense of being a good, socially proper, and stable person”, an individual needs to have a constantly revised life story as well as being coherent and acceptable.331 Therefore, life stories and memoirs are discontinous units which are subject to constant change and revision as some old meanings are dropped and replaced with the newer ones.332 Even in one’s own conversations, “at different times, on different occasions, and to different people, individuals give different accounts of the same facts and of the reasons why they happened.”333 If one looks at the memoirs of Ahmed Emin through this theoretical prism, it would be observed that the account differs in different times and to the different readers. Just as he constantly changes his position in various issues, especially on the Kurdish question, during the armistice, he prefers to give different accounts in his book, Turkey in my Time, published in 1956, by University of Oklahoma Press, to the Anglo-American readers,334 and in his memoirs, Yakın Tarihte Gördüklerim ve Geçirdiklerim, composed of four volumes, came out in 1970, in Turkey, in Turkish and to the Turkish readers. For example, he devotes lots of 330 The Istanbul press has been labeled as mütareke basını by the Kemalists of Turkish Republic. The term comprises an accusation of them for not supporting the Anatolian resistance during the national struggle. 331 Linde, Life Stories: The Creation of Coherence, p. 3. 332 Ibid., p. 4. 333 Ibid. 334 He openly articulates that the book was specifically composed with regard particularly to the interests of Anglo-American readers. Yalman, Turkey in my Time, p. vi. 111 pages to the Armenian question in his memoirs, supporting the official thesis of the republican state which is prone to show them as the arch-enemies of the Turkish nations. Whereas he goes into details of the “treasons” of the Armenians and the danger of the possibility of the return of them to the homeland in the memoirs, he simply does not utter even one word on this theme in the Turkey in my Time. In addition, in this book, the sorrows of the Rums dislocated from Anatolia were described at length. However, most of the time their cooperation with the Greeks is emphasized in the memoirs.. Finally, according to Peter Burke, “what happens in the case of these myths is that differences between past and present are elided, and unintended consequences are turned into conscious aims, as if the main purpose of these past heroes had been to bring about the present - our present”335. The most stunning example is to this theoretical statement is the changing position and priority of Mustafa Kemal in his accounts. As aforementioned, during the armistice he mentions his name in less than 10 percent of the articles that he wrote at the time. Interestingly enough, this proportion skyrockets to 20 percent in his memoirs. Moreover, the first article in which Mustafa Kemal’s name was mentioned is as early as December 31, 1921 and he wrote in his praise for the first time on February 7, 1922, after the Mudanya Armistice—after the decisive victory of the Anatolian resistance. In this article, nonetheless, he admits that he had in his mind some doubts, shared by some others as well, on the possibility that he would be a dictator to the country. Although he started demonstrating his support for Mustafa Kemal that late, he tries to prove his closeness with him not only through his writings but also with the help 335 Burke, Varieties of Cultural History, p. 59. 112 of a few photographs. He frequently uses Mustafa Kemal’s pictures in the memoirs and under some of them leaves a caption referring to him. In the very first pages of the memoirs are two of them. In addition, he adds a picture of himself and Mustafa Kemal together, emphasizing that he was with the leader of the national movement at wartime. It should be noted that this picture is fitted to the page rotating ninety degrees so that it looks as big as possible. Consequently, as Burke points out, Ahmed Emin reconstructs the armistice period in such a way that “the national hero” creates the present. In doing so, he turns unintended consequences into the results of well-planned intentions so that his account of this period and the official narration of “the creation of a nation under the leadership of a hero” overlap with one another. 113 Fig. 35 The caption reads: “My father, Osman Tevfik Bey was honored to teach Atatürk, and my mother Hasibe Hanım was a self-sacrificing and a benevolent person.” Yalman, Yakın Tarihte Gördüklerim ve Geçirdiklerim: 1, p. 10. 114 Fig. 36 The caption reads: “I enrolled in the Salonika Military Middle School at the age of nine. I was deeply attached to and loved this school (depicted above) so much, that Mustafa Kemal attended as well.” Yalman, Yakın Tarihte Gördüklerim ve Geçirdiklerim: 1, p. 24. 115 Fig. 37 The caption reads: “A candid conversation with Atatürk and his offer to me.” Yalman, Yakın Tarihte Gördüklerim ve Geçirdiklerim: 2, p. 317. 116 All in all, the writings of Ahmed Emin, like anybody, are beyond conveying the sheer fact. Although this function of these texts is undeniable, it is much more meaningful to trace the change in his articles in the armistice period and his memoirs composed after a long time. As an intellectual of tumultuous times, he keeps changing his position and ideas mostly in accordance with the shifting power centers. He does this through the acts of sharpening, leveling, condensation or displacement. At the end of the book there appears a coherent life story which fits the official standards of a Turkish nationalist subject. With his ebbs and flows, his writings during the formative years of the Turkish Republic and the re-narration of the events of the time at a later time are worth to analyze. It constitutes a quite a good example of the constant fluctuation in the mind and acts of a late Ottoman-modern Turkish intellectual. 117 APPENDICES A: Original Quotes in Turkish Page 15, footnote 66: “Gazetelerde okuduk. Moskova'daki yeni Sovyet Meclisi Lenin'in yerine Girinin'i başkan seçmiş!.. Lenin gitmiş, Girinin gelmiş… O dahi gitse elbette bir Sonomlin yahut da bir Petrovin bulunur. Bu zorba ve eşkıya başılığı münhal kalmaz. Fakat, Lenin'in yerini dolduracak adam nerede? Bizde de öyle ya !.. Enver gitmiş sanılıyor. Fakat, sanki yerinde duruyor. Talat güya kaçtı. Fakat, sanki başucumuzda bekliyor. Cemal meydanda yok. Fakat, farz et ki koynumuzda saklı. Herifin birinin Gülsüm adında bir karısı varmış, kadın. ölmüş, herif hemen evlenmiş… Yeni haremine adını sormuş. -Gülsüm, demiş… Herif sevincinden: -Gülsüm'ün yerine Gülsüm, Azrail ettiğini bulsun!.. diye haykırmış. İşte bu hal Lenin'in yerine Girinin, Cemal'in yerine Kemal, Avrupa ettiğini bulsun!..” Refik Halit, Alemdar, 3 January 1920. Cited in Ilgar, pp. 21-22. Page 15, footnote 67: “Mustafa Kemal Paşa'nın zor kullanacağına ihtimal verilmez. Fakat işin içinde deliler var. Milli Harekatı çığırından çıkarıyorlar.” Refi Cevat, Alemdar, 26 October 1919. Cited in Ilgar, p. 11. 118 Page 15, footnote 68: “Bu herifler (yani Mustafa Kemal ve hempaları) için devletin hali, istikbali mevzubahis olamaz. Sulhü, şeriat dahilinde idame ettirmek için, onu ihlal edebilecek mahiyette olanların kafaları ezilmeli, hükümetin her şeyden evvel yapacağı hareket budur.” Alemdar, 14 August 1920. Cited in Ilgar, p. 38. Page 40, footnote 150: “Sınıf ve fırka mücadelelerinin zevkini uzakça bir istikbale talik etmeye ve bugün için sırf vahdet aramaya mecburuz.” “Amele Bayramı,” Vakit, 2 May 1922. Page 44, footnote 165: “Bizim hatırımıza geldikçe tel’inden nefsimizi men edemeyeceğimiz bu fert, malum olan şekildeki firardan sonra cihanın bütün Müslümanları tarafından da aynı lanet muamelesini görecektir.” “Canlı Bir Ölü,” Vakit, 19 November 1922. Page 61, footnote 221: “En hayırlı şey İttihat ve Terakki’nin tamamıyla tarihe gömülmesi ve şahsi bir ittiham altında bulunmayan vatandaşların memlekete müsbet surette hizmet etmek hususunda tamamıyla serbest bulunmalarıdır.” “İntihabatta Muhalif Kuvvetler,” Vatan, 5 April 1923. Page 62, footnote 222: “İttihatçı ne demektir? Bu kelimeyi herkes başka başka bir manada kullanıyor. Eğer İttihat ve Terakki’ye herhangi bir devrede herhangi bir zaman mensup bulunmuş adam 119 manasına alınırsa bütün millet İttihatçıdır.” “İntihabatta Muhalif Kuvvetler,” Vatan, 5 April 1923. Page 64, footnote 232: Here are a few examples of headlines from the issues of the period: “Anadolu’daki harekat-ı milliyenin esbabı – Sivas kongresinin mukarreratı. [The caption reads under the photo]; “Anadolu’daki harekat-ı milliye rüesasından Mustafa Kemal Paşa”, 5 October 1919; Harekat-ı Milliye ve Müşir Fuat Paşa, 7 October 1919; Teşkilat-ı Milliye’nin Metalibi – Heyet’i temsiliye namına Mustafa Kemal Paşa’nın ilk telgrafı, 8 October 1919; Kuva-yı Milliye ile itilaf hasıl oldu. Anadolu ve Rumeli Müdafa-i Hukuk Cemiyeti heyet-i temsiliyesi namına Mustafa Kemal Paşa’dan gelen telgraf, 9 October 1919. Page 66, footnote 237: These words well exemplify his deep respect: “Mustafa Kemal kendi kendini herkesin üstünde göstermeğe, milletten gerçekleri gizlemeğe ve esrar perdelerine bürünmeğe meyleden liderler nevinden değildir. Başka bir gruba tarihte temsilcisi az olan bir cinse mensuptur. Kalpleri heyecan yoluyla kendine bağlamağa uğraşmaz, tabiiliğini kaybetmez, riyadan nefret eder, derin zekasıyla etrafındakilerin maskelerini düşürür, görüş kudreti geniştir. Böyle meziyetlerden birini veya diğerini taşıyanlara rastgelinir, fakat hepsini şahsında birleştirenler bir milletin hayatında bir asırda veya birkaç asırda bir kere rastgelinen liderlerdir.” Yalman, Yakın Tarihte Gördüklerim ve Geçirdiklerim: 2, pp. 304-305. Page 72, footnote 254: 120 “Çünkü Osmanlı medlulü öyle bir kısım vatandaş ihtiva ediyor ki memlekete hiçbir merbutiyet beslemediklerini açıktan açığa söyledikten başka vatanın tecezzisine ve harabisine de taraftar olduklarını gizlemiyorlar. Bu haller neticesinde Osmanlı kelimesinde husule gelen gayrı samimilik, “Türk”, “Türk ve Müslüman” gibi tabirler kullanmaktan başka çare bırakmıyor.” “Türkçülük ve Memleketçilik,” Vakit, 20 October 1919. Page 97, footnote 277: “Almanlar şimdiye kadar hiçbir ecnebi memlekette başka hükümetlerin yaptığı gibi gönül avcılığına çıkmamışlar, kendi lisan ve adetlerini başkalarına kabul ettirmeye, kendileri hakkında dürüst bir fikir husule getirmeye çalışmamışlardır. Buna mukabil Almanya'nın terakki faaliyetini çekemeyenler, Almanları her tarafta yanlış tanıtmak için elden geleni yapmışlardır.” Ahmed Emin, “Dostluk Yurdu”, Sabah, 28 April 1917. Cited in Tezcan, 49. Page 97, footnote 278: “Tanin'de kah muharrirlik, kah da ansızın Viyana'ya, Berlin'e giderek muhabirlikten ziyade bilinmez ne kuvvetle koyu bir Alman yardakçılığı ede ede bitiremez, muharebeye girişmenin milletimize, istikbalimize hizmetlerini, faidelerini saya saya bitiremez, hep o mesleği takip ettiğinden işi büyütür, nihayet (Vakit)i tesis eyler, o zaman büyük Talat'ın küçücük bir bende-i hası olmakla iktifa etmez, o nazik o mültefit hesaplarına işlerine gelince nazik ve mültefit Almanlarla senli benli olur, Almanya sefaretini yuva edinir, Almanya'yı komşu kapısına çevirir. Çat burada çat Berlin'de! Artık Türk ve Alman muhadatı için neler yapmaz! Gazetesine ne makineler ısmarlamaz, ne kağıtlar getirtmez, 121 mamafih Talatını o sadr-ı muhteşemini de peresteşkarane tebcilden bir lahza geri kalmaz, bütün mesaisinin semerelerini öyle ufak tefek değil fakat iri yarı adeta cahidane toplar. Yiyeceği sırada çocuğumuz bakar ki ocak tutuşur, kazan devrilir, evvali nimet, o büyük Talat tepetaklak olur, sadareti, hükümeti, memleketi bıraktığı gibi tabana kuvvet sırra kadem basar. Vakit muahrriri birdenbire şaşalar, hatta Talat'ın firarına inanmamak bile ister, fakat etrafına şöyle bir dikkatlice bakınca görür ki o zevahire rağmen ocak yine gizliden gizliye feverandadır, hatta hadımlarına, taraftarlarına şimdi daha ziyade lütufkardır, bu sefer hazreti Emin gün bugündür diye, ocağın muarızlarına gelişigüzel her fırsatta salvet eyler, ancak bu sefer yüzüne bir maske takınır, güya İT'den değil imiş, güya vatanın şu felaketlerinden müteessir imiş gibi sahte vaziyetler alır, yalan yazılar yazar. Bir hamiyet, bir meziyet sahibi geçinmek ister, bir o yakın maziye bir de şu elim hale bakınız, bu derece meslek düşkünü mahlukların eline düşmüş zavalllı matbuatımıza acımaz mısınız?” Ali Kemal, “Bir Beyanname Münasebetiyle”, Sabah, 25 January 1919. Cited in, Tezcan, p. 65. Page 106, footnote 316. “Cumhuriyet taraftarıyım. Fakat şahsi saltanatın aleyhtarıyım.” Ali Fuat Cebesoy. Siyasi Hatıralar II.Kısım, İstanbul: Doğan Kardeşler Yayınları, 1960. p. 54. 122 B: Selected Articles from Ahmed Emin Fig. 38 “Milli Cereyan ve Fransa” 123 Milli Cereyan ve Fransa Bu milliyet asrında, memleketimizde de kuvvetli bir milli cereyan mevcut olmasından daha tabii bir şey tasavvur edilemezdi. Böyle olduğu halde mütarekeden sonra milliyetperverlik namına atılan her adıma, gerek memleketimizin bazı mehafilinde ve gerek hariçte İttihatçılık namı verilmeğe ve hissiyat-ı milliyenin her nevi bir cürüm addedilmeye başlandı. İttihatçılık dairesinden kaçmak çok güçtü. Çünkü bunun ne muayyen bir tarifi, ne hududu vardı. Bugün muhalif diye göklere çıkarılan bir adama, yarın marziye muhalif bir hareketi görülür görülmez ittihatçılık payesi tevcih olunuyordu. İttihat ve terakkinin birçok ezeli muhalifleri, sırf milliyetperverlik asarı gösterdiklerinden dolayı, birdenbire bu payeye mazhar edildiler. Mütarekeyi müteakip, en ziyade muhalif gazeteler nazarında bile muhalif addedildikleri halde birer, ikişer İttihatçı diye telkib olunanların hayali bir resm-i geçidini yapacak olursak, vaziyetteki tuhaflığa gülmek mi yoksa ağlamak mı lazım geleceğini kolay kolay kestirmemiz mümkün olmaz. Mamafih itiraf edilmelidir ki paye tevcihi hususunda en ileri giden Orient News gazetesi olmuştur. Hürriyet ve İtilaf Fırkası hükümete karşı muhalif bir vaziyet aldığı bir sırada mezkur gazete fırkanın bil-cümle azasını “eski İttihatçı” diye telkib etmişti. İtilafçılar da ittihatçı olduktan sonra kimin İttihatçı olduğunu değil, kimin olmadığını aramak lazım gelecekti. Temiz bir milliyetperverlikten şahıs menfaatleri namına korkanların, ortalıktaki fevkalade vaziyetten istifade ederek açtıkları bu cereyanı, ecnebilere hoş göstermek güç değildi. Çünkü bütün İtilaf mehafili, İttihat kuvvetini gerek kendileri ve gerek sulh-i umumi için meşum ve zararlı bir kuvvet diye telakki ediyor ve bizzat bir kısım Türkler tarafından çeteye mensubiyetle ittiham olunan her adama şüpheli bir adam nazarıyla 124 bakıyordu. Eskiden beri jurnalciliği meslek ittihaz eden, istihsal-i maksat hususunda hiçbir vasıtayı çirkin görmeyen bir takım adamlar, en kıymetli ve İttihat ve Terakki’ye en ziyade samimiyetle muhalif birçok ricalimizi mehafil-i ecnebiyye nazarında lekelemeye muvaffak oldular. Anadolu’daki hissiyat-ı milliye muayyen mecralar peyda edince bu adamlar bu babda bittabii derhal İttihatçılık ittihamlarını ileri sürdüler. Mehafil-i ecnebiyenin buna inanmaması için hiçbir sebep yoktu. Çok şükür ki beyanname-i hümayun büyük bir sarahatle bu gibi ittihamların önüne geçti. Anadolu’daki cereyanların, İzmir’in işgali ile şark vilayetleri hakkındaki rivayetlerden münbais teessürlerin neticesi olduğu beyanname-i hümayunda izah buyuruluyor ki bu da Anadolu’da temiz ve saf bir milliyetperverlikten başka bir şey bulunmadığına en büyük delildir. Gerek beyanname-i hümayundaki izahat ve gerek vekayiin teakibi ecnebi mehafilinin gözünü açtı. Hepsi yavaş yavaş takdir etmeye başladı ki bir milletin, memleketin harabisine sebep olan bir zümre hakkında muhabbet ve merbutiyet beslemesine ihtimal yoltur. Memleketin can u gönülden İttihat muhalifi olması lazım gelir. Hele memleketin atisini düşünen saf milliyetperverlerle İttihat ve Terakki siyaseti arasında herhangi bir rabıta bulunabilmesi, ancak adi tıynetli su-i niyet erbabının varid-i hatırı olabilir. Tan gazetesinde neşrolunup tercümesi dünkü nüshamızda münderiç bulunan bir makalede memleketimizdeki milli cereyanların meşru bir vatan muhabbetine müstenid olduğu tamamıyla tasdik edilmekte ve bu cereyanların gayrı makul esaslara müstenit olamayacağı ispat olunmaktadır. Demek ki memleketimizde bir kısım adamların su-i niyetleri hasebiyle görmedikleri, diğer bir kısım adamların da ufk-ı nazarlarının mahdudiyetinden dolayı göremedikleri hakikatler Paris’te tamamıyla takdir 125 olunmaktadır. Sair mevcut emarelerden de anlaşıldığı üzere Fransa’da böyle bir tahavvül-i efkar husule gelmesine sevinmemek elde değildir. Memleketimiz ahalisi arasında Fransa hakkında pek eski zamanlardan beri mevcut fikri merbutiyetin derecesine Fransızlar bile layıkıyla vakıf değildir. Fikri merbutiyet o kadar kuvvetli bir hiss-i muhabbet tevlit etmiştir ki bu his harp esnasında bile gevşememiş ve her şeye rağmen harbin sonuna kadar devam etmiştir. Daha yarım asır evvel bu memlekette Fransız muhabbeti öyle bir şekilde idi ki Tanzimat devrinin en büyük adamlarından biri olan Ali Paşa sırf 1870 muharebesindeki Fransız mağlubiyetinin acısına tahammül edemeyerek terk-i hayat etmişti. Ali Paşa’nın vefat etmezden evvel söylediği söz şu idi: “Fransa mağlup oldu. Demek ki bizim için terakki, umran ve medeniyet kati bir mağlubiyete uğradı.” Fransa’da tahsil eden binlerce genç, Fransızcadan tercüme olunan binlerce kitap, Fransa’dan öğrenilen ve iktibas edilen binler telakki, binlerce fikir, Ali Paşa zamanından beri Fransa hakkında mütezayit bir alaka husule getirmiştir. Bugün memleketimizde vasi bir zümre-i halk Fransa’daki siyasi, içtimai, edebi cereyanları memleketimize mahsus cereyanlar derecesinde alaka ve ehemmiyetle telakki etmektedirler. Fransızlar da bizi herhalde yabancı diye telakki edemezler. Nitekim harp neticesinde teheyyüce uğrayan hissiyat biraz yatışmaya başlar başlamaz, Fransızlar ve memleketimizin dahilindeki vaziyeti hakiki şeklinde görmeye başlamışlardır. Fransız hissiyatındaki bu tahavvülden dolayı hakiki bir memnuniyet duyarken kendi kendimize şu suali tekrar ettik: Acaba hakikat Paris’te bile anlaşıldığı halde İstanbul’da bulunan bazı kimselerin beyanname-i hümayundaki vuzuha rağmen bunu takdir edememelerine acaba sevinmek mi icap eder, teessüf etmek mi? Bu sual bizi çok 126 düşündürdü. Filhakika ortalıkta mahdut nazarlı bazı kimseler bulunması ve bunların tesiri bazı mehafilde nafiz olması ilk nazarda mucib-i teessüf bir şeydir. Fakat şurasını da düşünmeliyiz ki harpten sonra baygın bir hale düşen milli uzviyetimizde bu kadar kuvvetli bir milli cereyan, bu kadar azm-i hayat uyandıran şey, bir kısım adamlar tarafından takip olunan mahdut nazarlı ve tazyikkar politikadır. Eğer memlekette tabii milli mecraları yıkacak tarzda bir cereyan mevcut bulunmasaydı ve hürriyet-i münakaşa vasi tahdidata uğramasaydı hissiyattaki her türlü infialat tabii vasıtalarla kolayca izhar edilebilecek ve azm-i millinin tekasüf etmesine ve faideli mecralar vücuda getirmesine imkan olmayacaktı, ihtimal ki bugün de Paris’ten görülen hakikati İstanbul’dan görmek isteyen adamlar, bilmeyerek milli cereyanların ikmal-i kuvvet etmesine ve zaten anud ve muhalif tesirat sayesinde teşekkül eden kudretini tevsia muvaffak olmasına hizmet etmektedirler. Ahmed Emin Source: Vakit, 2 October 1919 127 Fig. 39 “Kürtler ve Kürdistan” 128 Kürtler ve Kürdistan İtiraf etmeliyiz ki tecrübeden ders almak hususunda biz pek zayıfız. Takip ettiğimiz bir siyaset iflasa uğrayınca ve memleket bu yüzden büyük zararlara düçar olunca: “Esbab-ı iflas neden ibarettir? Bunları araştıralım da tekrarından hazer edelim.” der ve kör körüne aynı yolda yürümekte devam ederiz. İlk felaketi mucip olan esbap yüzü üstüne bırakıldığı ve serbestçe icra-yı tesir ettiği için bir müddet sonra aynı tarzda ikinci bir felaket hazırlanır, yeni zararlar vukua gelir. Bununla beraber biz yine mütenebbih olmayız, üçüncü bir felakete doğru kemal-i temkinle yürürüz. Bir felaketin en büyük kıymeti, ikinci bir felaketin önünü almayı öğretmesinden ibaret olduğunu anlamak istemediğimiz için düçar olduğumuz zararlardan ati için bir hisse-i istifade çıkarmaya bir türlü imkan bulamayız. Meşrutiyetin ilanından sonra memleketimizde cahilane ve tecavüzkar bir Türkçülük siyaseti başladı. Bu siyasetin, Türklerin inkişaf-ı harsisini istihdaf eden müsbet Türkçülük ile bittabii hiçbir münasebeti yoktu. Bu tarzda Türkçülük pek makul ve meşru bir şeydi. “Resmi Türkçülük” diye tefrik edeceğimiz sakim siyaset ise Arnavutların, Arapların, Kürtlerin inkişafına mani olmak ve kendilerindeki ruh-ı milliyi öldürmek için her nevi silahlarla mücadelede bulunuyordu. Eğer Türk unsuru sınai bir tekamüle malik bir unsur olsaydı diğer unsurların inkişafına sed çekmenin ve kendilerine memleket içinde ikinci derecede bir rol ayırmanın hiç olmazsa bir manası olabilirdi. Halbuki memleketin hiçbir kısmı bir sanat memleketi halinde olmadıktan başka yiyeceğinin bir kısmını bile hariçten tedariğe mecbur oluyordu. Böyle bir memlekette bütün mevcut kuvvetlerin müsbet işlere, bilhassa istihsalat vadilerine sevk olunması lazım gelirken, bir unsurun diğer unsurlara tegallüp için kuvvet israf etmesinden daha 129 fena ve gülünç bir şey tasavvur edilemezdi. Birkaç kişinin zevk-i tahakkümünü tatmin etmekten başka bir şeye yaramayan bu tegallüp siyaseti, gerek Arnavut meselesinin ve gerek Arap ve Kürt meselelerinin siyasi şekillerini adeta yoktan var etti. Bu memleketin bekası için unsurlardan biri kan döken, hayat-ı umumiyemiz için pek kıymetli rical yetiştiren Arnavutlar 1908 ile 1912 seneleri arasında o derece takibat ve tahkirata uğradılar ki Balkan Muharebesi esnasında bizim için candan bir dost gibi hareket etmelerine imkan bırakılmadı. Muharebeden sonra Arnavutlara düşman muamelesi etmek için hiçbir sebep kalmamış ve bilakis Adriyatik sahilinde bir dosta malik olmaktaki faideler muhtac-ı izah bile değil iken Arnavutlara bila-sebep husumet gösterildi ve memleket dahilindeki Arnavutlar türlü türlü takibata düçar edildi. Arnavutlardan sonra Araplara karşı şiddetli bir tegallüp siyaseti takip olundu. Arapların kendi mukadderatlarıyla az çok meşgul olarak harsi ve iktisadi esbab-ı inkişaflarını bizzat aramaları bütün memleket için bir menba-ı kuvvet olduğu halde lisan meselesinde olsun en küçük bir müsaade gösterilmedi. Hars, lisan, hüviyet-i milliyeyi teşkil eden adat ve ahval her bir unsur için mukaddesattan maduttur. Bunlara karşı vaki olan bir tazyikin bir hiss-i isyan tevlit etmesi pek tabiidir, bilhassa mevzuubahis olan unsur, tarih ve lisanlarıyla bihakkın iftihar edebilen Araplar olursa… Bu gibi fena hareketlerden bahsederken kabahatin İttihat hükümetinin başında bulunan adamlara münhasır olduğunu ve efkar-ı umumiyenin tahakküm siyasetini takbih ettiğini söylüyoruz. Kürt meselesi, efkar-ı umumiyemizin tahakküm zihniyetinden biri olduğunu ve istikbale ait meseleleri geniş bir nazarla görebildiğini ispat etmesi için pek iyi bir fırsattır. Birçoklarını görüyoruz ki Kürt ve Kürdistan kelimelerini ağızlarında çiğnemekte ve bu kelimeler etrafında münakaşalar açılması tehlikeli olabileceğine mühim bir tarzda ihtimal vermektedirler. Bizce asıl tehlike, hakayıkı olduğu gibi 130 görmemektedir. Birbirine pek lüzumlu iki kardeş millet olan Türklerle Kürtlerin birbirlerine ve müşterek vatana ait meseleleri serbestçe münakaşa etmelerinden hiçbir fenalık tahaddüs edemez. Bilakis hakayıka göz yumularak münakaşadan kaçılacak olursa pek büyük su-i tefehhümler zuhur edebileceği gibi entrika arkasında koşanların eline de pek iyi bir fırsat verilmiş olacaktır. Kürtler tarihen bir hüviyet-i mahsusaya malik bir millettir. Hala mühim bir kısmının bir aşiret hayatı geçirmesi ve iktisaden ve içtimaen epeyce iptidai bir seviyede bulunması, bu zinde unsurdaki derece-i istidat ve kabiliyet ile değil, şimendifer ve yolların ve teferrüdlü bir hükümet kuvvetinin fikdanı ve umumi ahval-i iktisadiye ile alakadar bir şeydir. Şerait-i muhitiyye değişince Kürtlerin pek sakin ve gayretli iş adamları haline girdiğine en iyi misal, Amerika’daki Kürt amelesinin halidir. Memleketlerinde ihtimal ki atıl bir hayat geçiren birçok Kürtler Amerika’da en çalışkan fabrika amelesi sırasına geçmekte ve kaba işlerle iktifa etmeyerek mahir ve mütehassıs amele derecesine çıkmaktadırlar. Umumiyetle tahsil imkanına mazhar edilen Kürtlerde pek seri bir istidad-ı inkişaf görülmektedir. Mısır’da Eyyubi hükümetini vücuda getiren ve Osmanlı hayat-ı umumiyesine de en yüksek meziyetleri haiz birçok rical, üdeba ve erbab-ı sanat ihda eden Kürtlerin na-mahdut bir tekamül kabiliyetini haiz olduklarını kimse inkar edemez. Bu kabiliyetin inkişafı, Kürt münevverlerinin, geride kalan Kürt kütlelerinin ahvaline yakından alakadar olmalarına, yani Kürtler arasında hususi bir hayat-ı harsiyye tesis etmesine bağlıdır. Böyle bir hayat teessüs edecek olursa memleketin bir kısım ahalisi, zümre ve ferd itibarıyla daha yüksek bir seviyeye çıkmak ve memleket için daha nafi bir uzuv olmak imkanını elde etmiş olurlar ki geniş düşünebilen her Osmanlı vatanperverinin vatanın menafii namına buna memnun olması icap eder. Meselenin 131 yalnız hars noktasında da kalması lazım gelmez. Madem ki Kürt memurların, Kürtlerle meskun yerlerin ahvaline daha ziyade alakadar olacakları ve daha fazla bir merbutiyetle iş görecekleri muhakkaktır, Kürt vilayetlerine mümkün mertebe Kürt memurlar intihab olunur ve Kürtlerle meskun yerlerin hayat-ı idaresinde bu suretle tedrici bir muhtariyet tesisi için hükümetle Kürt münevverleri teşrik-i mesai edebilirler. Aradaki siyasi rabıtanın haleldar olmaması her iki tarafın menafi-i tabiiyyesi iktizasından olmakla beraber idari muhtariyet hususunda da sabırsızlık göstermemek Kürtlerin menfaatleri icabındandır. İyi yetişmiş birçok Kürt münevverleri mevcut olmakla beraber umumiyet itibarıyla Kürtler henüz idari muhtariyetten istifade edecek bir seviyeye gelmemişlerdir. Aşiret hayatının umumi hayata hakim bir vaziyette olması, muhtariyet meselesi mevzuubahis olmazdan evvel bir istihzar devresi geçmesi için başlı başına bir sebeptir. Kürtlerde aile an’anatı pek kuvvetli olduğu için vaktinden evvel bir takım yeni tecrübelere girişilmesi pek esaslı istirkab ve ihtiraslara yol açabilir. Mamafih biz şurasına eminiz ki münevver Kürtlerin ekseriyeti, bu cihetleri takdir ederek muhtariyet meselesine tedrici surette istihsal edilecek bir gaye nazarıyla bakacaklardır. Su-i tefehhüm husule gelmemesi için şurasını tekrar edelim ki bizim tedrici kelimesinden maksadımız, mukadderat-ı zatiyyeye sahip olmak hakkının tedrici bir mücadele ile hükümetten istihsal olunması değildir. Biz tabiat-ı ahvalden neşet eden icabata prensip itibarıyla muhalefet gösterilmesini ve sonra adım adım geri gidilmesini, memleketin en esaslı menfaatlerine muhalif görüyoruz. Bu zihniyetle hareket edilirse aradaki ahenk ve vefanın haleldar olması gibi bir tehlikeye maruz kalınabilir. Hükümet daha ibtidadan Kürtlerin hukuk-ı mahsusasını kabul etmeli ve bu hukukun kuvveden fiile çıkması için Kürt münevverleriyle samimi surette tevhid-i mesai etmelidir. Şu cihet samimi surette teslim edilmelidir ki Kürtlerin ekseriyet halinde sakin bulundukları 132 yerleri bizzat idare edecek bir hale gelmeleri, memleketin menafi-i umumiyesine son derecede muvafık bir şeydir. Ancak Kürt meseleleri hakkında Kürtlerin amal ve menafiine ve aynı zamanda memleketin menafi-i umumiyesine en muvafık olan suret-i tesviye aranırken şu nokta bir dakika bile ihmal olunmamalıdır: Türklerle Kürtler daima menfaatleri şayi bir surette müşterek iki kardeş mevkiinde bulunmalı, doğrudan doğruya birbirleriyle hasbihal etmeli, hiçbir zaman, hiçbir suretle bir şahs-ı salisin aralarına girmesine meydan bırakmamalıdırlar. Ahmed Emin Source: Vakit, 14 August 1919 133 C: Table 2 The List of the Articles of Ahmed Emin During the Armistice Period in Vakit and Vatan (The articles whose authors are not indicated belong to Ahmed Emin) No 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 Title Yeni Müdahale Missing Issue Karilerimle Bir Hasbihal Fikri Münakaşa Sahasında Sulh İçin Hazırlık Tarihi Dakikalar Mevcudiyet Namına Mücadele Asquith'in Nutku Sulh Hazırlığı I Sulh Hazırlığı II Sulh Hazırlığı III Yeni Türk Nesli His ile Akıl Arasında Din ve Devlet Sayılı Dakikalarımız Gaspolunuyor Missing Issue İstikbal Düşünceleri I İstikbal Düşünceleri II Kendi Kendimizi Aldatmayalım Mücadele ve Tesamuh Harpten Sulhe İntikal Devlet İşleri ve Cemaat İsleri Missing Issue Bir İzah Çıkmaz Yollarda Cemaat Teşkilatı Missing Issue Kendimize Kasdımız Ne? Missing Issue Missing Issue Müstakil Arnavutluk Ali Kemal Bey ve İttihatçılar I Ali Kemal Bey ve İttihatçılar II Hastalığın Teşhisi ve Tedavisi I Hastalığın Teşhisi ve Tedavisi II Ya Daha Fena Olursa? Missing Issue Hakikati Görmek Cesareti 134 N.paper Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Date 13-Nov-1918 14-Nov-1918 15-Nov-1918 16-Nov-1918 17-Nov-1918 18-Nov-1918 19-Nov-1918 20-Nov-1918 21-Nov-1918 22-Nov-1918 23-Nov-1918 24-Nov-1918 25-Nov-1918 26-Nov-1918 28-Nov-1918 29-Nov-1918 30-Nov-1918 1-Dec-1918 2-Dec-1918 3-Dec-1918 4-Dec-1918 5-Dec-1918 6-Dec-1918 7-Dec-1918 8-Dec-1918 9-Dec-1918 10-Dec-1918 11-Dec-1918 12-Dec-1918 13-Dec-1918 14-Dec-1918 15-Dec-1918 16-Dec-1918 17-Dec-1918 18-Dec-1918 19-Dec-1918 20-Dec-1918 21-Dec-1918 Table 2 continued No 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 Title Meclisin Feshi Missing Issue Sulhun Şekli Missing Issue Müstakillerin Hukuku İrşad ve Himaye İttihad ve Terakkiyi İfna Yolu Milli Kadirşinaslık Matbuat Kongresi Kabinenin Mevkii Missing Issue Yeni Sene Missing Issue Yeni Mücadele Cepheleri Missing Issue Gayeyi Unutuyoruz Harman Sonu Missing Issue Kör Döğüşü Roosevelt'in Vefatı Yegane Ümit Kapısı Hakkın Galebesi Fırkaların Fevkinde Hakkın Mağlubiyeti Siyasi İrtica İflas Etmiş Bir Sistem Anlaşmak Lüzumu Bir Tarihi Ananemiz İhtilaf ve İtilaf Ali Kemal Bey’e Trakya Meselesi Ahmed Rıza Bey İtilaf İstidadı Rusyadaki Esirlerimiz Hürriyet ve İtilaf Beyannamesi Milli Mukadderatımız Sulh Konferansı Teceddüt Fırkası İdame-i Mevcudiyet Meselesi Missing Issue Maziyi Tasfiye N.paper Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit 135 Date 22-Dec-1918 23-Dec-1918 24-Dec-1918 25-Dec-1918 26-Dec-1918 27-Dec-1918 28-Dec-1918 29-Dec-1918 30-Dec-1918 31-Dec-1918 1-Jan-1919 2-Jan-1919 3-Jan-1919 4-Jan-1919 5-Jan-1919 6-Jan-1919 7-Jan-1919 8-Jan-1919 9-Jan-1919 10-Jan-1919 11-Jan-1919 12-Jan-1919 13-Jan-1919 14-Jan-1919 15-Jan-1919 16-Jan-1919 17-Jan-1919 18-Jan-1919 19-Jan-1919 20-Jan-1919 21-Jan-1919 22-Jan-1919 23-Jan-1919 24-Jan-1919 25-Jan-1919 26-Jan-1919 27-Jan-1919 28-Jan-1919 29-Jan-1919 30-Jan-1919 31-Jan-1919 Table 2 continued No 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 Title Ayanın İçtimaı Muattal Bir Teşebbüs İstidad-ı Milli ve Siyaset-i Milliye Bir İcraat Programı (Observer'dan) Tasfiye Ameliyesi Hakkında Vasi Ufk-ı Nazar Siyyan-ı Adalet Tevfik Paşa ve Refikleri İtilaf Devletleriyle Münasebetimiz Milliyetperverlik Siyasi bir Moda mıdır? İnsan Enkazı Anasır Siyaseti Missing Issue İstikbalimiz Hakkında Dünkü Kongre Yegane Halas Yolu Cemiyet-i Akvam ve Biz Hükümet ve Matbuat Düştü mü, Düşmedi mi? Fırka Hükümeti Vesaik Karşısında Pazarlık Zihniyeti İşsizlik ve Tedavisi Salih Zeki Bey Meselesi Sulh İktisadiyatı Kabine Tebeddülü Tegallüb Siyasetinin İzleri Vahdet-i Milliye Heyeti Missing Issue Kabiliyet Meselesi 1919 - 1876 Bab-ı Alinin Muhtırası Yeni Kabine Adalet Namına Adaletsizlik İstikbalimiz ve İnkişafımız (Vahdet-i Milliye) ve Hükümet His ve Menfaat Endişe Dakikaları İcraatın Başlangıcı - MEHMED ASIM Tevkiften Sonra Muhakeme - MEHMED ASIM Mevkufiyet Tahassüsatı 136 N.paper Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Date 1-Feb-1919 2-Feb-1919 3-Feb-1919 4-Feb-1919 5-Feb-1919 6-Feb-1919 7-Feb-1919 8-Feb-1919 9-Feb-1919 10-Feb-1919 11-Feb-1919 12-Feb-1919 13-Feb-1919 14-Feb-1919 15-Feb-1919 16-Feb-1919 17-Feb-1919 18-Feb-1919 19-Feb-1919 20-Feb-1919 21-Feb-1919 22-Feb-1919 23-Feb-1919 24-Feb-1919 25-Feb-1919 26-Feb-1919 27-Feb-1919 28-Feb-1919 01.Mar.19 02.Mar.19 03.Mar.19 04.Mar.19 05.Mar.19 06.Mar.19 07.Mar.19 08.Mar.19 09.Mar.19 10.Mar.19 11.Mar.19 12.Mar.19 13.Mar.19 Table 2 continued No 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 Title Tarihte İstifa-yı İçtimai - Unsigned Hatadan Dönmek Cesareti - MEHMED ASIM Evrak-ı Nakdiye Meselesi - M. REMZİ Rumlar ve Yunan Tabiiyyeti - Unsigned İçtihad İhtilaflarına Hürmet - MEHMED ASIM Sulh Arefesinde - Unsigned Nümayişçilik ve İstilacılık - Unsigned Cihanın Merkez-i Sıkleti Bir Mevcudiyet Meselesi İnhisar Zihniyeti Fırkacılık ve İhtisas Hakikat Karşısında - MEHMED ASIM Türkler İçin - Unsigned Fırkalar Fevkinde - MEHMED ASIM Kemmiyyet ve Keyfiyyet Rüchanı - MEHMED ASIM No Article Sulh ? - MEHMED ASIM No Article İğne ve Çuvaldız - MEHMED ASIM Teşkilat Merakı - MEHMED ASIM Türkiye'de Hakimiyet Esasları - MEHMED ASIM Ara-yı Umumiye - MEHMED ASIM Temsil-i Nisbi İntihabatı - MEHMED ASIM Teceddüd ve Taassup - I - Unsigned Teceddüd ve Taassup - II - Unsigned No Article Teceddüd ve Taassup - III - Unsigned Missing Issue Missing Issue Missing Issue Missing Issue Missing Issue Missing Issue Missing Issue Münevverler ve Halk - MEHMED ASIM Avrupa'daki Talebemiz - MEHMED ASIM Şark Tahkik Heyeti - MEHMED ASIM Sükna Meselesi - MEHMED ASIM Endişe ve İntizar - MEHMED ASIM 137 N.paper Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Date 14-Mar-19 15-Mar-19 16-Mar-19 17-Mar-19 18-Mar-19 19-Mar-19 20-Mar-19 21-Mar-19 22-Mar-19 23-Mar-19 24-Mar-19 25-Mar-19 26-Mar-19 27-Mar-19 Vakit 28-Mar-19 Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit 29-Mar-19 30-Mar-19 31-Mar-19 1-Apr-1919 2-Apr-1919 Vakit 3-Apr-1919 Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit 4-Apr-1919 5-Apr-1919 6-Apr-1919 7-Apr-1919 7-Apr-1919 8-Apr-1919 9-Apr-1919 10-Apr-1919 11-Apr-1919 12-Apr-1919 13-Apr-1919 14-Apr-1919 15-Apr-1919 16-Apr-1919 17-Apr-1919 18-Apr-1919 19-Apr-1919 20-Apr-1919 Table 2 continued No 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 Title Pertev-suz - MEHMED ASIM Yeni Şimendifer Tarifesi - MEHMED ASIM Vücut ve Dimağ - MEHMED ASIM Hakikatin Sesi - MEHMED ASIM Muallimler Cemiyeti - MEHMED ASIM Mahakimin İstiklali - MEHMED ASIM İstanbul Vilayeti - MEHMED ASIM Halkı Sevmek I - RUŞEN EŞREF Mahkeme Salonunda - RUŞEN EŞREF Pierre Lotti'nin Şehadeti - Unsigned Halkı Sevmek II - RUŞEN EŞREF No Article - Censored İaşenin Tasfiyesi - MEHMED ASIM İngiltere'de Sükna Kanunu ve Biz - ALAADDİN CEMİL İfakat Alameti - MEHMED ASIM Halkı Sevmek III - RUŞEN EŞREF Mesken Buhranı - BALİZADE Mesleki Namus - MEHMED ASIM No Article Sulh Muhakemesi - MEHMED ASIM Halkı Sevmek IV - RUŞEN EŞREF Propaganda ve Şekavet - MEHMED ASIM Şahıslar ve Kaideler - MEHMED ASIM Şehreminimizin Vaatleri - MEHMED ASIM Yok! Yok! Yok!.. - MEHMED ASIM İzmir'in İşgali - MEHMED ASIM İşgalin Manası - MEHMED ASIM İzmir İşgalinin Neticeleri - MEHMED ASIM Milletin Matemi - MEHMED ASIM İşgal mi, Muavenet mi? - MEHMED ASIM Milli İman - Unsigned Söz Milletindir - MEHMED ASIM Türkün Kalbi - MEHMED ASIM Kabinenin Tekemmülü - MEHMED ASIM Himaye Değil İstiklal - YUSUF RAZİ Ne Görüyor Ne İşitiyoruz? - MEHMED ASIM No Article Fikir Cereyanları - MEHMED ASIM No Article - Censored Esarete Namzet Değilim - YUSUF RAZİ 138 N.paper Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Date 21-Apr-1919 22-Apr-1919 23-Apr-1919 24-Apr-1919 25-Apr-1919 26-Apr-1919 27-Apr-1919 28-Apr-1919 29-Apr-1919 30-Apr-1919 1-May-19 2-May-19 3-May-19 Vakit 4-May-19 Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit 5-May-19 6-May-19 7-May-19 8-May-19 9-May-19 10-May-19 11-May-19 12-May-19 13-May-19 14-May-19 15-May-19 16-May-19 17-May-19 18-May-19 19-May-19 20-May-19 21-May-19 22-May-19 23-May-19 24-May-19 25-May-19 26-May-19 27-May-19 28-May-19 29-May-19 30-May-19 Table 2 continued No 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 Title Yunanistan ve Medeniyet Rehberliği - BİR DOKTOR MUALLİM Mandaların Mahiyet-i Hukukiyesi - AHMED SALAHADDİN Son Fırsat - MEHMED ASIM Akd-i Sulhe Ehliyet ve Meclis-i Milli - AHMED SALAHADDİN Müdafaa-i Hukuk Heyeti - MEHMED ASIM Hükümet ve Efkar-ı Umumiye - MEHMED ASIM Vekalet ve İstiklal Haksızlık Karşısında - MEHMED ASIM Murahhas Olsa idim!... - AHMED SALAHADDİN Ekalliyetlerin Hakkı - MEHMED ASIM Yangınlar İçinde - MEHMED ASIM Ne Söylecektim? - AHMED SALAHADDİN Türklük ve Yunanlılık - MEHMED ASIM Fransız Dostluğu - YUSUF RAZİ Terk-i Arazi Seyahati - AHMED SALAHADDİN Felaketli Tecrübeler - AHMED CEVAD Meclis-i Mebusan ve İntihabat - AHMED SALAHADDİN Dahili Düşman - I Dahili Düşman - II Silahsız İşgal - MEHMED ASIM No Article - Censored İntihapta Fırkalar - MEHMED ASIM İntihabat _________ - MEHMED ASIM Salah Mücadelesinde Ahalinin Mevkii Boğazlar - AHMED SALAHADDİN Köylüler Arasında Harp Mesuliyetleri - I - AHMED SALAHADDİN İtidal Kabinesi - MEHMED ASIM Dahiliye ve Hariciye İşleri - MEHMED ASIM Harp Mesuliyetleri ve Türkiye II - AHMED SALAHADDİN Missing Issue Missing Issue ________ Avdet - AHMED SALAHADDİN 139 N.paper Date Vakit 1-Jun-1919 Vakit 2-Jun-1919 Vakit 3-Jun-1919 Vakit 4-Jun-1919 Vakit 5-Jun-1919 Vakit 6-Jun-1919 Vakit Vakit 7-Jun-1919 8-Jun-1919 Vakit 9-Jun-1919 Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit 10-Jun-1919 11-Jun-1919 12-Jun-1919 13-Jun-1919 14-Jun-1919 Vakit 15-Jun-1919 Vakit 16-Jun-1919 Vakit 17-Jun-1919 Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit 18-Jun-1919 19-Jun-1919 20-Jun-1919 21-Jun-1919 22-Jun-1919 23-Jun-1919 24-Jun-1919 25-Jun-1919 26-Jun-1919 Vakit 27-Jun-1919 Vakit Vakit 28-Jun-1919 29-Jun-1919 Vakit 30-Jun-1919 Vakit Vakit Vakit 1-Jul-1919 2-Jul-1919 3-Jul-1919 Table 2 continued No 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 Title Buhran İçinde Buhran - MEHMED ASIM Köycülük Hareketi Doktor Achilles'in Projesi - MEHMED ASIM Bizde Fırkaların Kıymeti - HASAN VASFİ Derdin Menbaı No Article - Censored İnkar Şeklinde Bir İtiraf - MEHMED ASIM Hak ve Adalet Sulhü - AHMED CEVAD Hatanın Tamiri - MEHMED ASIM Milli Ahrar Fırkası - MEHMED ASIM Menfadan Avdet Borsa Hanı Meselesi - MEHMED ASIM Kuvvet ve Zaaf Noktaları - Unsigned İkiden Biri - MEHMED ASIM Hükümetin Manası - Unsigned No Article Dahili Muhaceret - Unsigned Kabinenin İstifası - Unsigned Yeni Kabine 10 Temmuz Kabine ve Fırkalar Amerika Ayanında Muhalefetin Manası Propaganda Asrı Anlaşılamayan Noktalar - MEHMED ASIM İntihabat Hakkında Heyet-i Nasiha İstiklal Yolu Ermeni Meselesi Müzaheret ve Kabiliyet Genç Türklük ve İttihatçılık Amerika Tahkik Heyetine - HALİDE EDİP ______________ - HALİDE EDİP Trakya'dan Değil Makedonyadan Bahsolunmalı Müzaheret Mektebi Sütten Ağzı Yanan No Article - Censored Missing Issue Missing Issue Missing Issue Türk Taraftarlığı 140 N.paper Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Date 4-Jul-1919 5-Jul-1919 6-Jul-1919 7-Jul-1919 8-Jul-1919 9-Jul-1919 10-Jul-1919 11-Jul-1919 12-Jul-1919 13-Jul-1919 14-Jul-1919 15-Jul-1919 16-Jul-1919 17-Jul-1919 18-Jul-1919 19-Jul-1919 20-Jul-1919 21-Jul-1919 22-Jul-1919 23-Jul-1919 24-Jul-1919 25-Jul-1919 26-Jul-1919 27-Jul-1919 28-Jul-1919 29-Jul-1919 30-Jul-1919 31-Jul-1919 1-Aug-1919 2-Aug-1919 3-Aug-1919 4-Aug-1919 5-Aug-1919 6-Aug-1919 7-Aug-1919 8-Aug-1919 9-Aug-1919 10-Aug-1919 11-Aug-1919 12-Aug-1919 13-Aug-1919 Table 2 continued No 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 Title Kürtler ve Kürdistan Rehberlik Meselesi Mösyö Venizelos Siyasi Müstahsiller - MEHMED ASIM Türk Milliyetperverliği Tevfik Fikret Pahalılığa Karşı Mücadele Harici Tehlike Karşısında Çin Milliyetperverliği İktisadi Tehlikeler Bizim Propagandamız İngiltere ve Biz Ekalliyetleri Himaye İntizar Siyaseti Ahlak Meselesi - I - Meselenin Umumi Esasatı Ahlak Meselesi - II - Din ve Ahlak Cihan Buhranı Ahlak Meselesi - III - Tedavi Yolları İstiklal Aleyhdarlığı Var mı? Anlaşmak İhtiyacı Kömür Madenlerimiz Esirlerimizin Avdeti Hesap Günü Bayram Düşünceleri Missing Issue Missing Issue Missing Issue Anasır Münasebatı Pahalılığa Karşı Amerika'nın Notası İhracat ve İthalat Bütçesi - MEHMED ASIM 15000 Lira Eski ve Yeni Devir İtilaf Değil, Tahdid-i İhtilaf Milliyetperverliğin Hududu Dost bir Millet No Article - Censored Türkler ve Ermeniler İngiltere'de Radikal Siyaset Beyanname-i Hümayun Milliyetin Hedefi 141 N.paper Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Date 14-Aug-1919 15-Aug-1919 16-Aug-1919 17-Aug-1919 18-Aug-1919 19-Aug-1919 20-Aug-1919 21-Aug-1919 22-Aug-1919 23-Aug-1919 24-Aug-1919 25-Aug-1919 26-Aug-1919 27-Aug-1919 28-Aug-1919 29-Aug-1919 30-Aug-1919 31-Aug-1919 1-Sep-1919 2-Sep-1919 3-Sep-1919 4-Sep-1919 5-Sep-1919 6-Sep-1919 7-Sep-1919 8-Sep-1919 9-Sep-1919 10-Sep-1919 11-Sep-1919 12-Sep-1919 13-Sep-1919 14-Sep-1919 15-Sep-1919 16-Sep-1919 17-Sep-1919 18-Sep-1919 19-Sep-1919 20-Sep-1919 21-Sep-1919 22-Sep-1919 23-Sep-1919 Table 2 Continued No 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 Title Tereddi Var mı? Mektep Buhranı Kabiliyet-i Rü'yet İstikbal Bir Tarz-ı Siyaset Ümit Meselesi Yunan Propagandası Mezahir-i Devlet Milli Cereyan ve Fransa Yeni Anadolu Fasıla-i Mevcudiyet Millet ve Hükümet Med ve Cezr Harekat-ı Milliye Hükümetin Beyannamesi İntihabat Mücadelesi İzmir İçin İttihadçılık ve Ecnebiler Türkiye Siyaseti Komisyonun Kararı İki Köprü Başı İfakat Yolunda Üç Mühim Nokta Müstakbel Rusya Milli Mücahede Günleri Missing Issue Türkçülük ve Memleketçilik Türkçülük ve Memleketçilik II Vakit'in Sene-i Devriyesi - HEYET-İ TAHRİRİYE Siyasi Türkçülük İzmir Meselesi Bir Hastalık ve Neticeleri Sivas Telgrafı Siyasi Vatandaşlık I Siyasi Vatandaşlık II Siyasi Vatandaşlık III Bir Sene-i Devriye Mütarekeden Beri Amerika'nın Vaziyeti Missing Issue 142 N.paper Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Date 24-Sep-1919 25-Sep-1919 26-Sep-1919 27-Sep-1919 28-Sep-1919 29-Sep-1919 30-Sep-1919 1-Oct-1919 2-Oct-1919 3-Oct-1919 4-Oct-1919 5-Oct-1919 6-Oct-1919 7-Oct-1919 8-Oct-1919 9-Oct-1919 10-Oct-1919 11-Oct-1919 12-Oct-1919 13-Oct-1919 14-Oct-1919 15-Oct-1919 16-Oct-1919 17-Oct-1919 18-Oct-1919 19-Oct-1919 20-Oct-1919 21-Oct-1919 Vakit 22-Oct-1919 Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit 23-Oct-1919 24-Oct-1919 25-Oct-1919 26-Oct-1919 27-Oct-1919 28-Oct-1919 29-Oct-1919 30-Oct-1919 31-Oct-1919 1-Nov-1919 2-Nov-1919 Table 2 continued No 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 Title Missing Issue İbda'kar ve Tahripkar Kuvvet Yunanlılık Meseleleri Veba Karşısında Vaziyeti Anlıyor muyuz? Seri Sulh Azm-i Beka ve Maddi Teçhizat Anadolu Hıristiyanları Sivas'tan Gelen Cevap Mesuliyetlerin Taksimi Ekalliyetlerin Hukuku İntihabatta Mahalli Nüfuz Sinir Mukavemeti Amerika Çekiliyor mu? Garbın Türkiye Siyaseti Yunanistan'a İtimat! Missing Issue Missing Issue Missing Issue Missing Issue Vaziyette Vuzuh ve İstikrar Amerika Ayanı İstanbul İntihabatı (No Title) Sandık Başında Cemaat Teşkilatı Missing Issue Balfour'un Beyanatı Mesken ve Dükkan Derdi Canlandırılacak Bir Mesele Teehhür ve İntizar Sabahattin Bey Disraeli'ye Doğru Fedakarlık Dakikaları Namzet Listemiz Missing Issue Beyanat-ı Mülükane Muahede Mezarlığında İntihabat ve Ecnebiler Missing Issue Adem-i İştirakin Manası N.paper Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit 143 Date 3-Nov-1919 4-Nov-1919 5-Nov-1919 6-Nov-1919 7-Nov-1919 8-Nov-1919 9-Nov-1919 10-Nov-1919 11-Nov-1919 12-Nov-1919 13-Nov-1919 14-Nov-1919 15-Nov-1919 16-Nov-1919 17-Nov-1919 18-Nov-1919 19-Nov-1919 20-Nov-1919 21-Nov-1919 22-Nov-1919 23-Nov-1919 24-Nov-1919 25-Nov-1919 26-Nov-1919 27-Nov-1919 28-Nov-1919 29-Nov-1919 30-Nov-1919 1-Dec-1919 2-Dec-1919 3-Dec-1919 4-Dec-1919 5-Dec-1919 6-Dec-1919 7-Dec-1919 8-Dec-1919 9-Dec-1919 10-Dec-1919 11-Dec-1919 12-Dec-1919 13-Dec-1919 Table 2 Continued No 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 Title Muvazene Siyaseti İstihzarat-ı Sulhiye Almanya Ne Halde? Vazife Karşısında Beşinci İntihabat Hal-i Sulh İntihabatın Neticesi Memleket Bloğu Usul-i İntihabın Islahı Memleketçilik ve İntihabat Memleketçilik Cephesini Takviye Muvazene-i Düveliye ve Biz Muvazene Hesapları Mazi Münakaşaları Bizde Sosyalizm Ekalliyetlerin İstikbali 7 Kanun-ı Sani Tarihin Bir Cilvesi Missing Issue Missing Issue Tesanüdlerin Tevafuku ve Tearuzu Missing Issue Missing Issue İki Siyaset Bir Sual ve Cevabı Missing Issue Hangi Devlet Bir Propaganda Silahı Lotti ve Fransa Missing Issue Nutuk İftitahı Missing Issue İstikbalin Mesuliyeti İtalyan Siyaseti ve Biz İstanbul Meselesi ve Times Amerika'nın Müdahalesi Avrupa'nın İstikbali Azerbaycan'ın İstiklali Missing Issue Missing Issue Missing Issue 144 N.paper Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Date 14-Dec-1919 15-Dec-1919 16-Dec-1919 17-Dec-1919 18-Dec-1919 19-Dec-1919 20-Dec-1919 21-Dec-1919 22-Dec-1919 23-Dec-1919 24-Dec-1919 25-Dec-1919 26-Dec-1919 27-Dec-1919 28-Dec-1919 29-Dec-1919 30-Dec-1919 31-Dec-1919 1-Jan-1920 2-Jan-1920 3-Jan-1920 4-Jan-1920 5-Jan-1920 6-Jan-1920 7-Jan-1920 8-Jan-1920 9-Jan-1920 10-Jan-1920 11-Jan-1920 12-Jan-1920 13-Jan-1920 14-Jan-1920 15-Jan-1920 16-Jan-1920 17-Jan-1920 18-Jan-1920 19-Jan-1920 20-Jan-1920 21-Jan-1920 22-Jan-1920 23-Jan-1920 Table 2 continued No 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 Title Missing Issue Matbuatımızda Vahdet İki İhtimal Ermenistan'ın İstiklali Mühim Bir Muhtıra Muhaliflik ve Muvafıklık Fırsatı Kaçırmamalıyız Kin ve İhtirasın İflası Salah Nereden Başlamalı? İktisadi Tesanüd İçki Mücadelesi Hükümet ve Meclis İngiltere Siyaseti Missing Issue Missing Issue Hükümetin Vaziyeti İngiltere'de Dahili İşler Dünkü Celse Missing Issue Şifa Çaresi Cihanın Vaziyeti ve Biz Missing Issue Milliyetperverlik Gayeleri Hükümetin Tamimi Ahd-i Milli Programı Hakkaniyete Doğru Yeni Vaziyet Yüksek Vatanperverlik Amerika'daki Vaziyet Missing Issue Meclis-i Ayanda Hakikat Ne Tarafta? Fransa'nın Sesi İzdivaç ve Maişet Makul Sözler Sükna Kanunu Biga Hadisesi Missing Issue Missing Issue Bir Tarih Vesikası Kabinenin İstifası N.paper Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit 145 Date 24-Jan-1920 25-Jan-1920 26-Jan-1920 27-Jan-1920 28-Jan-1920 29-Jan-1920 30-Jan-1920 31-Jan-1920 1-Feb-1920 2-Feb-1920 3-Feb-1920 4-Feb-1920 5-Feb-1920 6-Feb-1920 7-Feb-1920 8-Feb-1920 9-Feb-1920 10-Feb-1920 11-Feb-1920 12-Feb-1920 13-Feb-1920 14-Feb-1920 15-Feb-1920 16-Feb-1920 17-Feb-1920 18-Feb-1920 19-Feb-1920 20-Feb-1920 21-Feb-1920 22-Feb-1920 23-Feb-1920 24-Feb-1920 25-Feb-1920 26-Feb-1920 27-Feb-1920 28-Feb-1920 29-Feb-1920 1-Mar-20 2-Mar-20 3-Mar-20 4-Mar-20 Table 2 continued No 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 Title İnkişafın İstikameti Mesuliyetli Dakikalar Missing Issue Tecrübe ve Faaliyet Kabinenin Teşekkülü Missing Issue En Mühim Vazife Gençlik Cereyanı Meclisin Vazifesi Missing Issue Siyaset İhtiyacı I Siyaset İhtiyacı II Lybyer'in Bir Risalesi Missing Issue Missing Issue Hastalığın Esbabı Hakikat Taraftarlığı Vatana Avdet Sağlam Temel Pazarlık Yoktur Canlı Misal Bir Sene-i Devriyye No Article Tahavvül Emareleri İki Vesika Washington Konferansı'nın Manası Yegane Yol No Article Missing Issue Hews Projesi Ekalliyetlerimiz ve Tarih Zulmete Karşı Vaziyetin Münakaşası Vaziyetin Münakaşası II Yunan Manevraları İtalyan İtilafı Emanetin İşleri - Unsigned Anadolu'nun Vaziyeti - Unsigned Konya'dan Adana'ya - Unsigned No Article Prensip Hataları - Unsigned 146 N.paper Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Date 5-Mar-20 6-Mar-20 7-Mar-20 8-Mar-20 9-Mar-20 10-Mar-20 11-Mar-20 12-Mar-20 13-Mar-20 14-Mar-20 15-Mar-20 16-Mar-20 17-Mar-20 18-Mar-20 19-Mar-20 20-Mar-20 21-Mar-20 4-Nov-1921 5-Nov-1921 6-Nov-1921 7-Nov-1921 8-Nov-1921 9-Nov-1921 10-Nov-1921 11-Nov-1921 12-Nov-1921 13-Nov-1921 14-Nov-1921 15-Nov-1921 16-Nov-1921 17-Nov-1921 18-Nov-1921 19-Nov-1921 20-Nov-1921 21-Nov-1921 22-Nov-1921 23-Nov-1921 24-Nov-1921 25-Nov-1921 26-Nov-1921 27-Nov-1921 Table 2 continued No 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 Title Patrikhane İhtilafı - Unsigned Adana'nın Tahliyesi - Unsigned No Article Curzon'un Nutku - Unsigned Fener - Atina - Unsigned Anadolu'ya Giderken İyi Alametler - Unsigned İhzari Konferans - Unsigned Tamirat ve Mark - Unsigned Gounaris Ne Yapıyor? - Unsigned İki Beyanname - Unsigned No Article Garip Bir İntihap - Unsigned No Article No Article Tavizat Rivayeti - AHMED ŞÜKRÜ İttifak-ı Murabba - AHMED ŞÜKRÜ Girit İhtilali - Unsigned Mersin ve Samsun - Unsigned No Article Konferansı Beklerken - Unsigned No Article Sulh Yok - Unsigned Samsun'da Müşahedeler Briand Londra'da - Unsigned No Article 8 Kanun-ı Sani - Unsigned Bir Türk Fabrikasında Ankara Yollarında I No Article No Article Fevzi Paşa Hazretleri ile Mülakat Ankara Yollarında II Büyük Millet Meclisinin Reis-i Sanisiyle Mülakat İttifak-ı Murabba Muahedesi Tasdik Edilecek mi? - AHMED ŞÜKRÜ Ankara Yollarında III Yunan İstikrazı - Unsigned Türkiye-Yunan Harbi ve Bitaraflık Kavaidi AHMED ŞÜKRÜ 147 N.paper Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Date 28-Nov-1921 29-Nov-1921 30-Nov-1921 1-Dec-1921 2-Dec-1921 3-Dec-1921 4-Dec-1921 5-Dec-1921 6-Dec-1921 7-Dec-1921 8-Dec-1921 9-Dec-1921 10-Dec-1921 11-Dec-1921 12-Dec-1921 13-Dec-1921 14-Dec-1921 15-Dec-1921 16-Dec-1921 17-Dec-1921 18-Dec-1921 19-Dec-1921 20-Dec-1921 21-Dec-1921 22-Dec-1921 23-Dec-1921 24-Dec-1921 25-Dec-1921 26-Dec-1921 27-Dec-1921 28-Dec-1921 29-Dec-1921 30-Dec-1921 Vakit 31-Dec-1921 Vakit 1-Jan-1922 Vakit Vakit 2-Jan-1922 3-Jan-1922 Vakit 4-Jan-1922 Table 2 continued No 558 559 560 561 562 563 564 565 566 567 568 569 570 571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 589 590 591 592 593 594 595 596 Title Dahiliye Vekili Fethi Bey'le Mülakat No Article Cannes Konferansı - Unsigned Azerbaycan'ın Bugünkü Mevcudiyeti Ateşi Sönmez bir Volkan - AHMED ŞÜKRÜ No Article Ankara Yollarında V: Otomobil Seyahatinin Beklenilmeyen Cilveleri Cereyanların Tesadümü - Unsigned Ankara'dan Ayrılırken Briand'ın İstifası - Unsigned Missing Issue Missing Issue Yusuf Kemal Beyefendi ile Mülakat Amerika Hakikati Gördü - Unsigned No Article No Article Taksim Bahçesi Meselesi - Unsigned Fransız Siyaseti - Unsigned Ermeniler Telaşta - AHMED ŞÜKRÜ Karaağaç Mezbahası Meselesi - Unsigned No Article Mavna Suistimali Meselesi - Unsigned Ankara'dan Cepheye Giderken No Article İngiltere'de - AHMED ŞÜKRÜ No Article Hahambaşı Efendi ile Mülakat - Unsigned No Article No Article No Article Cephe Gerilerinde Tarihi Bir Mucize Garp Cephesi Kumandanı İsmet Paşa ile Mülakat Mustafa Kemal Paşa İki Nutuk No Article Aziziye'nin Acıklı Hikayesi Büyük Millet Meclisi Amerikalılar'la İktisadi Münasebetlerimiz 148 N.paper Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Date 5-Jan-1922 6-Jan-1922 7-Jan-1922 8-Jan-1922 9-Jan-1922 10-Jan-1922 Vakit 11-Jan-1922 Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit 12-Jan-1922 13-Jan-1922 14-Jan-1922 15-Jan-1922 16-Jan-1922 17-Jan-1922 18-Jan-1922 19-Jan-1922 20-Jan-1922 21-Jan-1922 22-Jan-1922 23-Jan-1922 24-Jan-1922 25-Jan-1922 26-Jan-1922 27-Jan-1922 28-Jan-1922 29-Jan-1922 30-Jan-1922 31-Jan-1922 1-Feb-1922 2-Feb-1922 3-Feb-1922 4-Feb-1922 5-Feb-1922 Vakit 6-Feb-1922 Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit 7-Feb-1922 8-Feb-1922 9-Feb-1922 10-Feb-1922 11-Feb-1922 12-Feb-1922 Table 2 continued No 597 598 599 600 601 602 603 604 605 606 607 608 609 610 611 612 613 614 615 616 617 618 619 620 621 622 623 624 625 626 627 628 629 630 631 632 633 634 Title Hükümetin Şekli Sa'y-ı Misak-ı Millisine İhtiyacımız No Article Yusuf Kemal Bey'in Seyahati Garp Cephesinde Bir Ordu Karargahında Amerika Ticaret Mümessili Gillespie ile Mülakat - Unsigned No Article No Article İtalyan Buhranı Anadolu Ortodoksları Hak Sulhü Espoir Vapuru Hadisesi - AHMED ŞÜKRÜ İşgal Altındaki Türkler Lord Northcliffe'in Seyahati Gayr-ı Müstahlas Rumlar Cemiyet-i Umumiye-i Belediye - MEHMED ASIM Bolonya Konferansı Hayırlı Bir Seyahat Mustafa Kemal Paşa'nın Nutku No Article İzzet Paşa'nın Seyahati 1338 Bütçesi - MEHMED ASIM İngiltere'de Dahili Vaziyet Yunanistan'ın Hali Müspet Mesai Devresi No Article Paris Müessese-i İslamiyesi Gounaris'in Sukutu No Article No Article Boşo Kabine Reisi Yunanistan'da Son Vaziyet İngiltere'nin Şark Siyaseti Yunanistan'ın Vaziyet-i Maliyesi - MEHMED ASIM Yeni Bir Kitaba Dair Konferansa Doğru Gounaris'e İtimat Reyi No Article 149 N.paper Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Date 13-Feb-1922 14-Feb-1922 15-Feb-1922 16-Feb-1922 17-Feb-1922 Vakit 18-Feb-1922 Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit 19-Feb-1922 20-Feb-1922 21-Feb-1922 22-Feb-1922 23-Feb-1922 24-Feb-1922 25-Feb-1922 26-Feb-1922 27-Feb-1922 Vakit 28-Feb-1922 Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit 1-Mar-22 2-Mar-22 3-Mar-22 4-Mar-22 5-Mar-22 6-Mar-22 7-Mar-22 8-Mar-22 9-Mar-22 10-Mar-22 11-Mar-22 12-Mar-22 13-Mar-22 14-Mar-22 15-Mar-22 16-Mar-22 17-Mar-22 Vakit 18-Mar-22 Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit 19-Mar-22 20-Mar-22 21-Mar-22 22-Mar-22 Table 2 continued No 635 636 637 638 639 640 641 642 643 644 645 646 647 648 649 650 651 652 653 654 655 656 657 658 659 660 661 662 663 664 665 666 667 668 669 670 671 672 673 674 Title Daily Telegraph'a Cevap Mütareke Teklifi Mütareke Teklifinin Neticeleri Yeni Bir Safha Son Vaziyeti Tahlil Paris Mukarreratı Münakaşasa Safhası Devletlerin Notası Ankara ve Sulh Bir Rüyanın Bedeli Yunanlılar'ın Vaziyeti No Article Avam Kamarasında İçtimai Boykot Ankara'nın Cevabı Ufuktaki İhtimaller Mühim Bir Şehadet Milli Asabiyetin Manası Cenova Konferansı Nedir? Mütareke ve Yunanlılar Sulh İsteyenler ve İstemeyenler Yunanistan'ın İstikraz Teşebbüsleri - MEHMED ASIM Yeni İslam Alemi I Yeni İslam Alemi II Yeni Muvazenet Siyaseti - Devletlerin Cevabı Teminatsız Mütareke Yanlış Hesaplar Küçük İtilaf ve Mabedi Cenova'da Mühim Hadiseler Bir Mesafe Meselesi En Müsta'cel Mesele Mesdud Bir Hadise Pek Tabii Bir Cevap Yeni İntizar Günleri Cevabi Notamızın Tesiratı İzmit Konferansı Muvazenet Siyaseti ve Biz Ramazan Ayı Cenova'nın Son Safhası Ankara'da Üç İstifa 150 N.paper Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Date 23-Mar-22 24-Mar-22 25-Mar-22 26-Mar-22 27-Mar-22 28-Mar-22 29-Mar-22 30-Mar-22 31-Mar-22 1-Apr-1922 2-Apr-1922 3-Apr-1922 4-Apr-1922 5-Apr-1922 6-Apr-1922 7-Apr-1922 8-Apr-1922 9-Apr-1922 10-Apr-1922 11-Apr-1922 12-Apr-1922 Vakit 13-Apr-1922 Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit 14-Apr-1922 15-Apr-1922 16-Apr-1922 17-Apr-1922 18-Apr-1922 19-Apr-1922 20-Apr-1922 21-Apr-1922 22-Apr-1922 23-Apr-1922 24-Apr-1922 25-Apr-1922 26-Apr-1922 27-Apr-1922 28-Apr-1922 29-Apr-1922 30-Apr-1922 1-May-22 Table 2 continued No 675 676 677 678 679 680 681 682 683 684 685 686 687 688 689 690 691 692 693 694 695 696 697 698 699 700 701 702 703 704 705 706 707 708 709 710 711 712 713 Title Amele Bayramı On Senelik Sulh Nüfus Boşluklarımız Çürük Bir Silah Son Vaziyeti Tahlil Zühmer'in Beyanatı Tefrikanın Hakiki Sebepleri Cephe Vahdeti Cenova'da Meraklı Dakikalar Yunanistan ve Müekkilleri Rusların Cevabı Gounaris'in Mevkii - Bir İçtima Münasebetiyle Rusların Cevabından Sonra Elemli bir Sene-i Devriye Yardım Vazifesi - MEHMED ASIM Komisyona Havale Fikri ve İçtimai Hayatımız - Bir Teklif Ekalliyetler ve Hakkaniyet Münakaşa Safhasından Tebaud Son Celse No Article Tarihteki Tekerrürler Kıbrıs İdaresi - AHMED ŞÜKRÜ İktisadi Teşkilatsızlık Son Safhayı Tahlil Tarik-i Mükellefiyet Nakdiyesi - MEHMED ASIM Çıkar ve Çıkmaz Yollar Bayram Tahassüsleri Missing Issue Missing Issue Londra'da Bir İçtima Müzakere Rivayetleri General Papulas'ın Sukutu - M. N. Yunan Kumandanlığında Tebeddül - MEHMED ASIM Claude Farrèr Yeni Bir Safhaya Doğru Gökten Yere Avdet Amerika'nın İştiraki Samsun'un Bombardımanı 151 N.paper Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Date 2-May-22 3-May-22 4-May-22 5-May-22 6-May-22 7-May-22 8-May-22 9-May-22 10-May-22 11-May-22 12-May-22 13-May-22 14-May-22 15-May-22 16-May-22 17-May-22 18-May-22 19-May-22 20-May-22 21-May-22 22-May-22 23-May-22 24-May-22 25-May-22 26-May-22 Vakit 27-May-22 Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit 28-May-22 29-May-22 30-May-22 31-May-22 1-Jun-1922 2-Jun-1922 3-Jun-1922 Vakit 4-Jun-1922 Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit 5-Jun-1922 6-Jun-1922 7-Jun-1922 8-Jun-1922 9-Jun-1922 Table 2 continued No Title 714 Amerika'nın İttihamları Lahey Mukarreratı ve Yunanlılar - AHMED 715 ŞÜKRÜ 716 Sulhü Kim İstemiyor? 717 Anarşi İçinde bir Memleket - AHMED ŞÜKRÜ 718 Cemiyet-i Akvama Müzaheret 719 Sulhe Karşı Vazifemiz 720 Muvazenesiz Bir Vaziyet 721 Lahey'e Ait İhtimaller 722 Missing Issue 723 Poincaré'nin Seyahati 724 Başkumandanımızın Nezdinde 725 Başkumandan ve Millet 726 Milli Mücadelenin Ateşi 727 61 Günlük Teehhür 728 Lenin'in Hastalığı 729 Neaimera ve Neologos 730 Esaslı Bir Tarz-ı Hal 731 Telebbüs Münakaşaları 732 Zaman Müttefikleri Değilmiş 733 Atina'da Müzakereler 734 Yunan Ordusunun Son Vaziyeti - M. N. 735 İktisadi İşlerde Temizlik 736 Bütçe Tasarrufu ve Memurlar 737 Üç Nazır-ı İçtimai 738 Amerika ile Münasebetlerimiz 739 Gazap Yüzünden Rahmet 740 Muhacirlere ve Yetimlere Dair 741 Ameli Tevzin Yolu 742 İrlanda'da Dahili Harp 743 Memleketin Muhalifleri 744 Sulhten Sonraya Hazırlık 745 Yeni Münakaşa Safhası 746 Münevverlerin Harice Muhacereti 747 Mübadele Meselesine Dair 748 Lahey'de Neler Oluyor 749 İki Tarz-ı Hal 750 Heyet-i Vekilenin Tebeddülü 751 Romanya'dan Geçerken I - HÜSEYİN CAHİD 752 Romanya'dan Geçerken II - HÜSEYİN CAHİD 753 Men'i İsrafat Kanunu 152 N.paper Date Vakit 10-Jun-1922 Vakit 11-Jun-1922 Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit 12-Jun-1922 13-Jun-1922 14-Jun-1922 15-Jun-1922 16-Jun-1922 17-Jun-1922 18-Jun-1922 19-Jun-1922 20-Jun-1922 21-Jun-1922 22-Jun-1922 23-Jun-1922 24-Jun-1922 25-Jun-1922 26-Jun-1922 27-Jun-1922 28-Jun-1922 29-Jun-1922 30-Jun-1922 1-Jul-1922 2-Jul-1922 3-Jul-1922 4-Jul-1922 5-Jul-1922 6-Jul-1922 7-Jul-1922 8-Jul-1922 9-Jul-1922 10-Jul-1922 11-Jul-1922 12-Jul-1922 13-Jul-1922 14-Jul-1922 15-Jul-1922 16-Jul-1922 17-Jul-1922 18-Jul-1922 19-Jul-1922 Table 2 continued No 754 755 756 757 758 759 760 761 762 763 764 765 766 767 768 769 770 771 772 773 774 775 776 777 778 779 780 781 782 783 784 785 786 787 788 789 790 791 792 793 794 Title No Article No Article Missing Issue 10 Temmuz - 23 Nisan - HAKKI TARIK Para Meselesi - HÜSEYİN CAHİD No Article İstikraz-ı Dahili - HÜSEYİN CAHİD No Article No Article Ölülere Hürmet - HÜSEYİN CAHİD No Article Vaziyet - M. N. No Article Kadın Meselesi - HÜSEYİN CAHİD No Article Bataklığa Saplanmış - M. N. Missing Issue Missing Issue Missing Issue Çatalca Yolunda - M. N. Muhtariyet İlanı - AHMED ŞÜKRÜ No Article Vaziyetin İnkişafına Doğru - M. N. No Article Efendiler İmkansızdır - AHMED ŞÜKRÜ No Article Zafer veya Hiç - AHMED ŞÜKRÜ No Article No Article Fransa-Almanya - M. N. No Article No Article No Article No Article Konferans ve Sonrası - AHMED ŞÜKRÜ No Article Türkistan Harekatı I- M. N. Venedik Konferansı - AHMED ŞÜKRÜ Türkistan Harekatı II - M. N. Sulhün Yolu - AHMED ŞÜKRÜ Son Söz Silahların 153 N.paper Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Date 20-Jul-1922 21-Jul-1922 22-Jul-1922 23-Jul-1922 24-Jul-1922 25-Jul-1922 26-Jul-1922 27-Jul-1922 28-Jul-1922 29-Jul-1922 30-Jul-1922 31-Jul-1922 1-Aug-1922 2-Aug-1922 3-Aug-1922 4-Aug-1922 5-Aug-1922 6-Aug-1922 7-Aug-1922 8-Aug-1922 9-Aug-1922 10-Aug-1922 11-Aug-1922 12-Aug-1922 13-Aug-1922 14-Aug-1922 15-Aug-1922 16-Aug-1922 17-Aug-1922 18-Aug-1922 19-Aug-1922 20-Aug-1922 21-Aug-1922 22-Aug-1922 23-Aug-1922 24-Aug-1922 25-Aug-1922 26-Aug-1922 27-Aug-1922 28-Aug-1922 29-Aug-1922 Table 2 continued No Title 795 İntizar Günleri 796 Afyon Karahisarı Muzafferiyeti - M. N. 797 798 799 800 801 802 803 804 805 806 807 808 809 810 811 812 813 814 815 816 817 818 819 820 821 822 823 824 825 826 827 828 829 830 831 832 Yunan Gafleti Bir Zihniyetin Tahlili Siyasi Ricat Ceza Saati - MEHMED ASIM Bir Hülyanın Bedeli İstanbul'un Borcu Son Vaziyet Mütareke İstiyorlar Zafer ve İtidal İkinci Fetih Nefsimize Galebemiz Müessif Taşkınlıklar Siyasi Vahimeler İzmit Yerine İzmir Şarki Trakya No Article No Article Trakya'ya Doğru - AHMED ŞÜKRÜ No Article Konferans ve Yugoslavya - AHMED ŞÜKRÜ Müteakip Hedefler - H. K. Boğazlar Meselesi - AHMED ŞÜKRÜ No Article No Article Kazanan Siyaset - HAKKI TARIK Müttefiklerin Notası - AHMED ŞÜKRÜ Vaktimiz Yoktur - AHMED ŞÜKRÜ Sulh ve Boğazlar - H. K. No Article Venizelos ve Kostantin - AHMED ŞÜKRÜ Cemiyet-i Akvam'ın Müdahalesi - AHMED ŞÜKRÜ Lloyd George'un Beyanatı - AHMED ŞÜKRÜ Allah'ın Bu Günü de Varmış İzmir Sulhü Mudanya Konferansı Ankara'nın Cevabı 154 N.paper Date 30-AugVakit 1922 31-AugVakit 1922 Vakit 1-Sep-1922 Vakit 2-Sep-1922 Vakit 3-Sep-1922 Vakit 4-Sep-1922 Vakit 5-Sep-1922 Vakit 6-Sep-1922 Vakit 7-Sep-1922 Vakit 8-Sep-1922 Vakit 9-Sep-1922 Vakit 10-Sep-1922 Vakit 11-Sep-1922 Vakit 12-Sep-1922 Vakit 13-Sep-1922 Vakit 14-Sep-1922 Vakit 15-Sep-1922 Vakit 16-Sep-1922 Vakit 17-Sep-1922 Vakit 18-Sep-1922 Vakit 19-Sep-1922 Vakit 20-Sep-1922 Vakit 21-Sep-1922 Vakit 22-Sep-1922 Vakit 23-Sep-1922 Vakit 24-Sep-1922 Vakit 25-Sep-1922 Vakit 26-Sep-1922 Vakit 27-Sep-1922 Vakit 28-Sep-1922 Vakit 29-Sep-1922 Vakit 30-Sep-1922 Vakit 1-Oct-1922 Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit 2-Oct-1922 3-Oct-1922 4-Oct-1922 5-Oct-1922 6-Oct-1922 Table 2 continued No 833 834 835 836 837 838 839 840 841 842 843 844 845 846 847 848 849 850 851 852 853 854 855 856 857 858 859 860 861 862 863 864 865 866 867 868 869 870 871 872 873 Title Mudanya'da Vaziyet No Article Son Safha No Article Venizelos Londra'da Mudanya Mukavelenamesi Hayırlı Bir Hezimet Sulh Konferansı Sürat ve Vuzuh Yeni Muhaceret-i Akvam Yer İntihabı Ya Sonrası Mesai Seferberliği Tarihi Bir Gün İngiliz Kabine Tebeddülü No Article Saltanat-ı Milliye Tebeddülden Sonra Muhafazakar Zihniyet İhtisas ve Kanun Konferans Hakkında Bir Memleket Meselesi Devletlerin Cevabı İkinci Safhaya Dair No Article Temsil Salahiyeti Balkan Sulhü Hakimiyet ve Mesuliyet Bahsi 2 Teşrin-i Sani İstanbul'un Biati Yeni Devir No Article Murahhaslarımız ve Sulh Bugünkü Ameli Gayemiz Mukaddemat-ı Sulhiye Terakki Korkusu Salaha Doğru Maziden Mülhem Bir Mukaddime İhtisas Tarikiyle Muvazene Konferansın Arefesinde Milli Program ve Fırkacılık 155 N.paper Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Date 7-Oct-1922 8-Oct-1922 9-Oct-1922 10-Oct-1922 11-Oct-1922 12-Oct-1922 13-Oct-1922 14-Oct-1922 15-Oct-1922 16-Oct-1922 17-Oct-1922 18-Oct-1922 19-Oct-1922 20-Oct-1922 21-Oct-1922 22-Oct-1922 23-Oct-1922 24-Oct-1922 25-Oct-1922 26-Oct-1922 27-Oct-1922 28-Oct-1922 29-Oct-1922 30-Oct-1922 31-Oct-1922 1-Nov-1922 2-Nov-1922 3-Nov-1922 4-Nov-1922 5-Nov-1922 6-Nov-1922 7-Nov-1922 8-Nov-1922 9-Nov-1922 10-Nov-1922 11-Nov-1922 12-Nov-1922 13-Nov-1922 14-Nov-1922 15-Nov-1922 16-Nov-1922 Table 2 continued No 874 875 876 877 878 879 880 881 882 883 884 885 886 887 888 889 890 891 892 893 894 895 896 897 898 899 900 901 902 903 904 905 906 907 908 909 910 911 912 Title Fırtınadan Sonra Güneş İngiltere'de Muhafazakarların Galebesi Canlı Bir Ölü Halife-i Müslimin Huzur-ı Hilafetpenahide Yanlış Yol Amerika ve Sulh Yunanistan'daki Türkler Garp Hududumuz İki Şıktan Biri Musul Petrolleri ve İngiltere Gafilane Bir Siyaset Hala Eski Siyaset Garbi Trakya ve Balkanlar Asıl Asılacak Adam Sulhün Anahtarı Eski Ellerdedir Sürate İhtiyaç Var Tazyikin İki Şartı Makus Neticeler Bir Mesuliyet Bahsi Gayelerini Söyleyebilirler mi? Bir Tahavvül Meyli No Article No Article Sulh ve Harp Alametleri - MEHMED ASIM Gazi Mustafa Kemal Paşa Hazretleri - HAKKI TARIK İstanbul'un Hususiyeti Nedir? - MEHMED ASIM Şeriye Vekili Vehbi Efendi - HAKKI TARIK İstanbul Rumları - MEHMED ASIM Lozan'da Rusya - MEHMED ASIM No Article Ankara'ya Seyahat Nüfus Mübadelesi Meselesi - AHMED ŞÜKRÜ Çivili Sulh Halk Fırkası Cemiyet-i Akvam ve Biz Patrikhane Dirilemez Boğazlar İtilafı ve Neticeleri Sabrımız Tükeniyor 156 N.paper Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Date 17-Nov-1922 18-Nov-1922 19-Nov-1922 20-Nov-1922 21-Nov-1922 22-Nov-1922 23-Nov-1922 24-Nov-1922 25-Nov-1922 26-Nov-1922 27-Nov-1922 28-Nov-1922 29-Nov-1922 30-Nov-1922 1-Dec-1922 2-Dec-1922 3-Dec-1922 4-Dec-1922 5-Dec-1922 6-Dec-1922 7-Dec-1922 8-Dec-1922 9-Dec-1922 10-Dec-1922 11-Dec-1922 Vakit 12-Dec-1922 Vakit 13-Dec-1922 Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit 14-Dec-1922 15-Dec-1922 16-Dec-1922 17-Dec-1922 18-Dec-1922 19-Dec-1922 20-Dec-1922 21-Dec-1922 22-Dec-1922 23-Dec-1922 24-Dec-1922 25-Dec-1922 Table 2 continued No 913 914 915 916 917 918 919 920 921 922 923 924 925 926 927 928 929 930 931 932 933 934 935 936 937 938 939 940 941 942 943 944 945 946 947 948 949 950 951 952 953 Title Düşmanlarımızın Ümidi No Article Milet Rehbere Muhtaçtır Sulh ve Propaganda Londra'da Beş Hafta Amel ve Aksülameller Zafer Yılı Bugünkü Paris İçtimaı Sulhü Bozanlar Zaafın Tabii Neticesi Çıkar Yol Cephe Vahdeti İstanbul Türklüğü Londra'da Yeni İstidatlar Milli Mesai Devresi Anlamadıkları Hakikat Fransa'nın Rolü Missing Issue Lozan'da Yeni Cephe Yolları Ayrı Yoldaşlar Mr. Childs'ın Hataları Müncilikten Sonra Banilik İktisat Kongresi - MEHMED ASIM Milli İstikbal Hazırlıkları Bedbinlik Veren Alametler - MEHMED ASIM Hedefe Mutlaka Varılacaktır Tasfiye Yolu Mudanya Mütarekesinin İhlali İstinad Noktası Menfi Unsurlar Dost mu Düşman mı? İngiltere ve Kürtlük Lozan'da Son Hafta Cuma’dan Sonrası Hususi Müzakere Yolu Lozan'da İki Şık Sevr'in İkinci Tab'ı Vaziyette Esaslı Tahavvül Son Safha Sulh Taarruzu Metni Okuduktan Sonra 157 N.paper Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Date 26-Dec-1922 27-Dec-1922 28-Dec-1922 29-Dec-1922 30-Dec-1922 31-Dec-1922 1-Jan-1923 2-Jan-1923 3-Jan-1923 4-Jan-1923 5-Jan-1923 6-Jan-1923 7-Jan-1923 8-Jan-1923 9-Jan-1923 10-Jan-1923 11-Jan-1923 12-Jan-1923 13-Jan-1923 14-Jan-1923 15-Jan-1923 16-Jan-1923 17-Jan-1923 18-Jan-1923 19-Jan-1923 20-Jan-1923 21-Jan-1923 22-Jan-1923 23-Jan-1923 24-Jan-1923 25-Jan-1923 26-Jan-1923 27-Jan-1923 28-Jan-1923 29-Jan-1923 30-Jan-1923 31-Jan-1923 1-Feb-1923 2-Feb-1923 3-Feb-1923 4-Feb-1923 Table 2 continued No 954 955 956 957 958 959 960 961 962 963 964 965 966 967 968 969 970 971 972 973 974 975 976 977 978 979 980 981 982 983 984 985 986 987 988 989 990 991 992 993 994 Title Son Pazarlıklar Roller Değişti İktisadi Esarete Karşı Son Buhranın Mahiyeti Bir İhtiyat Tedbiri İsmet Paşa'nın Avdeti Son Buhranın Sebebi Son Vaziyetin Teşrihi Şimdi Ne Olacak? Mühim Bir Tahavvül İktisat Konferansı İngiliz Parlamentosunda Mesele Nereye Dayanıyor Yeni Safha İktisadi Zafer Hazırlığı Perde Arası Son Vaziyet ve Devası Tazminat Meseleleri Milli Cephede Vahdet Sulh ve Fransa Hüseyin Cahid Bey'e Cevap Vaziyetin Tenvirini Bekliyoruz Engel Olan Kim? Cihan Siyaset Sahnesinde Ankara Müzakeratı ve Avrupa Dördüncü Sene 1 Mart Nutku Hüsn-i Niyet Fikdanı Faşist İtalya Tefsir ve Tatbikat Farkları Miçem Hezimeti İtidalin Galebesi Meclisin Kararından Sonra Mukabil Projemiz İstediklerimiz Nedir Projemiz ve Devletler Ameli Yol Ankara ve İstanbul Münakaşa Başlayacak mı? Londra Konferansı İngiltere'nin Siyaseti N.paper Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit 158 Date 5-Feb-1923 6-Feb-1923 7-Feb-1923 8-Feb-1923 9-Feb-1923 10-Feb-1923 11-Feb-1923 12-Feb-1923 13-Feb-1923 14-Feb-1923 15-Feb-1923 16-Feb-1923 17-Feb-1923 18-Feb-1923 19-Feb-1923 20-Feb-1923 21-Feb-1923 22-Feb-1923 23-Feb-1923 24-Feb-1923 25-Feb-1923 26-Feb-1923 27-Feb-1923 28-Feb-1923 1-Mar-23 2-Mar-23 3-Mar-23 4-Mar-23 5-Mar-23 6-Mar-23 7-Mar-23 8-Mar-23 9-Mar-23 10-Mar-23 11-Mar-23 12-Mar-23 13-Mar-23 14-Mar-23 15-Mar-23 16-Mar-23 17-Mar-23 Table 2 continued No 995 996 997 998 999 1000 1001 1002 1003 1004 1005 1006 1007 1008 1009 1010 1011 1012 1013 1014 1015 1016 1017 1018 1019 1020 1021 1022 1023 1024 1025 1026 1027 1028 1029 1030 1031 1032 1033 1034 1035 Title Muhacir Meselesi Teklifatımızın Tedkiki - MEHMED ASIM Missing Issue Missing Issue Missing Issue Missing Issue Missing Issue Missing Issue (Vatan) ın Mesleği Ecnebi Sermayesi Emperyalizme Muhalefet Su-i Niyet Emareleri Müttehid Cephenin Tamiri Bir Hakikat Dostu Devletlerin Cevabi Notası Dahili Sulh Meclisin İnfisahı Yeni İntihabatın Manası İntihabatta Muhalif Kuvvetler Mebus Namzetleri Chester İşi Cevabımızı Beklerken Program Bahsi Beyannamenin Tahlili Beyannamenin Tahlili II Beyannamenin Tahlili III İkinci Bir İmtihan Bir Taraflı Dostluk Cahid Bey'e Cevap Şekl-i Hükümet Hıyanet-i Vataniye Ramazan Sulh Olacak mı? Gizli Çalışanlar Dinlerin Tesanüdü İki Devrin Farkı - AHMED ŞÜKRÜ 23 Nisan Missing Issue Nikbinane İntibalar - AHMED ŞÜKRÜ Konferans'ta Esen Rüzgarlar No Article 159 N.paper Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vakit Vatan Vatan Vatan Vatan Vatan Vatan Vatan Vatan Vatan Vatan Vatan Vatan Vatan Vatan Vatan Vatan Vatan Vatan Vatan Vatan Vatan Vatan Vatan Vatan Vatan Vatan Vatan Vatan Vatan Vatan Vatan Vatan Vatan Date 18-Mar-23 19-Mar-23 20-Mar-23 21-Mar-23 22-Mar-23 23-Mar-23 24-Mar-23 25-Mar-23 26-Mar-23 27-Mar-23 28-Mar-23 29-Mar-23 30-Mar-23 31-Mar-23 1-Apr-1923 2-Apr-1923 3-Apr-1923 4-Apr-1923 5-Apr-1923 6-Apr-1923 7-Apr-1923 8-Apr-1923 9-Apr-1923 10-Apr-1923 11-Apr-1923 12-Apr-1923 13-Apr-1923 14-Apr-1923 15-Apr-1923 16-Apr-1923 17-Apr-1923 18-Apr-1923 19-Apr-1923 20-Apr-1923 21-Apr-1923 22-Apr-1923 23-Apr-1923 24-Apr-1923 25-Apr-1923 26-Apr-1923 27-Apr-1923 Table 2 continued No 1036 1037 1038 1039 1040 1041 1042 1043 1044 1045 1046 1047 1048 1049 1050 1051 1052 1053 1054 1055 1056 1057 1058 1059 1060 1061 1062 1063 1064 1065 1066 1067 1068 1069 1070 1071 1072 1073 1074 1075 1076 Title Lord Rotrmor'un Makalesi Lozan'da Vaziyet Karabekir Yavruları İstanbul ve Muhalifler No Article Muhaliflerin Vaziyeti Lozan'da Fransızlar Gerginliğin Zevaline Doğru Manasız Bir Israr Japonya'dan Bir Ders Sulh İhtiyacı Aradaki Fark İki Tehlike Şirketlerle Müzakere Türk Emperyalizmi Var mı? Lozan Cinayeti No Article Muhacirlerin İskanı Yarını Düşünemeyenler Bayram Düşünceleri Missing Issue Missing Issue İcra Vekilleri Arasında İşsizlere İş Bonar Law'un İstifası Yunan Tehditleri Müşterek Bir Menfaat Meselesi İşsizlik Dersi Tamirat ve Hüküm Komünizm ve Türk Gençliği Büyük Bir Fedakarlığımız Tamirat İtilafı ve Neticeleri Balkanlar'da Vaziyetimiz İlk Adım Son Müşkilat Mühim Bir Teşebbüs İstanbul Rumluğu Yeni Fırtınalar Meclis-i Umumimiz Bir Dost Millet No Article N.paper Vatan Vatan Vatan Vatan Vatan Vatan Vatan Vatan Vatan Vatan Vatan Vatan Vatan Vatan Vatan Vatan Vatan Vatan Vatan Vatan Vatan Vatan Vatan Vatan Vatan Vatan Vatan Vatan Vatan Vatan Vatan Vatan Vatan Vatan Vatan Vatan Vatan Vatan Vatan Vatan Vatan 160 Date 28-Apr-1923 29-Apr-1923 30-Apr-1923 1-May-23 2-May-23 3-May-23 4-May-23 5-May-23 6-May-23 7-May-23 8-May-23 9-May-23 10-May-23 11-May-23 12-May-23 13-May-23 14-May-23 15-May-23 16-May-23 17-May-23 18-May-23 19-May-23 20-May-23 21-May-23 22-May-23 23-May-23 24-May-23 25-May-23 26-May-23 27-May-23 28-May-23 29-May-23 30-May-23 31-May-23 1-Jun-1923 2-Jun-1923 3-Jun-1923 4-Jun-1923 5-Jun-1923 6-Jun-1923 7-Jun-1923 Table 2 continued No 1076 1077 1078 1079 1080 1081 1082 1083 1084 1085 1086 1087 1088 1089 1090 1091 1092 1093 1094 1095 1096 1097 1098 1099 1100 1101 1102 1103 1104 1105 1106 1107 1108 1109 1110 1111 1112 1113 1114 1115 1116 Title No Article No Article No Article No Article Bulgaristan'da Darbe-i Hükümet - Unsigned No Article No Article No Article Lozan'da 24 Saatlik Zamanın Hikayesi No Article Kupon Münakaşalarına Ait İntibalar No Article Yunanistan'da Müsadereler - İBRAHİM FAZIL No Article No Article No Article İstanbul'un Coşuşu - RUŞEN EŞREF No Article Dünyanın En Müterakki Memleketinde Şirketler Meselesi - Unsigned Garip Bir Teklif - İBRAHİM FAZIL No Article İngiliz Matbuatı - Unsigned No Article No Article Beynelmilel Matbuat İçtimaına Ait İhtisaslar No Article No Article No Article No Article No Article No Article No Article Sulh - Unsigned No Article No Article Son Buhran Devresi Büyük Sermayenin Sesi İngiltere'nin Beyannamesi No Article Tabiatla Mübarezenin Ateş Hattında 161 N.paper Vatan Vatan Vatan Vatan Vatan Vatan Vatan Vatan Vatan Vatan Vatan Vatan Vatan Vatan Vatan Vatan Vatan Vatan Vatan Vatan Vatan Vatan Vatan Vatan Vatan Vatan Vatan Vatan Vatan Vatan Vatan Vatan Vatan Vatan Vatan Vatan Vatan Vatan Vatan Vatan Vatan Date 7-Jun-1923 8-Jun-1923 9-Jun-1923 10-Jun-1923 11-Jun-1923 12-Jun-1923 13-Jun-1923 14-Jun-1923 15-Jun-1923 16-Jun-1923 17-Jun-1923 18-Jun-1923 19-Jun-1923 20-Jun-1923 21-Jun-1923 22-Jun-1923 23-Jun-1923 24-Jun-1923 25-Jun-1923 26-Jun-1923 27-Jun-1923 28-Jun-1923 29-Jun-1923 30-Jun-1923 1-Jul-1923 2-Jul-1923 3-Jul-1923 4-Jul-1923 5-Jul-1923 6-Jul-1923 7-Jul-1923 8-Jul-1923 9-Jul-1923 10-Jul-1923 11-Jul-1923 12-Jul-1923 13-Jul-1923 14-Jul-1923 15-Jul-1923 16-Jul-1923 17-Jul-1923 Table 2 continued No 1117 1118 1119 1120 1121 1122 1123 1124 1125 1126 1127 1128 1129 1130 1131 1132 1133 1134 1135 1136 1137 1138 1139 1140 1141 1142 1143 1144 1145 1146 1147 1148 1149 1150 1151 1152 1153 1154 1155 1156 Title Hakiki Sulh 24.Tem Nasıl Muvaffak Olduk? Mübadele İmtihanı No Article No Article Sulh Günü İmzadan Sonra Missing Issue Missing Issue Missing Issue Ecnebilerle Tarz-ı Münasebet İdare Merkezimiz Günden Güne Eriyen Bir Dağ Makinada Noksanlar Mübadele Hazırlıkları Lloyd George ve Balıkları Tahdidata Karşı Laponyalılar Arasında bir Akşam No Article Muvazene-i Düveliyeye Avdet - AHMED ŞÜKRÜ Bir Hukuki İncelik - AHMED ŞÜKRÜ Amerika ile Münasebatımız - AHMED ŞÜKRÜ İstikbal Hazırlıkları No Article Teşekkülat Günleri – Unsigned Yeni Devre Başlarken Tarihi Bir Nutuk & Meclis Koridorlarında Meclis Açılırken - AĞAOĞLU AHMED Fethi Bey'in Beyanatı Muvaffakiyetten Sonra Merkeze Dair Münakaşa I Merkeze Dair Münakaşa II İçki Derdine Deva İstanbul İşleri Gidilecek Yol - AĞAOĞLU AHMED Cenub-i Garbi Hududumuz Muahedenin Tasdiki İşgalin Hitamı Ankaralılara Cevap 162 N.paper Vatan Vatan Vatan Vatan Vatan Vatan Vatan Vatan Vatan Vatan Vatan Vatan Vatan Vatan Vatan Vatan Vatan Vatan Vatan Vatan Date 18-Jul-1923 19-Jul-1923 20-Jul-1923 21-Jul-1923 22-Jul-1923 23-Jul-1923 24-Jul-1923 25-Jul-1923 26-Jul-1923 27-Jul-1923 28-Jul-1923 29-Jul-1923 30-Jul-1923 31-Jul-1923 1-Aug-1923 2-Aug-1923 3-Aug-1923 4-Aug-1923 5-Aug-1923 6-Aug-1923 Vatan 7-Aug-1923 Vatan Vatan Vatan Vatan Vatan Vatan Vatan Vatan Vatan Vatan Vatan Vatan Vatan Vatan Vatan Vatan Vatan Vatan Vatan 8-Aug-1923 9-Aug-1923 10-Aug-1923 11-Aug-1923 12-Aug-1923 13-Aug-1923 14-Aug-1923 15-Aug-1923 16-Aug-1923 17-Aug-1923 18-Aug-1923 19-Aug-1923 20-Aug-1923 21-Aug-1923 22-Aug-1923 23-Aug-1923 24-Aug-1923 25-Aug-1923 26-Aug-1923 Table 2 continued No Title 1157 Fikir Mücadeleleri - AĞAOĞLU AHMED 1158 İskeletler mi Mübadele Edilecek? 163 N.paper Date Vatan 27-Aug-1923 Vatan 28-Aug-1923 BIBLIOGRAPHY Secondary Sources Adıvar, Halide E. Türk'ün Ateşle İmtihanı. İstanbul: Özgür Yayınları, 2004. Ahmad, Feroz. The Making of Modern Turkey. London: Routledge, 2003. Akbayar, Nuri and Koloğlu, Orhan. Gazeteci Bir Aile. Ankara: Çağdaş Gazeteciler Derneği Yayınları: 1996. Akçam, Taner. From Empire to Republic: Turkish Nationalism and the Armenian Genocide. London: Zed Books, 2004. Akın, Rıdvan. Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nun Dağılma Devri ve Türkçülük Hareketi: 1908-1918. İstanbul: Der Yayınları, 2002. Akşin, Sina. Turkey from Empire to Revolutionary Republic: The Emergence of the Turkish Nation from 1789 to the Present. Washington Square, N.Y: New York University Press, 2007. Akşin, Sina. İstanbul Hükümetleri ve Milli Mücadele I. Ankara: Türkiye İş Bankası, Kültür Yayınları, 2004. Aktar, Ayhan. Varlık Vergisi ve Türkleştirme Politikaları. Cağaloğlu, İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları, 2000. Akyüz, Yahya. Türk Kurtuluş Savaşı ve Fransız Kamuoyu. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 1988. Alemdar, Korkmaz. İstanbul. Ankara: Ankara İktisadi ve Ticari İlimler Akademisi Yayınları, 1978. Artuç, Nevzat. Cemal Paşa: Askeri ve Siyasi Hayatı. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 2008. Atatürk ve Basın. İstanbul: T.G.S. İstanbul Şubesi, 1981. Atay, F.Rıfkı. “Biz Bunları Unutmayız”, Ulus, 25 October 1945. Aybars, Ergün. İstiklal Mahkemeleri Cilt I-II. İzmir: Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Yayınları, 1988. Ayhan, Bünyamin. Milli Mücadelede Basın. Konya: Tablet Kitabevi, 2007. Broadus, John R. "Soviet Historical Literature on the Last Years of the Ottoman Empire." Middle Eastern Studies. 18.1 (1982): 114-115. Burke, Peter. Varieties of Cultural History. Ithaca, N.Y: Cornell University Press, 1997. Busch, Briton C. Mudros to Lausanne: Britain's Frontier in West Asia, 1918-1923. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1976. 164 Buzanski, Peter M. "The Interallied Investigation of the Greek Invasion of Smyrna, 1919." The Historian 25, no.3 (1963): 325-343. Cebesoy, Ali Fuat. Siyasi Hatıralar II.Kısım. İstanbul: Doğan Kardeşler Yayınları, 1960. Çaǧaptay, Soner. Islam, Secularism, and Nationalism in Modern Turkey: Who is a Turk? London: Routledge, 2006. Criss, Bilge N. Istanbul under Allied Occupation, 1918-1923. Leiden: Brill, 1999. Çelik, Bilgin. İttihatçılar ve Arnavutlar: II. Meşrutiyet Döneminde Arnavut Ulusçuluğu ve Arnavutluk Sorunu, İstanbul: Büke Kitapları, 2004. Değerli, Esra. “Lozan Barış Konferansı’nda Musul.” Balıkesir Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi. 10.18 (2007): 127-140. Dockrill, Michael. "Britain and the Lausanne Conference: 1922-1923." Milletlerarası Münasebetler Türk Yıllığı. 23 (1993): 1-17. Doğanay, Rahmi. “Misak-ı Milli’ye Göre Lozan.” Fırat University Journal of Social Science. 11.2 (2001): 281-294. Duru, Orhan. Amerikan Gizli Belgeleriyle Türkiye'nin Kurtuluş Yılları. İstanbul: Türkiye İş Bankası Kültür Yayınları, 2001. Erim, Nihat. “Milletlerarası Daimî Adalet Divanı ve Türkiye.” Ankara Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi. 3.2 (1946): 62-72. Eroğlu, Hamza. Türk İnkılap Tarihi. İstanbul: Milli Eğitim Basımevi, 1982. ______________. Türk İstiklal Harbi 8 vols. Ankara: Genelkurmay Basımevi, 1962. Erol, Mine. Türkiye’de Amerikan Mandası Meselesi, 1919-1920. Giresun: İleri Basımevi, 1972. Ersaydı, Alper. Alemdar Gazetesine Göre Mütareke Döneminde İttihatçılık. Uşak: Uşak Akademi Kitap Dağıtım Pazarlama Yayınevi, 2011. Evans, Laurence. United States Policy and the Partition of Turkey, 1914-1924. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1965. Evriviades, M L. "Turkey's Role in United States Strategy During and After the Cold War." Mediterranean Quarterly. 9.2 (1998): 30-51. Faik Ertan, Temuçin. “Lozan Konferansı’nda Ermeni Sorunu.”, KÖK Araştırmalar KÖK Sosyal ve Stratejik Araştırmalar Dergisi. 2.2 (2000): 209-225. Gök, Sanem. “Türk Siyasi yaşamında Vatan Gazetesi (1950-1960).” MA thesis Ankara University, 2003. Gökbilgin. Tayyib. Milli Mücadele Başlarken. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi, 1959. 165 Gordon, Leland J. American Relations with Turkey, 1830-1930: An Economic Interpretation. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1932. Grew, Joseph C. "The Peace Conference of Lausanne, 1922-1923." Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society. 98.1 (1954): 1-10. ______________.“The Lausanne Peace Conference of 1922-1923.” Proceedings of the Massachusetts Historical Society. Third Series, 69, (Oct., 1947 - May, 1950): 348-367. Gürses, Banu. “Ahmet Emin Bey'in Milli Mücadele'ye Bakışı.” MA thesis Gazi University, 2002. Howard, Harry N. The Partition of Turkey: A Diplomatic History, 1913-1923. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1931. Hurewitz, J C. "Ottoman Diplomacy and the European State System." The Middle East Journal. 15.2 (1961): 305-315. Ilgar, İhsan. comp. Mütarekede Yerli ve Yabancı Basın. İstanbul: Kervan Yayınları, 1973. J. R. “The Background of Russo-Turkish Relations.” The World Today. 2.2 (1946): 57-65. J. W. W-B. “The Lausanne Conference.”Bulletin of International News.9.1 (1932): 3-15. Kara, İsmail. Cumhuriyet Türkiyesiʼnde Bir Mesele Olarak İslam. İstanbul: Dergah Yayınları, 2010. Karal, Enver Ziya. Türkiye Cumhuriyeti Tarihi 1918-1944. İstanbul: Milli Eğitim Basımevi, 1945. Kocatürk, Utkan. Atatürk Ve Türk Devrimi Kronolojisi, 1918-1938. Ankara: Ankara Üniversitesi Basımevi, 1973. Koloğlu, Orhan. Osmanlı’dan 21. Yüzyıla Basın Tarihi. İstanbul: Pozitif Yayınları, 2006. Kuran, Ahmed Bedevi. Osmanlı İmparatorluğunda İnkılap Hareketleri ve Milli Mücadele. İstanbul: Çeltüt Matbaası, 1959. Lewis, Bernard. The Emergence of Modern Turkey. London: issued under the auspices of the Royal Institute of International Affairs [by] Oxford U.P, 1968. Linde, Charlotte. Life Stories: The Creation of Coherence. New York: Oxford University Press, 1993. M. B. and H. G. L. “Syria and Lebanon: The States of the Levant under French Mandate.” Bulletin of International News. 17.14 (1940) Mears, Eliot G. Modern Turkey: A Politico-Economic Interpretation, 1908-1923 Inclusive, with Selected Chapters by Representative Authorities. New York: Macmillan Co, 1924. 166 ______________. “Transportation and Communication.” In Modern Turkey: A Politico-Economic Interpretation, 1908-1923 Inclusive, with Selected Chapters by Representative Authorities, edited by Eliot G. Mears. New York: Macmillan Co, 1924. pp. 201-237. Moul, William. “Power Parity, Preponderance, and War between Great Powers, 1816-1989.” The Journal of Conflict Resolution. 47.4 (2003): 468-489. Mueller, Gordon H. "Rapallo Reexamined: a New Look at Germany's Secret Military Collaboration with Russia in 1922." Military Affairs: the Journal of Military History, Including Theory and Technology. 40.3 (1976): 109-117. Mumay, Aynur. “Demokrasi Kavramı ve Türk Gazeteciliğinin Çok Partili Yaşama Geçiş Sürecindeki Görünümü: Vatan Örneği.” MA thesis Istanbul University, 1996. Mumcu, Ahmet. Tarih Açısından Türk Devriminin Temelleri ve Gelişimi. İstanbul: İnkılap Kitabevi, 1996. Nutku, Emrullah. “Samsun Bombardımanı ve Kahramanlık Yarışı.” Yakın Tarihimiz. 4.41 (1962) Olson, Robert W and Tucker, William F. "The Sheikh Sait Rebellion in Turkey (1925): a Study in the Consolidation of a Developed Uninstitutionalized Nationalism and the Rise of Incipient (Kurdish) Nationalism." Die Welt Des Islams. 18.4 (1978): 195-211. Özdemir, Mustafa. “Mütareke Dönemi Siyasi Akımların Türk Basınındaki Yansıması.” Çağdaş Türkiye Tarihi Araştırmaları Dergisi. 7.16-17 (2008): 203-226. Özgiray, Ahmet. "Türk-İtalyan Siyasi İlişkileri (1921-1930)." Tarih İncelemeleri Dergisi. 5. (1990): 125-134. Özkaya, Yücel. Milli Mücadelede Atatürk ve Basın (1919-1921). Ankara: Atatürk Kültür Dil ve Tarih Yüksek Kurumu, 1989. Pazarcı, Nilgün G. “İşgalin İmgeleri: The Orient News Gazetesi, 1919-1922.” Küresel İletişim Dergisi. 1 (2006): 1-11. Peach, Norman. "The Role of the Treaty of Rapallo in International Law and the Principle of Peaceful Coexistence." International Review of Contemporary Law. (1988): 43-52. Potter, Pitman, B. "Origin of the System of Mandates Under the League of Nations." The American Political Science Review. 16.4 (1922): 563-583. Sa'adah, A. "Regime Change: Lessons from Germany on Justice, Institution Building, and Democracy." Peace Research Abstracts Journal. 43.5 (2006): 303-323. Şapolyo, Enver Behnan. Kemal Atatürk ve Milli Mücadele Tarihi. İstanbul: Rafet Zaimler Yayınevi, 1958. 167 Sertel, Zekeriya. Hatırladıklarım. İstanbul: Remzi Kitabevi, 2000. Sharp, Alan. "The Enforcement of the Treaty of Versailles, 1919-1923." Diplomacy and Statecraft. 16.3 (2005): 5-20. Şimşir, Bilal N. Malta Sürgünleri. İstanbul: Milliyet Yayınları, 1976. Söylemezoğlu, Galip Kemali. Canlı Tarihler, Hatıralar, Atina Sefareti (1913-1916), İstanbul: Türkiye Yayınevi, 1946. Sunar, İlkay. “Populism and Patronage: The Demokrat Party and its Legacy in Turkey”, In State, Society and Democracy in Turkey, edited by İ. Sunar. İstanbul: Bahçeşehir University Publication, 2004. pp. 121-124. Tezcan, Asuman. “Ahmed Emin Yalman: Dönemi ve Gazeteciliği (1918-1938).” Diss. Ankara University, 2007. Topal, Coşkun. “Doğu Harekatı Sonrası Batı Cephesinin Lojistiği ve Karadeniz’in Güvenliği Sorunu.” Trakya University Journal of Social Science. 10.1 (2008): 104-115. Toynbee, Arnold J. “The East After Lausanne.” Foreign Affairs. 2.1 (1923): 84-98. Tunaya, Tarık Z. Devrim Hareketleri İçinde Atatürk ve Atatürkçülük. Ankara: Turhan Kitabevi, 1981. ______________. Türkiye’de Siyasal Partiler 2. İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları, 2003. Tunç, Salih. “İşgal Döneminde İstanbul Basını (1918-1922).” Diss. İstanbul University, 1971. Tunçay, Mete. Türkiyeʼde Sol Akımlar, 1908-1925. Ankara: Bilgi Yayınevi, 1967. Türköne, Mümtaz’er. Siyasi İdeoloji Olarak İslamcılığın Doğuşu. İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları, 1991. Ülken, Hilmi Z. Türkiyede Çaǧdaş Düşünce Tarihi: İkinci Baski. Istanbul: Ülken Yayinlari, 1979. Yalman, Ahmed Emin. Turkey in my Time, Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1956. ______________. Yakın Tarihte Gördüklerim ve Geçirdiklerim: 1. İstanbul: Yenilik Basımevi, 1970. ______________. Yakın Tarihte Gördüklerim ve Geçirdiklerim: 2. İstanbul: Yenilik Basımevi, 1970. ______________. Yakın Tarihte Gördüklerim ve Geçirdiklerim: 3. İstanbul: Yenilik Basımevi, 1970. ______________. Yakın Tarihte Gördüklerim ve Geçirdiklerim: 4. İstanbul: Yenilik Basımevi, 1970. 168 Yengin, M. N. Türkiye'de Ulus Devletin Dinamikleri. İstanbul: Bir Harf Yayınları, 2006. Yıldırım, Ergün. “Batılılaşma Sürecinde Bir Şahsiyet: Ahmet Emin Yalman, Yüksek Lisans Tezi.” MA Thesis İstanbul University, 1991. Yıldız, Ahmet. Ne Mutlu Türküm Diyebilene: Türk Ulusal Kimliğinin Etno-Seküler Sınırları (1919-1938). Cağaloğlu, İstanbul: İletişim, 2001. Yılmaz, Mehmet. “Balkan Savaşı’ndan Sonra Türkiye’den Yunanistan’a Rum Göçleri.” Türkiyat Araştırmaları Dergisi, 10 (2001): 13-38. Yust, K. Kemalist Anadolu Basını. Edited by Orhan Koloğlu. Ankara: Çağdaş Gazeteciler Derneği Yayınları, 1995. Zürcher, Erik J. The Unionist Factor: The Role of the Committee of Union and Progress in the Turkish National Movement, 1905-1926. Leiden: Brill, 1984. ______________. Turkey a Modern History. New York: I.B. Tauris, 2004. Primary Sources Ahmed Emin. “Bundan Sonrası,” Sabah, 21 Ocak 1917. _________. “Yeni Müdahale,” Vakit, 13 November 1918. _________. “Karilerimle Bir Hasbihal,” Vakit, 15 November 1918. _________. “Fikri Münakaşa Sahasında,” Vakit, 16 November 1918. _________. “Sulh İçin Hazırlık,” Vakit, 17 November 1918. _________. “Mevcudiyet Namına Mücadele,” Vakit, 19 November 1918. _________. “Sulh Hazırlığı I,” Vakit, 21 November 1918. _________. “Sulh Hazırlığı II,” Vakit, 22 November 1918. _________. “Sulh Hazırlığı III,” Vakit, 23 November 1918. _________. “His ile Akıl Arasında,” Vakit, 25 November 1918. _________. “İstikbal Düşünceleri II,” Vakit, 1 December 1918. _________. “Kendi Kendimizi Aldatmayalım,” Vakit, 2 December 1918. _________. “Devlet İşleri ve Cemaat İsleri,” Vakit, 5 December 1918. _________. “Bir İzah,” Vakit, 7 December 1918. _________. “Müstakil Arnavutluk,” Vakit, 14 December 1918. _________. “Hastalığın Teşhisi ve Tedavisi II,” Vakit, 18 December 1918. _________. “Hakikati Görmek Cesareti,” Vakit, 21 December 1918. 169 _________. “Sulhun Şekli,” Vakit, 24 December 1918. _________. “Yeni Mücadele Cepheleri,” Vakit, 4 January 1919. _________. “Roosevelt'in Vefatı,” Vakit, 10 January 1919. _________. “Yegane Ümit Kapısı,” Vakit, 11 January 1919. _________. “Bir Tarihi Ananemiz,” Vakit, 18 January 1919. _________. “Rusyadaki Esirlerimiz,” Vakit, 24 January 1919. _________. “İdame-i Mevcudiyet Meselesi,” Vakit, 29 January 1919. _________. “Maziyi Tasfiye,” Vakit, 31 January 1919. _________. “Tasfiye Ameliyesi Hakkında,” Vakit, 5 February 1919. _________. “İtilaf Devletleriyle Münasebetimiz,” Vakit, 9 February 1919. _________. “Milliyetperverlik Siyasi bir Moda mıdır?,” Vakit, 10 February 1919. _________. “Tegallüb Siyasetinin İzleri,” Vakit, 27 February 1919. _________. “Kabiliyet Meselesi,” Vakit, 2 March 1919. _________. “İstikbalimiz ve İnkişafımız,” Vakit, 7 March 1919. _________. “(Vahdet-i Milliye) ve Hükümet,” Vakit, 8 March 1919. _________. “Mevkufiyet Tahassüsatı,” Vakit, 13 March 1919. _________. “Bir Mevcudiyet Meselesi,” Vakit, 22 March 1919. _________. “Vekalet ve İstiklal,” Vakit, 7 June 1919. _________. “Dahili Düşman - I,” Vakit, 18 June 1919. _________. “Amerika Ayanında,” Vakit, 25 July 1919. _________. “İstiklal Yolu,” Vakit, 31 July 1919. _________. “Ermeni Meselesi,” Vakit, 1 August 1919. _________. “Müzaheret ve Kabiliyet,” Vakit, 2 August 1919. _________. “Müzaheret Mektebi,” Vakit, 7 August 1919. _________. “Sütten Ağzı Yanan,” Vakit, 8 August 1919. _________. “Türk Taraftarlığı,” Vakit, 13 August 1919. _________. “Kürtler ve Kürdistan,” Vakit, 14 August 1919. 170 _________. “Harici Tehlike Karşısında,” Vakit, 21 August 1919. _________. “Çin Milliyetperverliği,” Vakit, 22 August 1919. _________. “İktisadi Tehlikeler,” Vakit, 23 August 1919. _________. “Bizim Propagandamız,” Vakit, 24 August 1919. _________. “İngiltere ve Biz,” Vakit, 25 August 1919. _________. “Ekalliyetleri Himaye,” Vakit, 26 August 1919. _________. “İstiklal Aleyhdarlığı Var mı?,” Vakit, 1 September 1919. _________. “Milliyetperverliğin Hududu,” Vakit, 17 September 1919. _________.Türkler ve Ermeniler,” Vakit, 20 September 1919. _________. “Beyanname-i Hümayun,” Vakit, 22 September 1919. _________. “Milliyetin Hedefi,” Vakit, 23 September 1919. _________. “Ümit Meselesi,” Vakit, 29 September 1919. _________. “Müzahir-i Devlet,” Vakit, 1 October 1919. _________. “Harekat-ı Milliye,” Vakit, 7 October 1919. _________. “Komisyonun Kararı,” Vakit, 13 October 1919. _________. “Türkçülük ve Memleketçilik,” Vakit, 20 October 1919. _________. “Türkçülük ve Memleketçilik II,” Vakit, 21 October 1919. _________. “Amerika'nın Vaziyeti,” Vakit, 1 November 1919. _________. “Yunanlılık Meseleleri,” Vakit, 5 November 1919. _________. “Balfour'un Beyanatı,” Vakit, 30 November 1919. _________. “Teehhür ve İntizar,” Vakit, 3 December 1919. _________. “Disraeli'ye Doğru,” Vakit, 5 December 1919. _________. “Namzet Listemiz,” Vakit, 7 December 1919. _________. “Beyanat-ı Mülükane,” Vakit, 9 December 1919. _________. “Adem-i İştirakin Manası,” Vakit, 13 December 1919. _________. “Tesanüdlerin Tevafuku ve Tearuzu,” Vakit, 3 January 1920. _________. “Hangi Devlet,” Vakit, 9 January 1920. _________. “Bir Propaganda Silahı,” Vakit, 10 January 1920. 171 _________. “İtalyan Siyaseti ve Biz,” Vakit, 16 January 1920. _________. “Fırsatı Kaçırmamalıyız,” Vakit, 30 January 1920. _________. “Dünkü Celse,” Vakit, 10 February 1920. _________. “İngiltere Siyaseti,” Vakit, 5 February 1920. _________. “Hakkaniyete Doğru,” Vakit, 18 February 1920. _________. “Yüksek Vatanperverlik,” Vakit, 20 February 1920. _________. “Fransa'nın Sesi,” Vakit, 25 February 1920. _________. “Siyaset İhtiyacı I,” Vakit, 15 March 1920. _________. “Siyaset İhtiyacı II,” Vakit, 16 March 1920. _________. “Sağlam Temel,” Vakit, 5 November 1921. _________. “Canlı Misal,” Vakit, 7 November 1921. _________. “Ekalliyetlerimiz ve Tarih,” Vakit, 17 November 1921. _________. “Büyük Millet Meclisinin Reis-i Sanisiyle Mülakat,” Vakit, 31 December 1921. _________. “Büyük Millet Meclisi Reisi Müşir Gazi Mustafa Kemal Paşa Hazretlerinin Tarihçe-i Hayatı,” Vakit, 10 January 1922. _________. “Ankara'dan Cepheye Giderken,” Vakit, 27 January 1922. _________. “Gayr-ı Müstahlas Rumlar,” Vakit, 27 February 1922. _________. “İngiltere'de Dahili Vaziyet,” Vakit, 7 March 1922. _________. “İngiltere'nin Şark Siyaseti,” Vakit, 17 March 1922. _________. “Mütareke Teklifi,” Vakit, 24 March 1922. _________. “Devletlerin Notası,” Vakit, 30 March 1922. _________. “Yeni İslam Alemi II,” Vakit, 15 April 1922. _________. “Yanlış Hesaplar,” Vakit, 18 April 1922. _________. “Amele Bayramı,” Vakit, 2 May 1922. _________. “Nüfus Boşluklarımız,” Vakit, 4 May 1922. _________. “Çürük Bir Silah,” Vakit, 5 May 1922. _________. “Tefrikanın Hakiki Sebepleri,” Vakit, 8 May 1922. _________. “Gounaris'in Mevkii - Bir İçtima Münasebetiyle,” Vakit, 13 May 1922. 172 _________. “Tarihteki Tekerrürler,” Vakit, 23 May 1922. _________. “Amerika'nın İştiraki,” Vakit, 8 June 1922. _________. “Amerika'nın İttihamları,” Vakit, 10 June 1922. _________. “Mübadele Meselesine Dair,” Vakit, 13 July 1922. _________. “Zafer ve İtidal,” Vakit, 9 September 1922. _________. “İkinci Fetih,” Vakit, 10 September 1922. _________. “Allah'ın Bu Günü de Varmış,” Vakit, 3 October 1922. _________. “Cemiyet-i Akvam ve Biz,” Vakit, 22 December 1922. _________. “Yeni Muhaceret-i Akvam,” Vakit, 16 October 1922. _________. “İngiliz Kabine Tebeddülü,” Vakit, 21 October 1922. _________. “Balkan Sulhü,” Vakit, 2 November 1922. _________. “Canlı Bir Ölü,” Vakit, 19 November 1922. _________. “Yanlış Yol,” Vakit, 22 November 1922. _________. “Amerika ve Sulh,” Vakit, 23 November 1922. _________. “Yunanistan'daki Türkler,” Vakit, 24 November 1922. _________. “Garp Hududumuz,” Vakit, 25 November 1922. ________. “İki Şıktan Biri,” Vakit, 26 November 1922. _________. “Musul Petrolleri ve İngiltere,” Vakit, 27 November 1922. _________. “Gafilane Bir Siyaset,” Vakit, 28 November 1922. _________. “Garbi Trakya ve Balkanlar,” Vakit, 30 November 1922. _________. “Sulhün Anahtarı Eski Ellerdedir,” Vakit, 2 December 1922. _________. “Tazyikin İki Şartı,” Vakit, 4 December 1922. _________. “Makus Neticeler,” Vakit, 5 December 1922. _________. “Gayelerini Söyleyebilirler mi?,” Vakit, 7 December 1922. _________. “Patrikhane Dirilemez,” Vakit, 23 December 1922. _________. “Çıkar Yol,” Vakit, 5 January 1923. _________. “Londra'da Yeni İstidatlar,” Vakit, 8 January 1923. _________. “Dost mu Düşman mı?,” Vakit, 25 January 1923. 173 _________. “Anlamadıkları Hakikat,” Vakit, 10 January 1923. _________. “Fransa'nın Rolü,” Vakit, 11 January 1923. _________. “Mr.Childs'ın Hataları,” Vakit, 15 January 1923. _________. “Tasfiye Yolu,” Vakit, 21 January 1923. _________. “İngiltere ve Kürtlük,” Vakit, 26 January 1923. _________. “Sevr'in İkinci Tab'ı,” Vakit, 31 January 1923. _________. “Roller Değişti,” Vakit, 6 February 1923. _________. “Engel Olan Kim?,” Vakit, 27 February 1923. _________. “İktisadi Esarete Karşı,” Vakit, 7 February 1923. _________. “Son Buhranın Mahiyeti,” Vakit, 8 February 1923. _________. “İngiliz Parlamentosunda,” Vakit, 16 February 1923. _________. “Son Vaziyet ve Devası,” Vakit, 21 February 1923. _________. “Cihan Siyaset Sahnesinde,” Vakit, 28 February 1923. _________. “Faşist İtalya,” Vakit, 5 March 1923. _________. “Tefsir ve Tatbikat Farkları,” Vakit, 6 March 1923. _________. “Meclisin Kararından Sonra,” Vakit, 9 March 1923. _________. “Projemiz ve Devletler,” Vakit, 12 March 1923. _________. “Cihanın Merkez-i Sıkleti,” Vakit, 21 March 1919. _________. “Emperyalizme Muhalefet,” Vatan, 28 March 1923. _________. “İntihabatta Muhalif Kuvvetler,” Vatan, 5 April 1923. _________. “Chester İşi,” Vakit, 7 April 1923. _________. “Cevabımızı Beklerken,” Vakit, 8 April 1923. _________. “Konferans'ta Esen Rüzgarlar,” Vakit, 26 April 1923. _________. “Lord Rotrmor'un Makalesi,” Vatan, 28 April 1923. _________. “Lozan'da Vaziyet,” Vakit, 29 April 1923. _________. “Hüseyin Cahid Bey'e Cevap,” Vakit, 25 February 1923. _________. “Lozan'da Fransızlar,” Vakit, 4 May 1923. _________. “Gerginliğin Zevaline Doğru,” Vakit, 5 May 1923. 174 _________. “Türk Emperyalizmi Var mı?,” Vakit, 12 May 1923. _________. “Muhacirlerin İskanı,” Vakit, 15 May 1923. _________. “Tamirat ve Hüküm,” Vakit, 26 May 1923. _________. “Tamirat İtilafı ve Neticeleri,” Vatan, 29 May 1923. _________. “Balkanlar'da Vaziyetimiz,” Vatan, 30 May 1923. _________. “Son Müşkilat,” Vakit, 1 June 1923. _________. “İstanbul Rumluğu,” Vakit, 3 June 1923. _________. “Nasıl Muvaffak Olduk?,” Vatan, 20 July 1923. _________. “Mübadele Hazırlıkları,” Vakit, 2 August 1923. _________. “İstikbal Hazırlıkları,” Vakit, 10 August 1923. _________. “Merkeze Dair Münakaşa I,” Vatan, 18 August 1923. _________. “Merkeze Dair Münakaşa II,” Vatan, 19 August 1923. _________. “İçki Derdine Deva,” Vakit, 20 August 1923. _________. “Cenub-i Garbi Hududumuz,” Vakit, 23 August 1923. _________. “Ankaralılar'a Cevap,” Vatan, 26 August 1923. Ahmed Cemal. “Manda Meselesi,” Türk Dünyası, 2 October 1919. Alemdar, 14 August 1920. Ali Kemal. “Bir Beyanname Münasebetiyle”, Sabah, 25 January 1919. Celal Nuri. “İstiklal,” İleri, 13 Eylül 1919. Muslihiddin Adil. “Yine İstiklal Hakkında,” Tarik, 2 September 1919. Refi Cevat, Alemdar, 26 October 1919. Refi Cevat, Alemdar¸ 5 January 1920 Refik Halit, Alemdar, 3 January 1920. Vakit, 5 October 1919. Vakit, 7 October 1919. Vakit, 8 October 1919. Vakit, 9 October 1919. 175

RELATED PAPERS

RELATED TOPICS

Log In

From Mudros to Lausanne: How Ahmed Emin's Perception of The "Other" Changed

From Mudros to Lausanne: How Ahmed Emin's Perception of The "Other" Changed

Related Papers

RELATED PAPERS

RELATED TOPICS