361

 THE GREEK OCCUPATION OF İZMİR
AND PROTEST MEETINGS IN İSTANBUL
15 MAY 1919 – 13 JANUARY 1920

Abstract
Şirin Güneşer Erzurum, "The Greek Occupation of İzmir and Protest Meetings in İstanbul:
(15 May 1919 – 13 January 1920)"
The basic goal of this thesis is to analyse the initial reaction of the Ottoman public towards the occupation of İzmir by the Greek forces as reflected in the Ottoman press with a special focus on the eight protest gatherings that were held in Dârü'l-fünûn, Üsküdar, Kadıköy and four in the Sultanahmet square between 19 May 1919 and 13 January 1920.
The main material is derived from five Ottoman newspapers namely; Alemdâr, Hadisât, Sabâh, İkdâm and İleri. Their coverage of the protest gatherings are used as the main source to see and reflect on the ideas expressed in the gatherings, the evolvement of the tone of the speeches given at the protests and the differences between the newspapers' coverage of the events in order to understand the Ottoman public and the Ottoman press's reaction against this crucial event, which resulted in sparking the National Struggle.
This thesis is composed of four chapters. First chapter deals with the political events that occur between the signing of the Mudros Armistice, up until the occupation of İzmir. The second chapter deals with the newspaper articles and editorials of 16 and 17 May 1919 newspapers that are within the scope of this thesis. The third chapter is focused on the newspaper coverage and the speeches delivered at the eight protest gatherings that took place in İstanbul between 19 May 1919 and 13 January 1920 in order to protest the occupation of İzmir.
iv
Tez Özeti
Şirin Güneşer Erzurum, "The Greek Occupation of İzmir and Protest Meetings in İstanbul:
(15 May 1919 - 13 January 1920)"
Bu tezin temel amacı Osmanlı kamuoyunun İzmir'in Yunanistan tarafından işgaline gösterdiği ve Osmanlı gazetelerine yansıyan tepkilerini analiz etmektir. 19 Mayıs 1919 ve 13 Ocak 1920 tarihleri arasında Dârü'l-fünûn, Üsküdar, Kadıköy ve Sultanahmet Meydanı'nda gerçekleşen toplam sekiz protesto da bu bağlamda özel olarak ele alınmıştır.
Tezin ana materyali için Alemdâr, Hadisât, Sabâh, İkdâm ve İleri gazetelerinde mitingle ilgili çıkan haberler kullanılmıştır. Miting sırasında ifade edilen fikirler, miting konuşmalarındaki genel tonun zaman içerisinde geçirdiği evrim ve mitingle alakalı yayınların gazeteden gazeteye nasıl değiştiği incelenerek Osmanlı kamuoyu ve Osmanlı basınınının Milli Mücadele'yi başlatacak olan bu olayla ilgili tepkisi anlaşılmaya çalışılmıştır.
Bu tez dört bölümden oluşmaktadır. Birinci bölümde Mondros Ateşkes Antlaşması'nın imzalanmasından İzmir'in İşgaline kadar olan dönemin siyasi gelişmeler özetlenmiştir. İkinci bölümde 16 ve 17 Mayıs 1919 tarihinde bu tezde ele alınan gazeteler tarafından yayımlanan İzmir'in işgaliyle alakalı makaleler incelenmiştir. Üçüncü bölümde ise 19 Mayıs 1919 ve 13 Ocak 1920 tarihleri arasında İzmir'in işgalini protesto etmek için İstanbul'da gerçekleşen sekiz mitingle alakalı olarak tez kapsamında bulunan gazetelerde yayımlanan haberler ve konuşma metinleri ayrıntılı olarak ele alınmıştır.
v
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This thesis has been the outcome of a challenging process that included many obstacles along the way, from trying to find time for it while working two full-time jobs, to numerous misfortunes concerning locating the newspapers within the scope of this thesis. During this incredibly stressful time, there were many people who helped ease the process and I shall remain grateful to each and every one of them for the rest of my life.
I would like to thank my mother, Refiye Güneşer, my brother Orçun Güneşer, my sister Nagihan Güneşer and my husband Alp Arda Erzurum for supporting me every step of the way.
I would also like to thank my life-long friend Tomurcuk Bilge Erzik, along with İpek Tabur, Selim Ahmetoğlu, Betül Cihan, and Yasin Şale for helping me out whether it concerned issues with Ottoman Turkish and advising me on how to overcome the difficulties of writing this thesis, and Yücel Demirel for proof-reading the transcriptions.
I want to thank Prof. Dr. Arzu Öztürkmen and Assistant Prof. Dr. Hakan Erdem for being on my jury and reading my thesis. Everyone at the Institute for Graduate Studies in Social Sciences deserves special thanks for their patience and their assistance. I would also like to add that the staff of Atatürk Kitaplığı, Beyazıt Devlet Kütüphanesi, Millet Kütüphanesi, ISAM, and of course Boğaziçi Üniversitesi Kütüphanesi that has been a sanctuary many times, for their help during my struggle in finding the newspapers.
Last, but certainly not least, Asist. Prof. Yavuz Selim Karakışla, who has been an integral part of my university life since I met him when I was just an 18-year-old
vi
freshman, deserves special thanks. He has been the ultimate-advisor and someone whom I counted on to show me that there is always hope and a way. His unwavering support and positive attitude has been a vital to make me see this ordeal through.
vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... 1
CHAPTER I FROM MUDROS TO THE OCCUPATION OF İZMİR .................... 12
The Beginning of the End ...................................................................................... 12
The Point Of No Return ......................................................................................... 23
CHAPTER II THE GREEK OCCUPATION OF İZMİR: THE INITIAL REACTION IN THE OTTOMAN PRESS ..................................................................................... 37
Analysis of 16 May 1919 Articles .......................................................................... 37
Analysis Of 17 May 1919 Articles: ........................................................................ 40
The Occupation, the Allied Powers and the Wilson Principles .......................... 40
The Attitude of the Ottoman Press towards the Greeks...................................... 46
The Reaction from the General Population ........................................................ 49
The Idiosyncrasy of Alemdâr ............................................................................. 51
CHAPTER III A NATION IN TURMOIL: PROTESTS IN İSTANBUL AGAINST THE OCCUPATION OF İZMİR BY THE GREEK FORCES ................................. 58
The Gathering at Dârü'l-Fünûn (18 May 1919)...................................................... 58
The Gathering in Fatih (19 May 1919) .................................................................. 66
The Gathering in Üsküdar, Doğancılar (20 May 1919) ......................................... 96
The Gathering in Kadıköy (22 May 1919) ........................................................... 111
The First Gathering in the Sultanahmet Square (23 May 1919) .......................... 126
The Second Gathering in the Sultanahmet Square (30 May 1919) ...................... 153
The Third Gathering in the Sultanahmet Square (15 October 1919) ................... 174
The Fourth Gathering in the Sultanahmet Square (13 January 1920) .................. 195
CHAPTER IV OVERALL ANALYSIS .................................................................. 226
Female Participation ............................................................................................. 251
Greeks versus the Rum ......................................................................................... 254
“İzmir Türktür, Türk Kalacak...” .......................................................................... 256
Friend or Foe? The Allied Powers........................................................................ 259
Turkish Reaction .................................................................................................. 262
CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................ 267
APPENDIX A .......................................................................................................... 272
TURISH TRANSCRIPTION OF SELECTED ARTICLES FROM THE NEWSPAPERS WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THIS THESIS ................................ 272
APPENDIX B .......................................................................................................... 288
SELECTED VISUALS FROM ISTANBUL NEWSPAPERS ............................ 288
BIBLIOGRAPHY .................................................................................................... 309
NEWSPAPER ARTICLES .................................................................................. 309
SECONDARY LITERATURE ............................................................................ 312
1
INTRODUCTION
On 15 May 1919, the Greek army occupied the Ottoman city of İzmir with the approval and supervision of the Allied Powers; and this received a huge backlash from the Ottoman public. One of the ways in which the Ottomans showed their disapproval of the decision to hand over the control of İzmir and its surrounding areas to the Greek army was to organise protest gatherings. The aim of this thesis is to present an in-depth analysis of these protests that were held in İstanbul against the occupation of İzmir and the Western provinces of the Ottoman Empire, and look at how their rhetoric evolved from the first protest gathering held in Dârü'l-fünûn on 18 May 1919 to the last Sultanahmet gathering held on 13 January 1920.
A term paper we had prepared for a master's class was the starting point for the topic of this thesis. We had worked on the newspaper İkdâm and analysed the metamorphosis that occurred in the newspaper articles that were written about either the Greek, the Rum, or the Greek Patriarchate during the six-month time period that passed between the Mudros Armistice and the occupation of İzmir. It was a challenging yet an enjoyable experience and when it was time to choose a topic for our master's thesis, we thought that we could maybe look at what happened after this catastrophic incident.
Our initial idea was to go over all İzmir related articles between published between 16 May 1919 and 31 May 1919 in the selected Istanbul newspapers. This way, we were hoping to be analyse all the data that was communicated to the public with a special focus on the six big protest gatherings that occurred during this period. However, this plan had to be changed due to the sheer volume of material that the newspapers provided us. Yet, having transcribed all news pertaining to the occupation of İzmir gave us a much broader perspective of the newspapers, helped us
2
understand the psyche of the period in a much comprehensive way. Part of that data was useful in supporting some of our theories about the speeches, and were cited accordingly.
The hard-core material about the gatherings, comes from five Ottoman newspapers printed in İstanbul, namely Alemdâr, Hadisât, İkdâm, İleri and Sabâh. The standard template of a report about the protests regardless of the newspaper involves a few introductory paragraphs as "where" and "when" of the event is explained. Additionally, we can get information about the physical environment, the ambiance and also observations about the crowd that attended the gatherings. Afterwards, the newspapers continued printing the transcripts of the speeches. The news articles were usually wrapped up with the gathering proclamations –if there were any- and some descriptions about the dispersing crowd. At times, we also get information about what the gathering committees do after the event; such as presenting the aforementioned proclamations to the Sultan, or the representatives of Allied Powers.
The first step I took was to transcribe the newspaper articles. Afterwards, I tried to analyse all the articles of the newspaper including the general description of the protest gathering in question and the speeches delivered at the gathering based on the transcripts in the newspapers. I tried to take an in-depth look at the speeches individually, and later I tried to point out the rhetorical differences between the speakers of the same gathering. Additionally, I tried to show how the tone of the speeches, the topics and issues that were addressed changed within the eight-month time period that passed between the first protest gathering in Dârü'l-fünûn and the last Sultanahmet gathering. I also tried to note the differences between the coverage of the five newspapers. Their descriptive introduction and summary parts were
3
especially interesting to analyse as they are the parts where the publications were able to reflect their own viewpoint about the protests more freely, compared to the parts of the article where they would print the transcription of the speeches delivered.
When the newspapers that were to be included in the thesis were chosen, I tried to ensure that they represented different political views which could help us see a multi-dimensional picture of a single event reflected through different newspapers. The circulation numbers of the newspapers was another, albeit a secondary, concern. Studying highly circulated newspapers would mean that we would be getting closer to what the popular opinion was within the public due to the confirmation bias. However that would have meant that we would have to discard publications with a smaller audience and we wanted to make sure some alternative voices were also within the ensemble that was chosen. We also wanted to make sure that we analysed an "anti-national struggle" publication to see for myself if it deserved the reputation. Hence Alemdâr was added in this group.
Obviously there was a need to limit the number of newspapers used in this thesis. First of all, the method that we used to analyse the speeches i.e. taking too many newspapers to reconstruct the speeches delivered at the gatherings while comparing their differences, would be a task unsuitable for a master's thesis. Hence, we knew that we had to limit the number of newspapers while still maintaining a good variety that would make the research interesting and meaningful.
When I began my research, the Atatürk Library was still closed after several years and when it re-opened the volumes that were needed were in repair and although they do impeccable digitalisation work, the process was going very slowly and making me lose precious time. Other libraries either had incomplete collections or were going through a similar process. Hakkı Tarık Us Library proved to be a more
4
useful source and we was able to find a good deal of issues there while waiting other libraries to repair/digitalise their material, we had something to work with. Acquiring the full set that was needed for this thesis proved much harder than anticipated, probably due to the fact that the time period was one of turmoil and proper preservation was just not done. For instance, we were looking forward to including Tanin in our thesis, and were able to find issues up until the first week of May 1919. However after that, it was just not possible to get our hands on the newspapers and hence we were not able to add it here.
Having our thesis based essentially on newspapers allowed us to see with minimal delay exactly what the general public learned about the daily events since newspapers were the fastest mass media of the time. Since we aimed to see how the perception of and the reaction towards the occupation evolved between the gathering in Dârü'l-fünûn and the last gathering in Sultanahmet, we had to look at the freshest source rather than using materials such as memoirs which are written years if not decades after the fact. We were trying to re-animate each day after the gathering as the people learned about them.
On the other hand, there were difficulties working with this kind of material. First of all, we had to accept that fact that the speeches we obtained from the articles would be close approximations at best. Due to the fact that the published speeches were obtained by reporters writing notes by hand, there is the simple fact that what the speed and accuracy of the reporter at the scene determined what got printed. However, we tried to circumvent this setback and reconstruct what had been said at the gatherings as accurate as possible by comparing the reports on the different newspapers.
5
Another problem was the censorship in the newspapers which we know existed due to the blank spaces inside the articles. Luckily for us though, it was not at all uniform. What got censured in one newspaper could be found in the others except for rare occasions. One logical explanation to this could be that different censorship clerks were responsible for different newspapers and what one deemed important, the other did not. Also, we were lucky that during the time period that this thesis is concerned with, there was no official siege in Istanbul and the censorship was probably done by Ottoman officials and the Allied Forces were not directly involved, which could be another explanation to the inconsistencies of censorship.
However, another technical problem we need to be aware of was the auto-censorship that the newspapers might have implemented on what they published. It is natural to assume that there would be certain speakers, or parts of a certain speech that a newspaper would not choose to print due to their political stance. It is difficult to pinpoint these instances, since there would be no blank lines as in the case of official censorship. Comparing the coverage of different newspapers only helps us so far, because there is no way of knowing if an unpublished part was deliberately left out, or if it the reporter on the scene simply could not take proper notes.
If we are to take a closer look at the newspapers that made the final cut, we can begin with Alemdâr which was published between 1911 and 1921, and was founded by Refi' Cevad (Ulunay) together with Ahmet Kadri.1 The newspaper was shut down in 1913 after the assassination of Mahmut Şevket Paşa, and after Refi'
1 İzzet Öztoprak. Kurtuluş Savaşı'nda Türk Basını. (Ankara: Türkiye İş Bankası Kültür Yayınları, 1981), p. 7.
6
Cevad was sent to exile for five years in Sinop, Çorum and Konya.2 He restarted publishing Alemdâr on 4 January 1919.3
Alemdâr is one of the first newspapers usually described to be ''against the national struggle'' or ''pro-mandate" in the literature. Although the time period of this thesis is a bit early for us to see Alemdâr's stance on the full-fledged, armed national struggle, Refi' Cevad's (Ulunay) editorials in the newspaper are sympathetic to the Great Britain. However, despite the pro-British stance that can be seen in the writings of the Refi' Cevad, I was not able to see any negative comments or criticisms in Alemdâr concerning the protest gatherings. However, it should also be noted that Alemdâr always had the shortest coverage on the protest gatherings compared to Sabâh, İkdâm and Hadisât. Some of this can be attributed to the fact that Alemdâr was printed as a two-page newspaper compared to the latter newspapers that consisted of four pages. On the other hand, there are instances that Alemdâr only has a few lines or a few paragraphs devoted to the report of the gatherings. Thus, it shows us that it is not a mere issue of available space but one of choice.
Âti was published between 1918 and 19244 and after 19 February 1919, it became İleri, which was the name it was published under within the time framework of this thesis. Celal Nuri (İleri) was the editor, and Halil Lütfi (Dördüncü) the managing director.5 Celal Nuri was educated in Galatasary Lisesi, and studied law in
2 Hıfzı Topuz. II. Mahmut'tan Holdinglere Türk Basın Tarihi. (İstanbul: Remzi Kitabevi, 2003) p. 110.
3 Ibid.
4 İzzet Öztoprak. Kurtuluş Savaşı'nda Türk Basını. (Ankara: Türkiye İş Bankası Kültür Yayınları, 1981), p. 5.
5 Ibid.
F.H. Tökin. Basın Ansiklopedisi, "Hadîsât." İstanbul, 1963.
7
İstanbul Law School before going to France to continue his education.6 Later, he also served as a member of the parliament from Gelibolu for five terms.7 He was considered to be a hard-core Westernist, and was involved in the Young Turk movement.8
İleri is considered to be one of the most pro-independence newspapers; and it is even claimed that Mustafa Kemal (Atatürk) was a shadow-writer, or fed the newspaper information that he wanted to get out.9 Considering the extensive coverage that I saw during the transcriptions by İleri, I can say that they indeed go the extra mile regarding reporting on the gatherings. When compared to the other newspapers, we can see much longer (at times up to 3-and-a-half pages) articles concerning the protest meetings, and usually more extensive transcriptions of the speeches delivered at the gatherings. However, it should be noted that they have the physical advantage of being an 8-page newspaper as opposed to the regular 4-page, or 2-page daily like Alemdâr.
Sabâh was published from 1876 until January 1920 when it merged with Peyâm, becoming Peyâm-ı Sabâh.10 It is another newspaper usually referred to as "anti-independence movement" in the literature; and it could be argued that the anti-independence stance could be the influence of the infamous Ali Kemal who was the publisher of Peyâm. After the two newspapers merged, he became the editor-in-chief
6 Hıfzı Topuz. II. Mahmut'tan Holdinglere Türk Basın Tarihi. (İstanbul: Remzi Kitabevi, 2003) p. 102.
7 Ibid.
8 Selçuk Akşin Somel. The A to Z of the Ottoman Empire. (Lanham, Md: Scarecrow Press, 2010) p. 128.
9 Hıfzı Topuz. II. Mahmut'tan Holdinglere Türk Basın Tarihi. (İstanbul: Remzi Kitabevi, 2003) p. 102.
10 Ibid. p. 106
8
of the newspaper.11 Similar to the case of Alemdâr, we do not see any negative comments or reports about the gatherings within the articles used for our research, but the timeframe of my thesis coincides mostly with the period when the newspaper was published as Sabâh, and only the last gathering in Sultanahmet takes place a short while after the merging of the newspapers.
Hadisât was one of the rather short-lived publications published by Süleyman Nazif and Cenap Şahabettin between 1918 and 1919 lasting 174 issues.12
İkdâm is the last newspaper that I included in my thesis. It was published between 1894 and 1928, and was founded by Ahmet Cevdet (Oran).13 It had criticised the policies of the Committee of Union and Progress;14 and it was also known to promote the idea of Turkism, having the subtitle "Türk Gazetesi".15 We see that it had a very wide and strong repertoire of writers including Hüseyin Rahmi (Gürpınar), Refi' Cevad (Ulunay), Yakup Kadri (Karaosmanoğlu), and Celal Nuri (İleri).16
Gathering all the issues of the newspapers proved to be a much more challenging task than initially anticipated. However, a bigger problem was to find comprehensive secondary literature about the gatherings themselves. The occupation of İzmir is a huge turning point in Turkish history that serves as the catalyst of events leading to the National Struggle and the emergence of the Turkish Republic. So, we
11 İzzet Öztoprak. Kurtuluş Savaşı'nda Türk Basını. (Ankara: Türkiye İş Bankası Kültür Yayınları, 1981), p. 8.
12 F.H. Tökin. Basın Ansiklopedisi, "Hadîsât." (İstanbul, 1963).
13 İzzet Öztoprak. Kurtuluş Savaşı'nda Türk Basını. (Ankara: Türkiye İş Bankası Kültür Yayınları, 1981), p. 5.
14 Selçuk Akşin Somel. The A to Z of the Ottoman Empire. (Rowman & Littlefield, 2010) p. 128.
15 Johann Strauss. ''Kütüp ve Resail-i Mevkute': Printing and publishing in a multi ethnic society,' in: Özdalga, Elizabeth, ed., Late Ottoman Society: The Intellectual Legacy, (Taylor & Francis e-Library, 2005) p. 287.
16 F.H. Tökin. Basın Ansiklopedisi, "İkdâm." (İstanbul, 1963).
9
see that many books that concern themselves with history of the Turkish Revolution, chose to begin their narrative with the Greek occupation of İzmir. However based on our secondary literature research, it could be argued that the number of books that mention the gatherings held in Istanbul are only a fraction of the vast literature. While some books have dedicated what could be called "modest chapters" to the gatherings,17 many just pay the events a superficial lip service, and are content with quoting a few striking sentences from one or two speakers.18
This lack of in-depth analysis is understandable to an extent as these works mainly concern themselves with the National Struggle itself, or some with the history of political movements in Turkey. When the İstanbul protests took place, the country had been stuck in a political limbo, which began after the signing of the Mudros Armistice. Even though the aforementioned gatherings played their part in mobilising the people, it is understandable that the literature did not concern itself with these protests in detail.
17 Haluk Selvi. Milli Mücadele'de İlk İşgaller, İlk Direnişler. (İstanbul: Yeditepe Yayınevi, 2011) pp. 169-185;
Ferit Erden Boray. Kuvvayı Milliye ve Ölümsüz Kadın Kahramanlar. (İstanbul: Kum Saati Yayınları, 2008) pp. 95-101;
Ferhat Uyanıker. Milli Mücadele'de Türk Kadını. (Ankara: Genelkurmay Başkanlığı, 2009) pp.23-30;
Samih Nazif Tansu. İki Devin Perde Arkası / Hüsamettin Ertürk Anlatıyor. (İstanbul: Pınar Yayınevi, 1964) pp. 319-323;
Selahattin Tansel. Mondros'tan Mudanya'ya Kadar. (Ankara: Başbakanlık Basımevi, 1973) pp. 249-255.
18 Sina Akşin. İstanbul Hükümetleri ve Millî Mücadele. (İstanbul: Cem Yayınevi, 1992);
Muammer Taylak. Saltanat, II. Meşrutiyet ve I. Cumhuriyet'te Öğrenci Hareketleri. (Ankara: Başnur Matbaası, 1969);
Yücel Özkaya. 'İzmir'in İşgali,' in: Berna Türkdoğan, ed., Milli Mücadele Tarihi –Makaleler. (Ankara: Atatürk Araştırma Merkezi, 2002);
Alpay Kabacalı. Türkiye'de Gençlik Hareketleri. (İstanbul: Gürer Yayınları, 2007);
Salahi Sonyel. Türk Kurtuluş Savaşı ve Dış Politika I. (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi, 1995);
Ali Fuat Cebesoy. Milli Mücadele Hatıraları. (İstanbul: Vatan Neşriyatı, 1953);
Celal Bayar, Ben de Yazdım: Milli Mücadele'ye Giriş. (Baha Matbaası: 1965) v. 6;
Laura Madge Adkisson, Great Britain and the Kemalist Movement for Turkish Independence, 1919-1923. (Austin: University of Texas, 1958);
Patrick Balfour Kinross. Ataturk: The Rebirth of a Nation (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1964);
Resul Yavuz. İşgalin Sancılı Yılları. (İstanbul: Akis Kitapları, 2011);
Toktamış Ateş. Türk Devrim Tarihi. (İstanbul: Der Yayınları, 1998);
Yakup Kadri Karaosmanoğlu. Vatan Yolunda: Milli Mücadele Hatıraları (İstanbul: Selek Yayınevi, 1958).
10
The closest we can get to a study specifically concerned with the protests themselves is one by Kemal Arıburnu. Unfortunately, it is a mere transcript of the speeches delivered at the gatherings based on Tasfîr-i Efkâr and Vakit; and it is described as a "compilation" by the author. It should also be noted that the third gathering in Sultanahmet is missing from the book. When I compared my transcriptions with the ones found in Kemal Arıburnu's work, I found many inconsistencies and parts that were not reported by the newspapers used by Kemal Arıburnu. It is to be expected perhaps, but it leaves the work incomplete regarding the texts which happen to be the only thing it offers. It does allow for people who cannot read Ottoman to access the texts of the speeches, but that is pretty much where its merit ends.
Given that the Ottomans were denied a representative at the Paris Peace Conference where their very existence was a matter of discussion, these gatherings were an important tool for them to express themselves. With the help of these events, the Ottoman public was able to make their voices heard both domestically and internationally, and express their opinions about the occupation of İzmir, an event which would set in motion a series of events that would alter their history irrevocably. So, what I aimed to do in this thesis was to analyse the speeches delivered at the gatherings so that we could see how the Ottomans perceived the problem at hand, and what kind of solutions they thought could save them from the turmoil the nation was in. While doing that, I tried to make sure that I not only compared the opinions of different speakers, but I also tried to see how the general tone changed from one gathering to the other as time progressed. In addition, using multiple newspapers' coverage of the same event helped me get a glimpse of the differences in the approach of the Ottoman media to the event.
11
The thesis is in two main chapters. The first part of the first chapter concerns itself with the political events that took place between the signing of the Mudros Armistice and the occupation of İzmir by the Greek forces. Here, I tried to understand how the decision to deploy the Greek army in the area came to be taken, and I tried to understand the inner workings of the Paris Peace Conference using both secondary literature and memoirs of diplomats who attended the meetings, looking at different players, their power struggles as well as alliances.
The second part of the first chapter concerns itself with the newspaper articles of 16 and 17 May 1919. Here, I try and get a snapshot of the very first reactions from the Ottoman media after the news of the occupation of İzmir became public.
The second part of the thesis is dedicated to the protest gatherings; and is composed of eight parts where the Gathering at Dârü'l-fünûn, the Protest in Fatih, the Kadıköy Gathering, the Üsküdar Gathering, and the four Sultanahmet Gatherings and their coverage are analysed in detail. A general atmosphere of the gatherings are constructed through the help of the descriptions printed in the newspapers' introduction of the article. Afterwards, each speech delivered at the gathering is analysed in detail. I did not only try to compare the individual differences between the speakers within one gathering, but I also tried to look at the changes that took place within the general tones of the gathering, and when appropriate, the changes that took place in the speeches delivered by the same person in different gatherings. This helped me gain an understanding of the wide spectrum of reactions, ideas and approaches communicated by politicians, writers, students, academics and hodjas of the Ottoman Empire in relation to the occupation of İzmir.
12
CHAPTER I
FROM MUDROS TO THE OCCUPATION OF İZMİR
The Beginning of the End
When the armistice between Bulgaria and the Entente Powers was signed in Thessaloniki on 28 September 1919, the Ottoman Empire was cut off from any physical ties with its allies, hence lost all hope to fight back against the Allied Powers. A request for armistice was sent to the Entente, first via the Spaniards and later via General V. F. Townshend who had been a prisoner of war in Büyükada after the siege of Kut. On 26 October 1919, the Ottoman delegation headed by Hüseyin Rauf (Orbay) arrived in Mudros for the armistice negotiations that would put an end to the armed struggle of the World War I.19 On 29 October 1918, the Sublime Porte sent its requests stating that they did not wish Italy and Greece to be among the forces to occupy the Bosphorus and Dardanelles. Also, they asked that İstanbul and the passages of the Taurus Mountains not be besieged.20 Yet, neither of the requests was sufficient to make any changes on the armistice. On 30 September 1918, the Armistice of Mudros was signed, marking the end of the devastating four years of war and the defeat of the Ottoman Empire.
The Armistice was composed of twenty-five articles; and each of them was a bitter pill to swallow for the Ottomans. Some of the clauses were in direct violation of Ottoman sovereignty, or likely to be abused by the Entente. It was stated that:
19 Celal Erikan. Kurtuluş Savaşı Tarihi. (haz:) Rıdvan Akın. (İstanbul: Türkiye İş Bankası Kültür Yayınları. 2008), pp. 15-17.
20 Fahri Belen. Türk Kurtuluş Savaşı. (Ankara: Kültür ve Turizm Bakanlığı Yayınları 542; Atatürk Dizisi: 18. 1983), pp. 10-11.
13
Article 1: The Dardanelles and the Bosphorus will be open to all ships of the Entente and the Allies are to occupy the forts controlling the straits.
Article 6: Except for the sma vessels that are used for maintaining order within the Ottoman maritime waters, all Ottoman battleships within Ottoman maritime waters or areas that have been invaded by the Ottomans are to be kept in custody in Ottoman ports.
Article 7: When faced with a situation that threatens the security of the Allies, Allied Forces reserve the right to invade any strategic points.
Article 8: The Allies have the right to use all the Ottoman ports and railroads.
Article10: The Taurus tunnel systems are to be besieged by the Allied Forces.
Article 12: All means of communication will be under the control of the Allied Powers.21
Hence according to the armistice, the Ottoman army was going to be discharged, its navy was to be docked away; the means of transportation and communication were to be controlled by the Allied Powers. This basically meant that the Ottoman Empire was a defenceless piece of land where the Entente had every right and the access to the means in order to roam about as they wished. On top of that, the Seventh Article gave the Allied powers permission to invade any area of the country ‘in case they were faced with a threat.’ The vagueness of the article is so striking -never a good sign in the diplomatic world- that it is almost ominous. Furthermore, the articles of the armistice were designed in such a way that would make it easier for the Allied Powers to prevent a popular resistance as they had control of the communications systems. If any attempts were made for the creation of such an organisation, they would be aware of it beforehand. In case plans for popular resistance against the Allied Powers were formed without their knowledge, they still would have the upper hand, as they were able to control all transportation of people and goods, allowing them to block any opposition at its budding stage. Last but not least, they still retained the power of occupying any area where they believed they were under
21 Salahi Sonyel. Türk Kurtuluş Savaşı ve Dış Politika I: Mondros Bırakışmasından Büyük Millet Meclisi'nin Açılışına Kadar, (Ankara: TTK Basımevi, 1995), pp. 6-7.
14
threat. So, this created a wonderful three-stage check system where any opposition could be crushed either at the beginning, as it was developing, or if it came to pass.
During the following months, the Allied Powers determined the fate of the countries vanquished in World War I. Even though the battle on the ground was over, now a diplomatic one was to begin. The victors were just as devastated by the effects of the war as the countries who came out defeated; and they were trying to get the most out of the agreement.
This was also a time of great opportunity for minor members of the Entente to pursue their territorial aims, and in the case of Greece, to try and fulfil the dream of Megali Idea. In its simplest form, this concept aims to integrate all ethnic Greeks under the rule of a single entity, as explained by John Kolletis in his speech in the National Assembly in January 1844:
The Kingdom of Greece is not Greece; it is merely a part, the smallest, poorest part of Greece. The Greek is not only he who inhabits the Kingdom, but also he inhabits Ioannina or Salonika, or Serres or Adrianaoupolis or Constantinople or Trebizond or Crete or Samos or any other region belonging to Greek history or the Greek Race.22
However, there were differences of opinion throughout the nineteenth century about the way in which this goal could be achieved. One dominant idea was that Megali Idea could be realised through the aspiration for Greek cultural and economic dominance within the Ottoman Empire, which would lead to a gradual shift and not result in a violent clash. The other prevalent idea was to achieve it through the direct incorporation of the Ottoman lands inhabited by the Greeks to the Greek kingdom.23 Yet, when Eleftherios Venizelos became the Greek prime minister in 1917, it was
22 Charles Jelavich and Barbara Jelavich. "The Establishment of the Balkan National States, 1804-1920" A History of East Central Europe. Vol. VIII. (Seattle and London: University of Washington Press, 2009), p. 78.
23 Michael Llewellyn Smith. Ionian Vision: Greece in Asia Minor, 1919-1922. (Michigan: The University of Michigan Press, 2000), pp. 3-4.
15
obvious that he would be a passionate advocate of the latter approach. He had been a prominent figure in Cretan politics. He had played an important role in the history of the Cretan uprisings by setting revolutionary headquarters in 1897, and issuing a manifesto calling for immediate union with Greece.24 After King Constantine was forced to abdicate the throne by the Franco-British demand due to his reluctance to join the Allied Powers, and his hostility towards the pro-Entente Venizelos, the king was replaced by his son Alexander; and Venizelos became the prime minister in June 1917. Afterwards, the Greek state entered the war alongside the Allied Forces.25
Right after the Mudros Armistice was signed, and the Ottoman defeat was made official, Venizelos headed over to Europe and spent October and November of 1918 in London to propagate Greek political interests. He continued to promote his agenda during the Paris Peace Conference that started in January 1919 to discuss the details of the peace treaties that were to be signed with the Axis Powers.26 There, at the peace conference, smaller allies of the Entente such as Greece were given a platform to make their case; and Venizelos had to persuade the Big Four –namely, Britain, France, the United States and Italy- if he was to realise his goals concerning Western Anatolia.27
Judging by the accounts of people who met Venizelos during this time, it seems that he had made quite an impression on the representatives of the Entente
24 Ibid., p. 10.
25 Michael M Finefrock. ''Ataturk, Lloyd George and the Megali Idea: Cause and Consequence of the Greek Plan to Seize Constantinople from the Allies, June-August 1922,'' The Journal of Modern History. Vol. 52, No. 1, (March 1980), pp. 1050-51.
26 Michael Llewellyn Smith. Ionian Vision: Greece in Asia Minor, 1919-1922, pp. 62-64.
27 Michael Llewellyn Smith. ''Venizelos’ Diplomacy, 1910–23: From Balkan Alliance to Greek–Turkish Settlement,'' in: Paschalis M. Kitromilides. ed., Eleftherios Venizelos: The Trials of Statesmanship, (Edinburg: Edinburg University Press. 2006), p. 137.
16
where he ''won a reputation for moderation, wisdom and statesmanship.''28 Robert Lansing, who was the Secretary of State under President Wilson, described him as a charming man whose "face lit up with benevolence and friendliness when he smiled." He also wrote: "No man who attended the Peace Conference aroused more general interest because of the part he had played in the war or won more friends because of his personality than did Eleftherios Venizelos."29
Naturally, Venizelos' great charm was not the only thing that won him a favourable position within the Entente Powers. Greece had a very strong partner in their struggle to realise their historical claims on the Western Anatolian Ottoman Lands: Britain. As early as 1915, İzmir and the surrounding areas had been promised -unofficially and only to Venizelos- in return for the Greek support for the Allies in World War I.30 Britain wanted an ally in the Mediterranean region for the safe passage of their ships; yet neither the Ottomans nor the expansion of the rule of the French were desirable alternatives.31
Prime Minister Lloyd George and Venizelos had known each other since 1912, and maintained a close relationship. They sincerely believed that the Greek and British alliance would be beneficial for both countries.32 This made sense, of course, as Greece could use a strong ally such as the Great Britain to pursue its dreams concerning Asia Minor. Also, Britain would rather have a strengthened
28 Michael Llewellyn Smith. Ionian Vision: Greece in Asia Minor, 1919-1922, (Michigan: The University of Michigan Press, 2000), p. 67.
29 Robert Lansing. The Big Four and Others of of the Peace Conference, (New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1921), p. 141.
30 Briton Cooper Busch. Mudros to Lausanne: Britain's Frontier in West Asia, 1918-1923, (New York: State University of New York Press, 1976), p. 72.
31 Margaret MacMillan. Paris 1919: The Six Months that Changed the World, (New York: Random House Trade Paperbacks, 2003), pp. 448-449.
32 Michael Llewellyn Smith. Ionian Vision: Greece in Asia Minor, 1919-1922, (Michigan: The University of Michigan Press, 2000), p. 67.
17
Greece than an ambitious country -and a historical enemy- such as France to be in charge of the areas of interest in the Mediterranean region. Adding to this mixture the admiration of Venizelos by Lloyd George who stated that he was ''the greatest statesman Greece had thrown up since the days of Pericles,''33 and Venizelos' statement that ''Greece could provide ports for the British navy and airfields for what was clearly going to be an important new way of getting to India,''34 guaranteed a cosy relationship between the Great Britain and Greece.
On the other hand, the situation with the remaining countries of the Big Four was indecisive at best. Georges Clemenceau, the Prime Minister of France was known to be an admirer of Classical Greece, but to regard the modern Greeks as corrupt descendants of their ancestors.35 Hence, he was not the best candidate to back-up the Greek ambitions concerning Western Anatolia. Yet, his prior interest was to protect France's interests in the Near East and keep Germany under control for good, so he did not necessarily present a strong opposition towards the Greeks.36
The position that the Americans would adopt was not very clear. In President Wilson's Fourteen Points, it is stated that the ''other nationalities which are now under Turkish rule should be assured an undoubted security of life and an absolutely unmolested opportunity of autonomous development'' (emphasis is mine). Yet the Twelfth Article also stated that the Turkish portion of the Ottoman Empire would be
33 Matthew Stewart. ''It Was All a Pleasant Business: The Historical Context of "'On the Quai at Smyrna','' The Hemingway Review, Volume 23, Number 1, Fall 2003, p. 62.
34 Margaret MacMillan. Paris 1919: The Six Months that Changed the World, (New York: Random House Trade Paperbacks, 2003), p. 448.
35 Michael Llewellyn Smith. Ionian Vision: Greece in Asia Minor, 1919-1922, (Michigan: The University of Michigan Press, 2000), p. 66.
36 Jon Jacobson. ''Strategies of French Foreign Policy after World War I,'' The Journal of Modern History, Vol. 55, No. 1, March, 1983, p. 1.
18
given ''secure sovereignty.''37 However, whether the Western Anatolian portion of the Ottoman Empire belonged to ''other nationalities,'' i.e. Greeks, or whether it was a part of the ''Turkish portion of the Ottoman Empire'' was open to debate. This is where Venizelos came in, and tried his best during the peace conference to assert that demographically and historically Western Anatolia was a part of Greece. It is also important to point out that the Ottomans were not allowed to have representatives and argue their case in the conference, because they were part of the defeated Axis powers. The Paris Peace Conference was no place for losers.38
Venizelos declared his justification of the Greek claims on Western Anatolia on 3 and 4 February 1919 before the Council of Ten by presenting ''Greece before the Peace Congress,'' a 27-page document prepared by Venizelos himself.39 In his work, Venizelos pointed out that 45 per cent of the Greek population lived outside the realm of the Kingdom of Greece. He stated that the incorporation of the whole Greek population outside the Kingdom was out of the question, yet he went on to argue his opinions on what should be done about the Greek populations in the Balkan Peninsula, Asia Minor and in the islands Dodecanesus and Cyprus.40 In regard to Constantinople, he argued that according to the Wilson Principles, the city could not remain under the Ottoman rule, as the total population of the vilâyet of Constantinople consisted of 1,173,670 people, only 449,114 of whom were
37 Michael Llewellyn Smith. Ionian Vision: Greece in Asia Minor, 1919-1922, (Michigan: The University of Michigan Press. 2000), pp. 66-67.
38 Margaret MacMillan. Paris 1919: The Six Months that Changed the World, (New York: Random House Trade Paperbacks, 2003), pp. 474-475.
39 Eleftherios Venizelos. Greece before the Peace Congress. (Oxford: Oxford University Press American Branch, 1919), ad passim.
40 Ibid., p. 1.
19
Turkish.41 As far as Asia Minor was concerned, he claimed in his work that the Ottoman sovereignty should be limited to the interior of the country; and stated that in the vilâyets of Aydın and Bursa, Greeks made up the principal element of the native population where they ''constitute the real backbone of the economic and intellectual life of the country, as agriculturalists, merchants, manufacturers, labourers and scholars.''42
The biggest obstacle for Greeks during the Paris Peace Conference was the Italians. Italy had been promised a big chunk of Western Anatolia, including İzmir, by the secret St. Jean de Maurienne Agreement of April 1917 between France, the United Kingdom and Italy.43 However, when Italians came to collect what was promised to them, they had Greece as their rival. This situation created a considerable friction between the two countries; and the fact that during the war, Italy was also offered Dodecanese and coast of Albania, where Greece also had claims,44 did not help to improve the state of affairs between the two countries.
Greece insisted on the righteousness of their claim on Western Anatolia based on historical ties and demographic ''majority.'' The Italian interest in the region was based on a mixture of romanticised memory of the great Roman Empire and economic gain. Italy was in need of raw materials (such as the coal mines in Ereğli) and crops. The climate was seen to be compatible with the Italians; and the idea was that Italian immigrants could populate Western Anatolia while protecting the
41 Ibid., pp. 18-19.
42 Ibid., pp. 20-21.
43 Erik Goldstein. ''Great Britain and Greater Greece 1917-1920,'' The Historical Journal, Vol. 32, No. 2, June 1989, p. 339.
44 Sisley Huddleston. Peace-Making at Paris, (London: T. Fisher Unwin, 1919), p. 121.
20
Christian population and civilising the Turks.45 The justification of claims over a certain land by the argument of ''demographic majority'' has been and is still used and abused by many states. In Venizelos's case, he needed to bend the reality a little to fit the agenda that he was propagating. He based his demographic majority argument on the Ecumenical Patriarchate's census of 1912, where Turks outnumbered the Greeks, but he adjusted these inconvenient numbers by incorporating the Greek population in the neighbouring islands where the Greeks outnumbered the Turks by far. He legitimised this by saying that these islands should be accepted as part of mainland Turkey since they were inseparable due to their economic and geographical ties. It is fortunate -for Venizelos- that his claims were not rejected. Otherwise, his arguments would open a door for the Turks to argue that the islands in question should actually belong to Turkey.46 There were also studies done by the Turks arguing against this claim such as the memorandum prepared by İzmir Müdâfaa-i Hukûk Cemiyeti that argued Hellenic claims over Western Anatolia were absurd, as there had been no Hellenic rule over the region since their destruction by the Romans. They completely rejected the notion that the Byzantine Empire was an extension of the Greek civilisation, and claimed that Western Anatolia had been Turkified hundreds of years ago. The claim that the Greeks are in demographic majority was also completely denied, and statistical figures were presented to show that the majority of the population living in the area was Turkish.47
45 Michael Llewellyn Smith. Ionian Vision: Greece in Asia Minor, 1919-1922, (Michigan: The University of Michigan Press. 2000), pp. 69-70; Margaret MacMillan. Paris 1919: The Six Months that Changed the World, (New York: Random House Trade Paperbacks. 2003), p. 539.
46 Michael Llewellyn Smith. Ionian Vision: Greece in Asia Minor, 1919-1922, (Michigan: The University of Michigan Press, 2000), p. 73.
47 "Gözyaşlarımız Olsun, Bırakınız Aksın," Hâdisat, Numero: 137. 17 Şaban 1337 / 17 May 1919, p. 1.
21
The tension between Greece and Italy escalated steadily and reached an unpleasant state by mid-spring. The Italian representatives delayed the meetings and made the commission's work more difficult by threatening to leave the conference,48 which they eventually did on 24 April 1919 due to a dispute over the handling of the Adriatic question by the Big Three.49
In the meantime, the Big Three got increasingly nervous, because they feared that Italy might try a fait accompli concerning Western Anatolia. On 5 May 1919, the Supreme Council discussed the Italian activities concerning Western Anatolia. The fact that Italy had seven ships in İzmir was not comforting, to say the least.50 The next day, on 6 May 1919, during the Council of Four meeting, when the protesting Italian delegates were to return the next day, the decision for Greek landing in Asia Minor was made. President Wilson argued that Italians could be stopped by financial measures. Lloyd George protested that lack of money did not prevent Turks from entering the Balkan Wars. He added that they should tell Mr. Venizelos to send troops to ''Smyrna,'' where the Greeks would be allowed to land in case of a threat or a massacre. President Wilson replied ''Why not tell them to land as of now? Have you any objections to that?'' M. Clemenceau said that he did not.51 It seems bizarre that such an important decision, which was to have dire consequences, was made so casually.
It could be argued that in a way, Italian actions created a self-fulfilling prophecy on this matter. They were very unwilling to compromise on this matter, and
48 Ibid., p. 452.
49 Michael Llewellyn Smith. Ionian Vision: Greece in Asia Minor, 1919-1922, (Michigan: The University of Michigan Press. 2000), p. 77.
50 Ibid., pp. 77-79.
51 Margaret MacMillan. Paris 1919: The Six Months that Changed the World. (New York: Random House Trade Paperbacks, 2003), p. 543.
22
took hostile measures such as landing troops in Western Anatolia and sending warships to İzmir. They walked out of the conference, and acted capriciously which alienated the Americans and ended up pushing them towards the Greco-British camp. It should also be noted that Lloyd George used this opportunity very craftily and amplified the ''Italian threat'' in order to hasten the authorisation to let Greece occupy Western Anatolia.52
Hence, on 6 May 1919, the decision to let the Greek army send troops to İzmir was made by President Wilson, M. Clemenceau and Lloyd George. The Italians -even though they were supposedly a part of the Big Four- were not even notified. Lloyd George had ears only for what Venizelos had to say. He had a firm belief that an alliance with Greece would be most beneficial for the Great Britain. In addition, his personal relations with Venizelos and his admiration for Greek culture made him less than objective, to say the least; and caused him to dismiss serious warnings from a number of members of the cabinet such as those of Lord Curzon, and the Secretary of State for War, Winston Churchill. President Wilson, who was frustrated with the attitude of the Italians, disregarded the views of American experts on the matter, and Clemenceau remained a neutral element. Arthur Balfour described them as ''all-powerful, all-ignorant men sitting there and carving continents, with only a child to lead them.''53 In the end, what seemed like a momentous victory and the realisation of a dream of hundreds of years for Greece would turn out be the beginning of a time of suffering and bloodshed for all the parties involved.
52 Michael Llewellyn Smith. ''Venizelos’ Diplomacy, 1910–23: From Balkan Alliance to Greek–Turkish Settlement,'' in: Paschalis M. Kitromilides. ed., Eleftherios Venizelos: The Trials of Statesmanship. (Edinburg: Edinburg University Press. 2006), p. 161.
53 Michael Llewellyn Smith. Ionian Vision: Greece in Asia Minor, 1919-1922, (Michigan: The University of Michigan Press, 2000), p. 81.
23
The Point Of No Return
On the 15th May 1919, a destructive force was let loose in Western Anatolia, as sudden and apparently incomprehensible in its action as the eruption of a volcano. One morning, six months after the close of the European War, civilians and disarmed soldiers were massacred in the streets of Smyrna; whole quarters and villages were plundered: then the rich valleys in the hinterland were devastated by further arson and bloodshed, and a military front came into existence, which cut off the ports of Smyrna and Constantinople from the interior and ruined their trade… Within eight months the destruction that had started on the Smyrna quays was at work in Cilicia, at the other end of Anatolia.54
On 7 May 1919, the decision to allow the Greek army to occupy İzmir was declared to London.55 There had been attempts by the Greek government to prepare the ground for a possible invasion since the armistice had been signed. The Greek-speaking Cretan Muslims who were relocated to İzmir supported the idea of a Greek government in Western Anatolia. The Greek Mission that was set up in İzmir claimed that they had the support of the Armenian and Jewish leaders. However, they had no progress with the Turkish and the Levantine population of the area.56 On the other hand, we see that a number of national organisations had been founded by the Turks in İzmir with an anti-Greek agenda after the armistice was signed, such as Müdâfaa-i Hukûk-ı Osmâniye Cemiyeti (established in November 1918), and
54 Arnold J. Toynbee. The Western Question. (London: Constable and Company, 1922), p. 107.
55 Sina Akşin. İstanbul Hükümetleri ve Milli Mücadele. Cilt 1, (İstanbul: Cem Yayınevi, 1992), p. 264.
56 Michael Llewellyn Smith. Ionian Vision: Greece in Asia Minor, 1919-1922, (Michigan: The University of Michigan Press, 2000), pp. 86-87.
24
Müdâfaa-i Vatân Cemiyeti (established March 1919).57 Müdâfaa-i Hukûk-ı Osmâniye Cemiyeti stated its purpose as:
To work for creating the opportunities that would improve areas of the motherland materially and spiritually, to communicate the thoughts and feelings of the country to the world of civilisation, to work against any force that would prevent this from happening; to provide scientific and legal defence towards such actions and prove the rights of the groups of ethnic majority with scientific and credible evidence to the civilised eyes (emphasis is mine).58
Müdâfaa-i Vatân Cemiyeti was a semi-secret organisation established in the spring of 1919; and after the Greek army landed in İzmir, it channelled all its energy towards fighting against the occupation. The name of the organisation was soon changed to Redd-i İlhâk Cemiyeti; and they tried to organise the Turkish population by arranging protests and handing out informative fliers about the situation.59 The existence of these organisations was an indication that the Turks would not take an act of aggression lying down. However, the Turks were not interlocutors at the Paris Peace Conference. They were neither to be seen nor to be heard, as their country was ripped apart by the Entente Powers and Greece, neither of which had much interest in what they had to say. This of course would prove to be a grave mistake on their part.
Finally, what Venizelos had long been working for was becoming a reality. His army was ready; and he counted on the support of the Greek inhabitants of İzmir.
57 Engin Berber. Mütareke ve İşgal Dönemine Ait Yazılar, (İzmir: İzmir Büyükşehir Belediyesi Kültür Yayını, 2002), p. 48 and p. 64.
58 ''Vatan bölgelerinin maddî ve manevî yönlerden ilerlemesi ve yükselmesi olanaklarını sağlamaya çalışmak, memleketin düşüncelerini ve duygularını, uygarlık âlemine bildirmek ve ulaştırmak, bu amacın gerçekleşmesine engel olacak her türlü girişimlere karşı, yasal ve bilimsel savunmada bulunmak ve ülkede çoğunluğu oluşturan etnik grupların haklarını bilimsel ve inandırıcı kanıtları ile uygar bakışlara kanıtlamaktan ibaret...''
Ibid., p. 50.
(It should be noted that the Ottoman Turkish in Engin Berber's work has been abridged.)
59 Ibid., pp. 64-68.
25
He also had the support of the Allied Powers who would first occupy the forts of the city with French and English troops, and then turn them over to the Greeks.60
On 12 May 1919, the Italians were informed that the Greek army would be employed in the city of İzmir. The Greek troops were to come to İzmir on 14 May 1919. The Turkish bastions were to be taken over by the Allied Forces thirty-six hours before the landing of the Greek troops; and the Turkish authorities were to be informed about the situation twelve hours before the landing.61 It is curious given their belief that there would be no resistance from the Turks, and the Greek army was the best choice to provide public order within the city -as the security of the Christian inhabitants was one of the reasons for the occupation of the area- the Entente still decided that there was a need to escort the Greek army. This might be an indication that even though the Big Three was pretty confident about the decision to hand İzmir over to the Greeks, there was still a concern that things might not go as planned.
On 14 May 1919, Damat Ferit Paşa was informed about the situation by Assistant High Commissioner Admiral Webb.62 Admiral Calthorpe informed the governor of İzmir, İzzet Bey that the Greek army would be deployed in İzmir in accordance with the Seventh Article of the Mudros Armistice, and the British troops took over the forts of İzmir. The news soon spread around İzmir. During the night, several thousand Turks who responded to the call of Redd-i İlhâk Hey'et-i Millîyesi got together near the Jewish cemetery, protesting by lighting fires and beating drums.63 Several hundreds of Turkish prisoners were allowed to escape by the
60 Margaret MacMillan. Paris 1919: The Six Months that Changed the World. (New York: Random House Trade Paperbacks, 2003), p. 544.
61 Sina Akşin. İstanbul Hükümetleri ve Milli Mücadele, Cilt 1, (İstanbul: Cem Yayınevi, 1992), p. 264.
62 Ibid., p. 266.
63 Engin Berber. Mütareke ve İşgal Dönemine Ait Yazılar, (İzmir: İzmir Büyükşehir Belediyesi Kültür Yayını, 2002), p. 48 and p. 67.
26
Turkish authorities with the support of the Italians who were in charge of the allied prison control.64
On 15 May, as the Greek army was scheduled to land in İzmir, thousands of Greeks came together at the waterfront celebrating the arrival of the Greek army along with the Orthodox bishop who was present to bless the soldiers.65 About 9:30, the first Greek troops landed in İzmir. As they made their way through the city, a shot was fired near the Government House where the Turkish barracks were located; and afterwards all hell broke loose. The Greek troops returned fire and when the Turkish soldiers came out of the barracks, they were beaten by the Greeks. The Greek civilians turned into a lynching mob, and about thirty Turks were killed. This caused a chain reaction in the city that resulted in the death of 300 to 400 Turks and around 100 Greeks that very day.66
As to who fired the first shot, Turkish sources and foreign sources have a difference of opinion. British historian Arnold J. Toynbee, who served as a delegate in the Paris Conference and an analyst of developments in the Middle East during the World War I, carried out a highly detailed investigation of the event. Yet he stated that ''the provenance of the first shot is open to question.''67 According to the inquiry led by the Inter-allied Commission, it was concluded that: ''No 11. – The first gunshots were fired near the corner of the Konak Square, at the entrance to the street leading to Cocarialy. It is impossible to ascertain who fired these first gunshots. The
64 Michael Llewellyn Smith. Ionian Vision: Greece in Asia Minor, 1919-1922. (Michigan: The University of Michigan Press, 2000), p. 88.
65 Margaret MacMillan. Paris 1919: The Six Months that Changed the World. (NewYork: Random House Trade Paperbacks. 2003), p. 545.
66 Celal Erikan. Kurtuluş Savaşı Tarihi. (İstanbul: Türkiye İş Bankası Kültür Yayınları, 2008), pp. 31-33.
67 Arnold J. Toynbee. The Western Question. (London: London, Constable and Company, 1922), p. 398.
27
Greek troops did not open fire and only returned fire following these first gunshots.''68 Hence, the official non-Turkish inquiries concluded that the shooter that began the mayhem on 15 May 1919 could not be ascertained.
On the other hand, the Turkish official history accepts, and several secondary sources back the claim that Hasan Tahsin was the one that fired ''the first bullet'' against the occupational Greek forces. He is regarded as a national symbol for the awakening of Turkish resistance.69 Yet, there are sources that do not take this at face value, but point out that ''it is believed that Hasan Tahsin Efendi was the one who fired the first shot.''70 Our purpose, of course, is not to discuss whom the actual assailant was. However, it is important to point out despite the conventional wisdom, there is no substantiating evidence in the report prepared by the allied forces that Hasan Tahsin, who was a member of the Unionist secret intelligence Teşkîlât-ı Mahsûsa, was the one that fired the first shot.
The events that took place only a few hours after the Greek forces landed in İzmir were surely scandalous. The reason why the Greeks were deployed in İzmir by the Allied Forces was to maintain peace and security in the first place. Yet, hundreds of people were killed in the first couple of hours after the landing of the Greek army. Skirmishes broke all over town. This was immediately followed by lootings of Turkish houses and businesses. Hence, the whole operation was botched. The Allied Forces were in the city only symbolically, and had given the Greeks no support when
68 Erhan Çağrı. ''Greek Occupation of İzmir and Adjoining Territories Report of the Inter-Allied Commission of Inquiry, May-September 1919.'' SAM Papers No. 2/99. Ankara: April 1999, p. 33.
69 Sina Akşin. İstanbul Hükümetleri ve Milli Mücadele, Cilt.1, (İstanbul: Cem Yayınevi, 1992), p. 269; Yücel Özkaya. ''İzmir'in İşgali.'' in: Milli Mücadele Tarihi – Makaleler. Yay. Hazırlayan: Berna Türkdoğan, (Ankara: Atatürk Kültür, Dil ve Tarih Yüksek Kurumu. 2002), p. 59; Celal Erikan. Kurtuluş Savaşı Tarihi. Haz: Rıdvan Akın. (İstanbul: Türkiye İş Bankası Kültür Yayınları, 2008), p. 31.
70 Fahri Belen. Türk Kurtuluş Savaşı. (Ankara: Kültür ve Turizm Bakanlığı Yayınları 542. Atatürk Dizisi: 18, 1983), pp. 57-58.
28
it came to maintaining order. The Greeks, on the other hand, entrusted the whole operation with a colonel, and it took a month for a Greek general to set foot in İzmir.71
The news of the events was less than thrilling for the Entente. As early as 19 May 1919, Lloyd George proclaimed that ''it would be impossible to divide Turkey proper,'' and that such an act would create ''disorder into the Mohammedan world.''72 President Wilson said that the Fourteen Points were binding, and there was no justification for destroying the sovereignty of Turkey.73
Yet, all this was too little, too late. After getting their foot in the door for the realization of Megali Idea, the Greeks continued to expand their territory in Western Anatolia. Urla, Çeşme, Torbalı, Menemen, Manisa, Aydın and Ayvalık were occupied one by one by the Greek forces within the first two weeks after the landing in İzmir.74 The city of Aydın was occupied on 27 May 1919; and the forceful evacuation of the city by the Greeks was brutal. Aydın was re-occupied on 4 July 1919, which left two-thirds of the city destroyed.75
The situation got out of hand to such a degree that the Entente felt the need to set up an inter-Allied commission to investigate the events in the area. This commission conducted an investigation between 12 August 1919 and 15 October
71 Michael Llewellyn Smith. Ionian Vision: Greece in Asia Minor, 1919-1922, (Michigan: The University of Michigan Press, 2000), pp. 90-91.
72 Ibid.
73 Margaret MacMillan. Paris 1919: The Six Months that Changed the World. (New York: Random House Trade Paperbacks, 2003), pp. 548-549.
74 Gotthard Jaeschke. Türk İnkılabı Tarihi Kronolojisi. (İstanbul: Milli Mecmua Basımevi, 1939), p. 37.
75 Michael Llewellyn Smith. Ionian Vision: Greece in Asia Minor, 1919-1922, (Michigan: The University of Michigan Press, 2000), p. 91.
29
1919 into the events that took place since the occupation of İzmir by the Greeks.76 The commission was composed of members from the Big Four of the Paris Peace Conference, but after protests from the Greek government, a Greek officer was allowed to observe the commission without the right to vote. A silent Turkish representative subsequently joined the commission.77
One of the first conclusions the commission drew was that the Christian population had not been in danger in the province of Aydın since the armistice. The report notes there was no doubt that the Greek population was persecuted by Nurettin Paşa, the governor of İzmir at the time, during the war as well as after the armistice. However, it is added that ''since the rise to power of the current Vali, İzzet Bey, all the inhabitants, regardless of race, have been treated impartially.''78 This is very ironic as atrocities that might be carried against the Christian population of Western Anatolia by the Turks were the only concern of the Entente and Greece. However, only a few months after the occupation, this claim was refuted by the commission of the very same Entente that had authorised the siege.
As far as the events that occurred on 15 May 1919 were concerned, the inter-Allied report concluded that the Greek High Command did not take any preventive measures to ensure the order. Also the Greek military, civil and religious authorities did not try to appease the crowds. It was also noted that the landing of the Greek forces was followed by lootings in villages surrounding the city by the Greek inhabitants; and that some Turks were killed in the process. The commission also wrote that the court martial set up by the Greek army made 74 convictions in relation
76 Erhan Çağrı. ''Greek Occupation of İzmir and Adjoining Territories Report of the Inter-Allied Commission of Inquiry, May-September 1919.'' SAM Papers No. 2/99. Ankara: April 1999, p. 33.
77 Ibid., p. 14.
78 Ibid., pp. 31-34. Report Articles No: 1, 2.
30
to the events that took place on the day of the occupation where 48 Greeks, 13 Turks, 12 Armenians and a Jew were sentenced.79
The commission also gave examples of the behaviour of the Greeks that ended up escalating the situation. For instance, the size of the area that was to be occupied was uncertain until Commodore Fitzmaurice was appointed to determine the limits; the rapid advance of the Greek army forces throughout the country caused the Turkish population to flee. The increasing number of violence, rape, theft and looting is also mentioned in the report as a factor that worsened the situation.80
In addition, the report pointed out some of the misconduct by the Greek army, and large scale atrocities committed after the occupation of Aydın. It was noted, for instance, that when the Greek army evacuated Nazilli, they did not act according to the orders of the Entente. As the Turkish authorities were not forewarned of the evacuation of the Greek troops, they were not able to restate a police force. This apparently led to massacres of several Greek families by Turkish gangs a few hours after the Greek troops left.81
It was also noted that the occupation of the vilâyet of Aydın by the Greek forces resulted in major material loss to crops and property. This, too, was attributed to looting and theft. The losses caused by military operations were also reported. However, it was pointed out that they did relatively less damage. The other reason for significant material loss was noted to be the burning of houses, villages and towns; and the loss was estimated to be around eight million pounds.82
Hence, the inter-Allied commission's report tells us that there was no threat to
79 Ibid., pp. 31-34. Report Articles No: 8, 9, 16, 17, 20.
80 Ibid., Report Article No: 19.
81 Ibid., Report Article No: 27.
82 Ibid., Report Article No: 29.
31
the Christian population in the vilâyet of Aydın in the first place; and the Governor of İzmir at the time of the Greek invasion had an impartial attitude towards the inhabitants of the city. This completely and utterly contradicts one of the most important justifications of the occupation of İzmir, and consequently the vilâyet of Aydın by the Greek army that an Entente force should be employed in the area to prevent the massacre of Christians. Greece, aggressively pushing a discourse of demographic majority in the area, was more than willing to play that part for the Allied Powers. The men who had the ultimate power to approve such a decision ended up buying into these claims either because they were already willing due to personal prejudices such as Lloyd George, who described Turks as ''human cancer,''83 or because they had other interests in the larger scale of the aftermath of the World War I when they wanted to get rid of this problem as quickly as possible, which was the case for Clemenceau, who was more interested in what should be done about Germany.84
The report also mentioned several instances where the Greek military and civil authorities were inefficient or downright out of line. They were criticised for the way they handled the occupation on 15 May 1919; for not taking the necessary measures to prevent possible unrest and conflict. Their inability led to the killing of 300-400 people. However, it was also pointed out in the report that the Greek authorities carried out investigations to find the perpetrators; and 74 people were sentenced, three of whom were hanged.85 Even though we cannot be sure of the
83 Karl G. Larew. "Great Britain and the Greco-Turkish War, 1919-1922,'' Historian, Vol. 35 No. 2 (February 1973), p. 257.
84 Michael Llewellyn Smith. Ionian Vision: Greece in Asia Minor, 1919-1922, (Michigan: The University of Michigan Press, 2000), p. 66.
85 George Horton. The Blight of Asia: An Account of the Systematic Extermination of Christian Populations by Mohammedans and of the Culpability of Certain Great Powers; with the True Story of
32
quality of the investigations at a time of such turmoil, it is evident that the Greeks tried to find the perpetrators of the killings and the looting on the day of the occupation. Yet, one could argue whether this was done to actually bring the perpetrators to justice, or to make up for the embarrassing consequences of the occupation that took place only a few hours after the landing of the Greek troops. 48 of the 74 people who were convicted were of Greek origin; and one wonders if they all deserved to be punished or if some were just unfortunate victims in Greece's desire to prove that they were capable of being just and impartial.86
To sum up, the inter-Allied report stated that the Christian population was not in danger prior to the occupation. It stated the incompetency or misconduct that the Greek authorities exhibited throughout the occupation, and its largely unchecked enhancement in the vilâyet of Aydın that resulted in burning of villages and towns, destruction of property and livestock, looting and killings. One should bear in mind that the report's investigation began on 12 August 1919, just about three months after the Greek Army set foot in İzmir on 15 May 1919. That time was enough for the Entente to call for an advanced investigation that found serious wrong-doings. However, bearing in mind how things unfolded for the Greek state and the Allied forces after the Turkish War of Independence began, this report and its findings must have been the least of their worries.
On the other hand, the inter-Allied commission's investigation only presents one side of the argument involving the events leading up to and after the Greek occupation of İzmir and the vilâyet of Aydın. There are innumerable sources that had claims contradicting the findings of the report by this commission, and arguing that
the Burning of Smyrna. (Indiana: The Bobbs-Merrill Company, 1926), p. 27.
86 Erhan Çağrı. ''Greek Occupation of İzmir and Adjoining Territories Report of the Inter-Allied Commission of Inquiry, May-September 1919.'' SAM Papers No. 2/99, Ankara: April 1999, p. 35.
33
the Greek side was not to blame for the atrocities that took place during this period, and that the events broke out due to the aggressiveness of the Turks.
One such source was written by George Horton who was the United States council general to İzmir between 1911 to 1917 and again 1919 to 1922. In his work ''The Blight of Asia,'' he has a whole chapter dedicated to the occupation of İzmir by the Greeks and the events that followed. His argument was that ''the Turkish plan of extermination was well under way before the arrival of the Greek troops,''87 which completely contradicts what has been reported by the inter-Allied commission. He argued that the skirmish that took place on the 15 May 1919 was unjustly amplified, so that it ended up having a bigger effect on the public opinion than the planned massacres by the Turks. He also attributed the failure of the Greek authorities to keep the population in check to the reluctance of the Allied Powers to provide adequate assistance to the Greeks ''that ultimately caused the Greek disaster and the destruction of Smyrna.''88
After claiming that the atrocities which took place on the day of the occupation were exaggerated, and that they occurred partly because the Allied Powers did not support the Greeks as they should have, Horton went on to give examples of how the Greek authorities did not tolerate any behaviour that was out of line:
It was here that the Greek governor-general [Aristidis Stergiadis] displayed that resolution and marked ability, which characterized his entire regime at Smyrna. He suppressed the disturbances completely in a very short space of time and severely punished the evil-doers… The populace was informed that Greeks disturbing the peace would be more severely punished than Turks, a
87 George Horton. The Blight of Asia: An Account of the Systematic Extermination of Christian Populations by Mohammedans and of the Culpability of Certain Great Powers; with the True Story of the Burning of Smyrna. (Indiana: The Bobbs-Merrill Company, 1926), p. 26.
88 Ibid., p. 27.
34
policy which was carried out during the entire Hellenic administration and contributed no little to the unpopularity of the governor-general among the native Christian population.89
Basically, it was claimed that the Greek authorities were not only highly adept at restoring order within the population in a short period of time, but they also were so just and righteous that they were willing to punish Greeks more harshly than Turks even if that meant that this policy would make them unpopular among the Christian population.
However, if we look at how Horton portrayed the Turkish perception of Greeks, he stated that ''to the Turk, the Hellene is not only a 'dog of an unbeliever,' but he is a former slave.''90 He then went on to describe the atrocities committed by the Turks. To give one representative example:
One incident will be sufficient to illustrate the sort of thing that was smarting in the memory of the Christian peasantry: A small farmer with a large family had planted a field of beans for food for his wife and children -beans being one of the principal articles of food for these people. A Turkish officer staked out his horse in this field, whereupon the farmer asked him if he might not put the animal in a grass plot, where was excellent pasturage. The reply was a horse-whipping, accompanied by abusive and contemptuous epithets in the presence of his family and the village, by the officer. This is a mild incident illustrative of the general conduct of the Turks toward the Christians. It is given because it came within my personal observation, and I knew the farmer, who was a very worthy and self-respecting man.91
So, basically what George Horton argued was that even though the Greeks engaged in atrocious acts, these were not on a scale comparable to what the Turks had done. Moreover, the perpetrators on the Greek side were immediately and harshly punished by the Greek authorities, which showed that these were just bad apples, and they were dismissed by Horton as isolated cases. The atrocities committed by the Greeks
89 Ibid., p. 28.
90 Ibid., p. 27.
91 Ibid., p. 29-30.
35
seem to be downplayed by Horton as isolated incidents to be expected by a people who had suffered so much, which did not reflect on the whole Greek population. Yet, it seems what any Turk did was an indication of the character of his race. As he wrote himself at the beginning of the paragraph, ''one incident will be sufficient to illustrate'' what the ''Christian peasantry'' endured under the rule of the Turks. The benefit of the doubt given to the Greek perpetrators due to their suffering which justified their out-of-line behaviour seems to be missing when the aggressors were Turkish who also might have suffered at the hands of the Greeks.
Horton's truthfulness as an eyewitness is not challenged here. There is no reason to think nor is there a way to prove that he did not see what he claimed to see. However, given his interpretation of events, his discourse and the contradictions of his claims with the findings of the inter-Allied commission report -whose members were chosen by the Allied Powers themselves- cast doubts as to the level of objectivity and integrity of his accounts. However, despite all the problematic aspects of his work, it is difficult to disregard the work of a high-level official such as George Horton.
To sum up, the occupation of İzmir ended up sparking a nationalist resistance among the Turks; and the carnage ignited by the events in İzmir did not quiet down until September 1922. The incompetency and inability of the Allied Forces to objectively evaluate the existing situation in Western Anatolia; Lloyd George's idle trust in Venizelos due to his fondness of Ancient Greece; the politicians’ diplomatic skills rather than an unbiased assessment of possible scenarios; the miscalculations of France and the United States combined with the high ambitions of Venizelos who did an excellent job at making his case to an already sympathetic audience all proved to have disastrous consequences for both the Greeks and the Turks. Volumes have been
36
written on who the actual perpetrators were, or who ''started it,'' if you will, yet as it is always the case with this type of situations, it is virtually impossible to determine the exact course of events. What is evident is that the decision to deploy the Greek army for the occupation of İzmir started a series of events that caused a lot of suffering for both the Greeks and the Turks. However, for the Greeks, this resulted in a definite end to the Megali Idea, their dream of creating a Greater Greece that included the Western Anatolian lands which they perceived historically and demographically as their own. On the other hand, this occupation marked the final straw for the Turks who stood up and started their national fight for survival.
37
CHAPTER II
THE GREEK OCCUPATION OF İZMİR:
THE INITIAL REACTION IN THE OTTOMAN PRESS
This chapter will attempt to analyse the first reaction expressed by the newspapers within the scope of this thesis; Alemdâr, İleri, Hadisât, Sabâh and İkdâm. Unfortunately, we were not able to reach Tanin, as the newspaper is basically the official news organ of the Committee of Union and Progress, and probably due to the unpopularity of the Committee after the war was lost, the issues are almost impossible to find back to back, if at all. The articles published on May 16 and 17, 1919 are looked at in detail in the aforementioned newspapers, as there is very little information available on their 16 May 1919 issues, the writings on 17 May 1919 issue have also been taken into account. It should also be noted that Sabâh has no editorial for either date, but it merely publishes the official memorandum. Hence, the remaining four newspapers provide the backbone of the material used in this chapter.
Analysis of 16 May 1919 Articles
The first piece of information on the annexation of İzmir hit the newsstands on 16 May 1919. As the news of the annexation reached İstanbul quite late, it seems most of them were not able to deliver the news to their readers on 16 May 1919. Alemdâr, for instance, informed its readers that the proclamation by the government about the occupation of İzmir and its surrounding areas could be found in the kısm-ı mahsûsa, but has no further information on the matter.92 On the other hand, some newspapers
92 ''Beyanname,'' Alemdâr, Numero: 144-1454, 16 Şaban 1337 / 16 May 1919, p. 1.
38
such as Sabâh and İkdâm were able to print the official proclamation in their 16 May 1919 issues. The proclamation was as follows:
Yesterday at around 11 o'clock, the memorandum given by Admiral Webb to Sadrazam Ferid Paşa in his residence in Nişantaşı announced that the citadel of İzmir was going be occupied by the Allied Forces in accordance with the Paris Conference decisions. Also, the memorandum submitted to the vilâyet of Aydın yesterday morning by the Commander of the British Naval Force, Admiral Calthorpe states that İzmir and its surrounding areas will be occupied according to the decisions of the Paris Conference and the Seventh Article of the Mudros Armistice. A second memorandum declared that the Allied Forces decided that the Greek Army was to be used in the occupation. The government has attempted to carry out its responsibility in order to protect the law of the people and the state and the necessary notification to the people has been sent to the vilâyets about the preservation of order by the Ministry of the Interior.93
İleri also offered a small article in regard to the news of the annexation of İzmir, even though there were many guesses and wishful thinking that could be detected in its language. A mixture of shock, disbelief, along with desperation of not exactly knowing what was going on could be felt through and through. The article headlined "Occupation of İzmir" began with the statement: "For the past two days, there has been despairing rumours in İstanbul: supposedly, İzmir has been occupied by the Greek forces."94 It was also stated that at a time when the general public had been busy waiting for the "sun of justice which will rise from the West," the effects of this news were devastating for the people, and led them to a state of hopelessness.
93 ''Dün sabah saat on bir raddelerinde Nişantaşı'nda konaklarında Sadrazam Ferid Paşa hazretlerine Amiral Veb tarafından verilen notada Paris Konferansı kararına atfen İzmir kılâ'ının Kuvâ-yı İtilâfiye tarafından işgâl edileceği bildirildiği gibi İngiliz kuvâ-yı bahriyesi kumandanı Amiral Calthorpe cenabları tarafından Aydın Vilâyeti'ne dün sabah tebliğ olunan notada Paris Konferansı'nın mukarrerâtına ve mütarekenâmenin yedinci maddesine istinaden İzmir istihkamlarının işgâl edileceği ve öğleden sonra verilen ikinci bir notada dahi yine mütareke ahkâmına müsteniden İzmir şehrinin Yunan askeri tarafından işgaline düvel-i mü'telifece karar verilmiş olduğu bildirilmiştir. Hükûmet bu babda hukuk-ı millet ve devletin muhafazası için uhdesine terettüb eden vezâifi ifaya teşebbüs eylemiş ve muhafaza-i vakar ve sekinet edilmesi lüzumunun lisan-ı münasible ahaliye tavsiyesi zımnında dahiliye nezaret-i celilesi tarafından vilâyet-i Osmaniye'ye tebligât-ı lâzıme ifa kılınmıştır.''
''Tebliğ-i Resmi''. Sabâh, Numero: 10597, 15 Şaban 1337 / 16 May 1919. p. 1; ''Tebliğ-i Resmi,'' İkdâm, Numero: 7998, 15 Şaban 1337 / 16 May 1919, p. 1.
94 Mim. Re. "İzmir İşgali," İleri, Numero: 477-106, 16 Şaban 1337 / 16 May 1919, p. 1.
39
The article further went on to explain why such a decision would simply be absurd. The first reason given was that "we have the great principles of the great president of the United States," and it was argued that due to the acceptance of these principles with "much sacrifice on the part of the Ottomans," every nation would have the right to determine its own fate. It was also stated that the population of İzmir had declared its wish to remain Turkish, which happened to be a "fact known by the world." Hence, it was asked: "when the truth that cannot be shaken by doubt or guesses is so blatantly in the open and all the ilmü’l-yakîn and all alem-i peyda believe it, could the handover of İzmir be based on a righteous explanation?''95
However, since an official proclamation had been issued, it was obvious that the news from İzmir could not be dismissed as a mere fabrication or "rumour" as the article had called it. The İleri article addressed this issue by claiming "it is understood that the news of the occupation of İzmir are not lies, however, they have been misrepresented." It was stated that the truth of the matter was İzmir was not handed over to the Greek army; however, the Allied Forces decided to use (emphasis is mine) the Greek forces to carry out their order of occupation in accordance with the Seventh Article of the Mudros Armistice. On the other hand, it was also pointed out that this is only a small relief:
Our worries have eased, however, they have not disappeared. To give a country's soldiers the right to invade an important city like İzmir, a country, which has not fought against anyone in this World War and has never stopped having a grudge against the Ottoman Empire, the public is rightfully shocked and shows its sorrow.96
95 "Hiçbir şüphe ve zan ile yıkılması mümkün olmayan bu hakayık-ı maddiye göz önünde durur ve buna ilmü’l-yakîn ile bütün âlem peyda-yı itminân ederken artık İzmir’in Yunaniler'e terk edilmesine bir mana-yı adâlet verilebilir mi?"
Ibid.
96 "Teessürümüz, tahaffüf etti, fakat zâil olmadı. Bu Harb-i Umûmi’de biri ile muharebeye girişmemiş, kavgaya tutuşmamış olan ve maazalik eczâ-yı memâlik-i Osmâniye’ye karşı hırs beslemekten hâli kalmayan bir devletin askerine, İzmir gibi üzerinde olur olmaz haklar iddiasına kalkıştığı bir belde-i
40
This paragraph is interesting as it had explanations as to why Greece was not seen as an acceptable choice to carry out this operation in the name of the Allied Forces. The fact that Greece remained a neutral state during the World War I combined with the statement that it was a country "with ridiculous claims on İzmir" and "always had a grudge against the Ottomans" made the Greek army's deployment in the occupation of İzmir nonsensical according to the article. On the other hand, there is no challenge in the article against the act itself. There is not an argument made against why the Seventh Article needed to be carried out in the first place, but it was pointed out that the Greek army itself did not have the right to be the occupying power. They were belittled and not recognised as a proper part of the Allied Forces due to the fact that they did not take part in the actual fight during World War I. It could also be suggested that the reference to the "inappropriate" claims of the Greeks on the occupied land points to a legitimate, but yet unproven fear that the employment of the Greek army might be something more than just a technicality but the first step to hand over İzmir and the surrounding areas to the Greek state for good.
Analysis Of 17 May 1919 Articles:
The Occupation, the Allied Powers and the Wilson Principles
mühimmenin istihkâmlarını işgâl etmek husûsunda müsâade olunmasına efkâr-ı umûmiye bi-hakkın hayret ve izhâr-ı teessür eder."
Ibid.
41
With the exception of Sabâh, which only printed the news about the resignation of the Cabinet, we see that all the other newspapers picked up on the issue concerning İzmir by 17 May 1919. Even though there was some consensus on certain aspects of the event, it is not possible to say that they were all on the same page on how to address it. I will try to talk about the similarities and the differences of the newspapers in relation to their first reactions to the occupation of İzmir.
If we take into consideration İleri and Hadisât, which had a reasonable amount of material on the issue in their 17 May 1919 articles, a feeling of betrayal, an invocation to the Allied Powers, and a call for the reaffirmation of the Wilson Principles can be seen, as both newspapers argued that the occupation was in direct violation of these doctrines.
İleri, for instance, had clearly gotten out of its "denial" phase to move to the "anger" phase. The article "Yesterday the Cabinet Resigned" stated that they had "a glimpse of hope" on the previous day concerning the initial news of the occupation of İzmir. However, they go on to say that the official proclamation issued later on 16 May 1919 clearly stated "the city of İzmir has unfortunately been occupied by the Greeks" and went on to ask "where justice was." The author expressed "he cannot comprehend why there would be a need to occupy a harbour city in the Mediterranean or in the Aegean Sea, especially during the turmoil right before the signing of a peace treaty."97
Hadisât, in its 17 May 1919 article "Occupation of İzmir," claimed that letting the Greeks occupy İzmir, "a city that's historical and whose racial rights lie with the Turks so clearly that it is almost tangible," was "an immediate execution of
97 Mim. Re. "Hey'et-i Vükela Dün İstifa Etmişlerdir," İleri, Numero: 479-108, 17 Şaban 1337 / 17 May 1919. p. 1.
42
Turkish national existence."98
The occupation was acknowledged to be unjust and unfounded. There was a prominent feeling of being wronged, as the adjectives "unfair" and "incomprehensible" were used to describe the event. Yet, one can still see a hopeful tone that the error would somehow be set right, as the Greek army's presence was perceived to go against the Wilson Principles. İleri wrote: ''But I do not believe… I cannot believe that the Wilson Principles that were declared to the world were just written in order to bedazzle people and to create a [false] sense of hope in their hearts.''99
In another article by İleri, titled "Where are the Wilson Principles?" it was stated that "when President Wilson… reaffirmed his principles in front of the Washington Monument,100 he must have thought that the ambitions that would harm the upcoming peace treaty must not be rekindled."101
A similar attitude can also be seen in Hadisât. It was stated that "…we are still hopeful that the Wilson Principles will not remain as a utopian theory."102 Hadisât also took the Twelfth Article of Wilson's principles, and immediately
98 "İzmir şehrini, Yunaniler'e işgâl ettirmek oradaki hakk-ı tarihî ve ırkîsi gözle görülecek ve elle tutulacak kadar bâriz bulunan Türk'ün hayat-ı milliyesi bir idâm-ı nagehani ile hitâm vermektedir."
Süleyman Nazif. "İzmir'in İşgâli," Hadîsât, Numero: 137, 17 Şaban 1337 / 17 May 1919. p. 1.
99 "Fakat yine ben zannetmiyorum.. Zannedemiyorum ki çâr-aktar-ı cihâna ilân ve iş’âr edilen Wilson desâtir-i âliyesi yalnız gözleri kamaştırmak, yüreklerde ümit şimşekleri çakmak için yazılmış ve düzülmüş olsun."
Mim. Re. "Heyet-i Vükela Dün İstifa Etmişlerdir," İleri, Numero: 479-108, 17 Şaban 1337 / 17 May 1919. p. 1.
100 The original article writes ''Washington’un mezarı önünde'' however there is no indication if this refers to the Washington Monument or Washington’s grave –the latter being highly unlikely as he was buried in a very humble graveyard in Virginia. However, I have not yet been able to confirm if President Wilson gave a speech reaffirming the Fourteen Principles in front of the Washington Monument either.
101 "Wilson Prensipleri Nerede? Hakkın Kuvvete Galebesini İstiyoruz," İleri, Numero: 479-108, 17 Şaban 1337 / 17 May 1919.
102 "Gözyaşlarımız Olsun, Bırakınız Aksın," Hadîsât, Numero: 137, 17 Şaban 1337 / 17 May 1919.
43
afterwards published the memorandum prepared by the İzmir Müdâfaa-i Hukûk Cemiyeti "to tell Europe and America that İzmir is Turkish and Muslim; that it is a righteous part of Anatolia racially, historically and economically." Hence, they juxtaposed the Twelfth Article where it is stated that "the Turkish portion of the present Ottoman Empire should be assured to secure sovereignty" with the research done by İzmir Müdâfaa-i Hukûk Cemiyeti, which challenged the Greek claims on the territory with historical arguments and used the 1891 vilâyet statistics from Aydın. It demographically proved that the area was inhabited mostly by Turks; argued that the disputed area fell within "the Turkish portion" of the Ottoman Empire; and that the occupation directly contradicted the Wilson Principles.103
Similarly, İleri used demographics in order to back up its claim that the area was undeniably Turkish. There were pie charts that showed the ethnic make-up of the İzmir area stating the Muslim, Rum, Jewish, Armenian, Catholic and Protestant inhabitants belonged both to the vilâyet of Aydın and the city of İzmir. Furthermore, the demographic research of Vital Cuinet was also added into the article as proof of Turkish population's majority in the region.104
If we look at the writings concerning the Allied Powers, we see that Hadisât followed a similar pattern as it had followed towards the Wilson Principles. It was stated that letting the Greeks occupy İzmir was in total contradiction of the "historical and racial" rights of the Turks. However, it added they did not believe that the Allied Powers would insist on maintaining this situation because of their confidence in the mercy and sagacity of Europe.105
103 Ibid.
104 Mim. Re. "Heyet-i Vükela Dün İstifa Etmişlerdir," İleri, Numero: 479-108, 17 Şaban 1337 / 17 May 1919, p. 1.
105 Süleyman Nazif. "İzmir'in İşgâli," Hadîsât, Numero: 137, 17 Şaban 1337 / 17 May 1919, p. 1.
44
Both newspapers Hadisât and İleri stated that the annexation of İzmir by the Greek army was unacceptable according to what had been promised by the Wilson Principles, and that it was against what the Allied Powers had promised. They went on to back up their claims with demographic evidence. They stated they remained hopeful that justice would be served and ''the mistake'' would be corrected. Given that the Allied Powers authorised the Greek Army's deployment of the area and started this mess, condemning the occupation and somehow hoping that the very same Allied Powers can set things right and uphold the Wilson Principles seems antithetical.
This attitude, I believe, could be explained in two ways. We should bear in mind that at the time the Ottomans had no physical means to resist this occupation as their military was crippled and surrendered to the Allies; and there was no other authority to which they could plead their case. So, it seems like the newspapers just reflected this desperation: Asking the perpetrators to deliver justice! Reminding Entente Powers of what they promised and trying to appeal to their sense of honour is all very romantic. However, it would be hard to presume they actually thought this would have a significant effect on the decision of the Entente concerning İzmir. It is more likely the situation was deemed so helpless that as a last resort, they had to confront the enemy about the inconsistencies between their practices and their statements.
Another reason for this rhetoric could be that the newspapers adopted this kind of approach in order to be cautious and not to further the panic the news had created. It becomes apparent from the telegraphs sent to the newspapers from all parts of the Ottoman Empire that the news were not taken lightly by the general population who had already suffered so much during World War I. They had just
45
found out the armistice that ended the war meant the occupation of one of the most important cities of the country. There might have been some concern that if this reaction led to an upheaval within the general population, it could result in the occupation of more territories of the empire.
If we look at İkdâm and its take on the news, we see a less optimistic approach. It was stated that the annexation contradicted the Wilson Principles; and "even the simplest understanding of justice and truth" would not legitimise the actions in İzmir. On the other hand, it can be understood from the "Occupation of İzmir" article in İkdâm dated 17 May 1919, they did not have much doubt that İzmir had basically been handed over to the Greeks for good: ''Handing İzmir over, in order to satisfy the desires and the aspirations of the invasion of the Greeks, (emphasis is mine) is contradictory to the aim of security and world peace.''106
Furthermore, it was pointed out by İkdâm when the Allied Powers occupied certain parts of Bulgaria, they refrained from using the Serbian or Greek soldiers in the process. It was also added that "it would have been more sensible if the Allied Powers have taken the same approach in İzmir they had had in Eastern Europe."107
İkdâm not only seemed to acknowledge that the plan was to hand İzmir over to the Greeks to satisfy their claims on the Western Anatolia, but also pointed out the differences in the conduct of the Allied Powers' invasion procedure concerning different countries that once belonged to the Axis Powers. If they were reluctant to commission the Greek or Serbian armies to the disputed areas in Bulgaria, how come they had not had a problem in sending the Greek army to Western Anatolia? Even though Hadisât and İleri both pointed out that the occupation contradicts the Wilson
106 "Yunânilerin ihtirâsâtı ve emel-i istilâcûyâneleri tatmîn edilmek üzere İzmir’in onlara verilmesi ta'kîb edilmekte olan emniyet ve asâyiş-i cihân emel ü maksadına muvâfık düşmemektedir."
"İzmir'in İşgâli," İkdâm, Numero: 7999, 16 Şaban 1337 / 17 May 1919, p. 1.
107 Ibid.
46
Principles and the Allied Powers, it seems that İkdâm is much more sceptical -or realistic- about the issue and does not seem to have much interest in sugar coating the situation.
The Attitude of the Ottoman Press towards the Greeks
The articles of course also had comments on Greece itself; however, they differed from the ones made about the Allied Powers and the United States in nature. In general they were dismissive, belittling and sometimes downright hostile as opposed to the ones about the Allied Powers and the United States. It is mentioned repeatedly that Greece had not fought in the war; and it is argued that they were not entitled to the rights granted to the Allied Powers with the Mudros Armistice.
The article in İkdâm's 17 May 1919 issue described the decision to allow Greece to occupy İzmir as follows:
Greece's claims over İzmir can only mean one thing, and that is the doctrine 'the right belongs to the victor.' However, Greece's title as a victor is gained because Venizelos mingled with the victorious side during the War. Besides, 'the right belongs to the victor' is an ancient doctrine that has gone bankrupt. Today, the victors claim that they will sign a peace that is based on justice, not a peace based on might.108
Hence, İkdâm interpreted the occupation of İzmir by the Greeks as an act of might makes right. It was stated that the Greeks were only deemed victorious due to a technicality, i.e. they had joined the war at the last minute when ''Venizelos mingled with the winners of the war'' without actually fighting or making the necessary sacrifices to be considered a proper victor as far as the writer of the article was
108 ''Yunanistan'ın İzmir üzerindeki iddiası, yalnız bir şeye istinâd edebilir ki o da 'hak galibindir' düstûrudur. Halbuki Yunanistan'ın galiplik sıfatı, bu muharebede 'Venizelos' Yunanistanı'nın galibleri zümresine karışmış olmasından tevellüd eden bir sıfat olduğu gibi artık 'hak galibindir' düstûr-ı kadîmi de bugün iflâs etmiş bir düstûr-ı köhneden ibarettir. Zira bugün galibler, akd-i sulh ederken kuvvet sulhu değil, adâlet sulhu akd edeceklerini iddia etmektedirler.''
Ibid.
47
concerned. According to İkdâm's interpretation, the Greeks used their status as winners to legitimise their actions. It is further stated that this attitude of the victorious party being entitled to everything was "archaic," and "bankrupt." So, there is a constant attempt to delegitimise the claims of the Greeks by challenging their historical and demographic reasoning for occupying Western Anatolia, which will be discussed later in the chapter. The passive stance of the Greeks throughout World War I was also used as a reason as to why the occupation of İzmir cannot be justified.
However, the challenge is not only towards Greece's lack of participation in World War I, or the discourse they use to claim rights on Western Anatolia. There were also some ad hominem remarks on Greek state's character. İkdâm stated that handing over İzmir into the hands of "a state that is weak and void of importance" not only went against the principles put forward by President Wilson, but also against the basic understanding of justice and reality.109
İleri used a dismissive tone when talking about the Greeks as "last minute heroes," in reference to Greece joining the Allied Powers at a late stage, and becoming one of the victorious parties of the World War I even though they had not actually battled in the war.110
Hadisât stated "Greece did not have anything positive or negative to offer to its allies throughout the war."111 It is further argued that Greece was ready to attack the countries which later became their allies the moment Germany's victory was
109 Ibid.
110 Mim. Re. "Heyet-i Vükela Dün İstifa Etmişlerdir," İleri, Numero: 479-108, 17 Şaban 1337 / 17 May 1919, p. 1.
111 "İzmir'in İşgâli," Hadîsât, Numero: 137, 17 Şaban 1337 / 17 May 1919, p. 1.
48
announced. Even one of its corps had surrendered to the Germans. Hence, it is stated that Greece was not entitled to any rewards in this matter.112
It is also interesting to see that right after this paragraph, the article in Hadisât went on to talk about the "wise and humane" Europe, and "benevolent and noble" America.113 It could be said that this is the general tone of all the newspapers. Greece was a treacherous, opportunist country becoming entitled to something that it did not deserve, whereas the Allied Powers and the United States were portrayed as beacons of nobility and justice who were led astray.
In its 17 May 1919 issue, Hadisât also covered the memorandum prepared by the İzmir Müdâfaa-ı Hukûk Cemiyeti where Hellenism was widely criticised. The document discussed the "Turkishness" of İzmir at length offering historical and demographical evidence. The historical claims of the Greek state on İzmir and Western Anatolia was debunked with the claim that the "Roman Empire had destroyed the ancient Hellenic colonies fifteen centuries before the Turks appeared on the historical scene."114 The memorandum went on to claim that Greeks never had a real state for centuries, and they had been a "composite people" within the Roman Empire for ten centuries. It was also added that the Greeks had been "an enemy of our race and of our religion" which is presented as another reason for the injustice of the occupation.115
112 Ibid.
113 Ibid.
114 "…Elen müsta’mireleri Türkler'in bu sahne-i tarihiyeye vürudundan 15 asır evvel Roma İmparatorluğu tarafından bel’ edilmişlerdi."
"1,239,782 Türk ve Müslüman 298,373 Rum'ın Rıbka-i Zûlm ve Esâretine Mevdu!!!" Hadîsât, Numero: 137, 17 Şaban 1337 / 17 May 1919, pp. 1-2.
115 Ibid.
49
Alemdâr's stance was a bit different than the newspapers mentioned above, as they do not necessarily condemn the actions of the Greeks, because the article of 17 May 1919 issue argued that Greece was a legitimate part of the Allied Powers, and hence had the right to what was granted to them in the Mudros Armistice.116 However, it can still be seen that they were not particularly fond of the Greek state itself, as it was argued that "Greece can only be the Greece of the Peloponnese. I do not know if any other place would satisfy such peoples who are so fond of cheering and showing off."117 So, even though the Greeks seemed to deserve a certain amount of respect due to their relations with the Entente, they were ridiculed as "show offs" without that connection. As it can be seen from these articles, it is fair to say that the tone of the newspapers in relation to the nature of the Greek state was derogatory, belittling and emotional rather than professional. The tone used in the writings about the Allied Powers indicates that the Ottomans saw them as their peers. They fought the Entente and lost the battle; fair and square. However, as the territories of the Greek state had been ruled by the Ottomans for centuries; and they had only established a state that became internationally recognised less than a hundred years ago, there seems to be a sense of being robbed of something very precious by those who had never been taken seriously. It seems this event not only hurt the Ottomans in the sense that they lost an important city to another state, but it also seems that it was a huge blow to their national pride.
The Reaction from the General Population
116 Refi Cevad. "İzmir Hadisesi Münâsebetiyle," Alemdâr, Numero: 145-1455, 17 Şaban 1337 / 17 May 1919, p. 1.
117 Ibid.
50
We can also find clues about the Ottoman public's reaction to the occupation of İzmir. Just two days after the event, telegraphs sent from all over the Ottoman state started to appear in the pages of newspapers. Even though the reactions were to become much larger in the following days, we see that just one day after the news became public, some telegraphs started to appear in the Ottoman press sent by citizens who wanted to voice their opinions about the event. We can see two telegraphs published by İleri sent from Dikili and Bayramiç -both towns are located at the Western coast of Turkey- and many more would follow in the days to come. Both telegraphs in the newspaper expressed the discomfort felt due to the occupation, stating that the majority of İzmir's population was Turkish. Both telegraphs stated that the occupation was a violation of the 14 Principles, and were pretty much in line with the newspapers' rhetoric. The telegraph from sent "in the name of Bayramiç's Muslim population" also stated that:
...we present to the British, American and Italian governments who are masters of justice and civilisation that we are ready for all the sacrifices that is needed to protect our system of religion and nation and our holy motherland and we request the ending of the unjust attack on an indivisible part of our motherland.118
Also, in this paragraph we can see that the Allied Forces are directly addressed to correct the unjust action and are referred to as "masters of justice and civilisation," which is in the same lane with most of the newspaper articles of that day.
İkdâm printed two telegraphs under the sub-heading "telegraphs that arrived from the vilâyets" and had a small introduction stating that telegraphs pouring from "Konya, Soma, Yalova, Niğde, Mardin, Kalecik, Konya Ereğlisi, Seydişehir and
118 "...rabıta-ı diniye ve milliyemizi ve vatan-ı mukaddesimizi muhâfaza için icâb eden her türlü fedâkârlığı ifâya hazır olduğumuzu nâzım-ı adâlet ve medeniyyet olan İngiliz ve Fransız, Amerika, İtalya hükûmât-ı fahîmesine arz ile vatanımızın bir cüz-i layen-fekkine olan taarruz-ı na-hakkın ref'ini istirhâm eyleriz."
Mim. Re. ''Wilson Prensipleri Nerede? Hakkın Kuvvete Galebesini İstiyoruz,'' İleri, Numero: 489-107, 17 Şaban 1337 / 17 May 1919. p. 1.
51
Burdur" had arrived. However, they would not be able to print them all as they did not have enough space. It was pointed out those hundreds of telegraphs stated that the Turkish element was the majority in İzmir and expressed the wish for the upholding of the Wilson Principles.119
Here we can understand that the news of the annexation had reached all over the Ottoman Empire, and people voiced their protest. The rhetoric used in the telegraphs is pretty much in line with the newspapers' general tone. Emphasis is on the fact that the majority of the population in İzmir was Turkish. The Twelfth Article of Wilson Principles stated that the Ottomans would have self-determination in the areas where they had demographic dominance. Hence, people asked for these principles not to be overridden.
The Idiosyncrasy of Alemdâr
Now all three newspapers condemned the occupation, regardless of whether they hoped the Allied Powers to change their minds or not. On the other hand, Alemdâr had a rather unique outlook towards the issue, which deserves to be discussed further.
Alemdâr's 17 May 1919 issue had an article "With Reference to the Occupation of İzmir," which talked about the newspaper's failing to print the official proclamation due to its late arrival. It was said that the nervousness caused by the news had calmed down to an extent, which would allow the topic to be analysed in a more cool-headed manner. The analysis of the event began like this:
Yesterday we received quite a number of telegraphs from various regions. A certain instance caught our attention in these telegraphs. The take-over of İzmir by the Greeks… However, there is neither a take-over, nor a Greece.
119 ''İzmir İşgali Meselesi: Vilayattan Varid Olan Telgrafnameler,'' İkdâm, Numero: 7999, 16 Şaban 1337 / 17 May 1919, p. 2.
52
We know of an Allied Power. And there is the situation of an annexation… Not only are we saying now, that an animosity towards the eternal possessors of the final victory is madness, but we had been telling this even when we were in exile.120
So, the situation was simple: According to Alemdâr, the Greeks did not take over İzmir. There was an Allied Power, which sent its troops there. Alemdâr had warned the Ottomans before that fighting against the Allied Powers would be futile.
This passive-aggressive tone of the article was so blatant in Refi' Cevad's (Ulunay) article that it reads like a guide on "how to say I told you so in various ways." Well, in fact, he does exactly say it:
What we said came true. The Allied Powers were victorious. I do not feel the need to recite their names one by one, after saying the Allied Powers. Our Kâmil Paşa died, Venizelos lived… Greece became one of the Allied Powers… So, today they have annexed İzmir as one of the Allied Powers and Greece is not the one that is spreading the annexation. They are the Allied Powers and they are doing this in accordance with the armistice. We gave them that right.121
Compared to İleri or Hadisât's general tone on the subject, this seemed a bit harsh, to put it mildly. Refi' Cevad (Ulunay) who was the writer of the article had been in exile for the previous five years from 1913 to 1918. So, there was a more personal revenge element built into it. The writer seemed to suggest that the country had brought all that upon itself -despite his warnings for which he was sent away- hence,
120 "Dün muhtelif mahallerden matbaamıza çok telgraflar geldi. Bu telgafnâmelerde bir terkîb nazar-ı dikkatimizi celb etti. İzmir’in Yunanistan’a ilhâkı… Halbuki ortada ne ilhâk ne de bir Yunanistan vardır. Bir itilâf kuvveti biliyoruz. Bundan başka bir de işgâl keyfiyeti vakı’… Zafer-i nihainin ebedi sahipleriyle muhâsamenin cinnet olduğunu yalnız şimdi değil her zaman hatta menfada bile söylüyorduk."
Refi Cevad. "İzmir Hadisesi Münasebetiyle..." Alemdâr, Numero: 145-1455, 17 Şaban 1337 / 17 May 1919, p. 1.
121 "Dediklerimiz çıktı. İtilâf devletleri muzaffer oldu. İtilâf devletleri dedikten sonra falan veya filan hükûmet diye isim saymayı bi-lüzûm add ediyorum. Bizim Kâmil Paşa'mız öldü ve Venizelos sağ kaldı...Yunanistan da İtilâf devletlerinin arasına sokuldu. Bugün de İtilâf devletlerinin bir kuvve-i muâvinesi sıfatıyla İzmir’i işgâl ediyor ve bu işgâl keyfiyetini yayan Yunanistan değildir. İtilaf devleteridir ki mütarekenin madde-i malumesine istinâd ediyorlar. Bu hakkı biz kendilerine bahş ettik."
Ibid.
53
they should not be shocked when facing these events. Greece managed to become one of the Allied Powers, so it was considered that it was perfectly within their right to exercise the power that "we" had given them. Meaning, we did not really have the right to be so outraged by these events.
One of the most telling sentences in the article about the stance of Alemdâr at this initial time of the annexation was crystallised with these words: "We think that it is appropriate not to exaggerate the annexation of İzmir by Greece in the name of the Entente States, a country that is a part of the Allied Powers.''122
Even though he criticized Greece for being "very small and having a reputation for an 'unjust' government," he also went on to say that "the Allied Powers would be a much better judge if the Greek performance was satisfactory in İzmir or not."123 This criticism of Greece, compared to the other newspapers that were discussed before, is pretty mild, to say the least. However, according to Refi' Cevad's understanding of the issue, the legitimacy concerning the situation of İzmir is deeply embedded in his perception of and his trust in the Allied Powers. For him, Greece is an Allied Power. It has been commissioned to annex İzmir by the Allied Powers. Hence, Greece has the right to annex İzmir. The claims of the Greek state on İzmir or the general hostile policies of the state are not even mentioned. According to Refi' Cevad, Greece is more prevalently a part of the Entente Powers than a separate state.
This attitude seems to stem from the inherent admiration of the British Empire by the writer. I have come across statements that suggested the pro-British stance of Alemdâr in my secondary readings about the Ottoman newspapers and the
122 "İtilâf kuvvetinin de bir bölüğü demek olan Yunanistan’ın kuvâ-yı askeriyesinin bir memleketi düvel-i İtilâfiye hesâbına işgâl etmesini biz hadd-i zâtında i’zam etmemeyi daha muvâfık görüyoruz."
Ibid.
123 "Çünkü Yunanistan pek ufaktır adl ile muttasıf bir hükûmet olarak kesb-i şöhret etmiş değildir. İzmir’i memnûn edip etmeyeceğini bi't-tabi düvel-i İtilâfiye daha güzel takdîr ederler."
Ibid.
54
press.124 However, no matter how much was said, nothing could prepare me for what I was going to see in the articles of Alemdâr.
Apart from pointing out that the Ottomans had basically brought the occupation of İzmir onto themselves, the Alemdâr article went on to discuss that this event should be perceived as justly deserved due to the "ungratefulness" displayed towards the British. It was argued that the Entente Powers and especially the British Empire had never refrained from helping the Ottoman Empire. Hence, the occupation of İzmir was perceived as the "first retaliatory lash" on their part.125
So, to put it simply, Alemdâr's stance was that the Ottoman Empire had been ungrateful to an Allied Power that always tried to help them. The Greeks, on the other hand, had allied with the Entente Powers, hence ended up on the winning side. The Ottomans had signed the Mudros Armistice, granting any Allied Power the right to invade any strategic point in a situation that would threaten the security of the Allies. Thus, Greece, as part of the Allied Powers, had acted within its right.
It could be thought that the writer almost enjoyed the outcome of these events. However, things might be a bit more complicated than that. There is definitely a sense of bitterness that Refi' Cevad might feel for being sent off into exile by the Unionists, for what he believed was the proper way of acting during the World War I. That might have led to the general "deal with it" tone that could be felt throughout the article. However, he also argued in the article that "it is useless to become hopeless about İzmir."126 He stated that giving away overwhelmingly Turkish and Muslim territory, that is handing İzmir over to the Greeks at a time
124 Alpay Kabacalı. Türk Yayın Tarihi: Başlangıçtan Tanzimat'a Kadar. (İstanbul: Gazeteciler Cemiyeti, 1987); Füruzan Hüsrev Tökin. Basın Ansiklopedisi. (İstanbul: Kulen Basımevi, 1963).
125 Ibid.
126 Ibid.
55
"when the Wilson Principles are ruling the world" would endanger peace, but he did not have the emotional tone of the other newspapers. His writing was more matter-of-factly; - and it is as if he assessed the situation from a distance. It was stated that "we are not able to see what the outcome will be. We are neither too pessimistic to give up all hope, nor are we too optimistic to see the world as a rose garden."127
So, even though Refi' Cevad seemed to think that the occupation was an outcome of the wrongful policies of the Ottomans during the World War I, his argument was that these faults should be duly acknowledged, but should not lead to a feeling of desperation that the country is falling apart. He asked if it were not more appropriate to act like a nation "that came to its senses" rather than a nation that was "crippled up" due to the current state of affairs. So, even though he did not follow the same line of argumentation as the mainstream one, which argued the occupation was a disaster and completely unfair, he said that the Ottomans should keep a clear head and try to pull themselves together.
To sum up, within the scope of this thesis, a scrutiny of the initial reactions of the Ottoman İstanbul newspapers towards the occupation of İzmir reveals that the majority of the articles condemn the occupation as unacceptable. The reason for this, however, seems to stem from not the occupation itself, but rather the fact that it was the Greek army deployed for this mission. This shows that there was great concern that this might not be a temporary situation; and that this might be a handover of the area to the Greeks even though only İkdâm seems to directly state this. The other newspapers such as İleri and Hadisât protest the occupation; and point out that the majority of the population of İzmir was predominantly Turkish and Muslim. However, they seem to have a more hopeful tone that this situation would be set
127 "Bunun ne şekil alacağını kestiremiyoruz. Ne her şeyden kat’-ı ümid edecek derecede bedbîniz ne de kâinâtı gülistân görecek derecede nikbîniz."
Ibid.
56
right. Alemdâr, on the other hand, seems to reflect the opinion that the occupation is legitimate within the rights granted to the Allied Powers by the Mudros Armistice. However, it goes on to state that they do not believe that İzmir would be handed to the Greeks.
All the Ottoman newspapers within the scope of this thesis had -or seemed to have- a strong belief in the notion that Allied Powers would come to a just decision on the issue. They were described as "just," "merciful," "sagacious," and in the end, they would come to see that İzmir rightfully belonged to the Ottomans. On the other hand, the Greek state was belittled in all the newspapers. It was pointed again and again that Greece had not properly fought in the World War I, and they were seen as opportunists that tried to appropriate something that did not rightfully belong to them. One could argue that this attitude might stem from the Ottoman reluctance to see the Greeks as an appropriate interlocutor. The Great Britain, France, Italy, and even the United States were countries that had been rivals to the Ottoman Empire. However, there seems to be a feeling of having been equal rivals in a gentlemanly war, where losing did not really matter, but a fair fight did. However, it is not possible to know if the articles were sincere about this argument, or if they used this as a rhetorical tool to oppose the Allied Powers' decision to allow the Greek army to occupy İzmir.
At this point, Alemdâr seems to place a bit more confidence in the Allied Powers, especially the United Kingdom, in this regard pointing out that the Allied Powers would be a better judge to know whether Greece was the appropriate choice to occupy the city or not. Also, it rather focused on what the Ottomans had done wrong which resulted in the occupation; mainly being "ungrateful" to the British and allying with the Axis Powers.
57
We also see that only two days after the Greek occupation of İzmir, the Ottoman public started to voice its opposition, which found its expression in the newspapers. There are not many examples -yet- of the telegraphs in the newspapers, but from what had been reported, we can see that many people from all corners of the country opposed this decision. As time went by, it would be seen that the reaction of the public was reflected more in the newspapers; and they would not only limit themselves to writing telegraphs, but holding huge and multiple protests in İstanbul.
58
CHAPTER III
A NATION IN TURMOIL: PROTESTS IN İSTANBUL AGAINST THE OCCUPATION OF İZMİR BY THE GREEK FORCES
Following the occupation of İzmir by the Greek army, İstanbul hosted some of the most grandiose protest gatherings in its recent history. The reaction from the population started with meetings and relatively minor gatherings only to pick up speed to lead to a huge rally of thousands of people in Sultanahmet. In this chapter, I will talk about eight events: the gathering in Dârü'l-fünûn, the protest meeting in Fatih, the protest meeting in Üsküdar, and the four big protests in Sultanahmet, where the Ottomans had actively demonstrated their reaction to the occupation and their significance as portrayed.
The Gathering at Dârü'l-Fünûn (18 May 1919)
On 18 May 1919, the Dârü'l-fünûn conference hall hosted a gathering at around 11:30 to discuss the recent events in İzmir.128 This meeting seemed to be the first public gathering protesting the occupation of İzmir by the Greek forces reported in the newspapers.
Now, we are going to try to analyse and compare the coverage of this event by different newspapers. First of all, we see that only two of the newspapers within the scope of this thesis had an extensive report on this gathering. However, we see that İkdâm and Alemdâr also mentioned the event. Alemdâr only had a few words on the issue, incorporated within an article, which talked about the general reaction towards the news of the occupation. It was stated that: ''Thousands of youth who gathered in the Dârü'l-fünûn building have decided after intense arguments to send a
128 Kemal Arıburnu. Milli Mücadelede İstanbul Mitingleri, (Ankara: Yeni Matbaa, 1951), p. 5.
59
protest letter to the President of the United States instead of organizing a demonstration.''129
İkdâm had a short report on the panel entitled ''The Patriotic Feelings of the Young Students.'' It was stated that the Dârü'l-fünûn conference hall witnessed a historic demonstration where students from various faculties demonstrated a patriotic acclamation due to the occupation of İzmir by the Greek army. It is also noted that the students from the medical faculty refused to enter classes in protest, and the engineering and agriculture faculties and the Dârü'l-muâllimîn-i Âliyye (faculty of education) cancelled their classes.130 Even though there is not much detail about the protest or the speeches given at the event, we learn that the students protested it by not attending their classes. This information does not appear in any of the other newspapers.
We see that Sabâh has a much more enhanced coverage of the event in its 19 May 1919 issue. In the article titled ''Yesterday's National Protest: A Patriotic Gathering at Dârü'l-fünûn,'' the atmosphere of the conference is described as follows:
The conference hall was full. A deep sadness could be seen on our enlightened youth's face who were nervous and excited. Their eyes were full of sorrow and tears. At a time when the hearts and souls are bleeding with the suffering they have endured for years and disasters they have gone through, and at a time when power overshadows justice, the youth that stand up with all their being against the injustice that is tried to be inflicted on the innocent Turkish nation, the teachers and professors from all the departments and the students gathered in the Dârü'l-fünûn conference hall yesterday, and discussed the disastrousness and difficulty of the latest news; and they
129 ''Dârü'l-fünûn binasında tecemmü' eden binlerce genç hararetli münakaşalardan sonra miting akdi yerine Amerika reis-i cumhûruna protesto keşidesine karâr vermişlerdir.''
''İzmir Hadisesi Etrafında: Tezâhürat Her Tarafta Devam Ediyor,'' Alemdâr, Numero: 147-1457, 19 Şaban 1337 / 19 May 1919, p. 1.
130 "İzmir Hadisesinin İstanbul be Vilâyâtdaki Teessüratı: İstanbul Gençlerinin Dünkü Tezâhüratı,'' İkdâm, Numero: 8001, 18 Şaban 1337 / 19 May 1919, p. 1.
60
decided that necessary steps need to be taken in order for them to fulfil their duty.131
What is understood from this excerpt is that this protest meeting was attended by most of the faculty and students. Other than the highly dramatic discourse used specifically to incite feelings a couple of words pop out of the screen immediately. The language underlines that the protestors were educated, and that their sadness emanated from the fact that they were conscious of the predicament they were in. Moreover, we see that the general argument discussed in the first chapter concerning the interpretation of the occupation as ''might makes right'' is repeated within this context, too with the words ''power overshadows justice.'' If we bear in mind the arguments made against the Turks during the Paris Peace Conference discussed in the second chapter, the difference between how the Ottomans perceive and reflect themselves in the newspapers, and how they are perceived by the Allied Powers is a complete mirror image of one another. We see that the excerpt from the newspaper talked about an innocent Turkish nation that was being crushed by the unjust behaviour of the almighty. However, the discourse used in Europe at the time is very different where we have a British prime minister who thought the Turks are ''human cancer,''132 and an American Council-General to Smyrna who believed that ''…for a small and backward nation, like the Turks, to have committed such crimes against
131 "Büyük bir heyecân ve asabiyet içinde bulunan münevver gençlerimizin çehrelerinde derin bir eser-i elem nümâyân olunur, gözler matemli, yaşlar ile dolu bulunuyordu. Senelerden beri gördüğü acılar, çektiği felaketlerle kalb ve ruhları kanayan, hakkın kuvvete takaddüm ettiği iddia edilen bu devrede sırf masûm Türk milletine yapılmak istenen bu haksızlığa karşı bütün mevcûdiyetiyle ‘isyan eden gençler, bütün mekâtib-i âliye müderrisîn ve muallimîni ile talebe ve tâlibâtı dün Dârü'l-fünûn konferans salonunda ictimâ’ etmiş ve hadisât-ı ahirenin feca’at ve vehâmeti hakkında dûr-ı diraz müzâkere ederek uhdelerine terettüb eden veza’ifin ifâsı için lâzım gelen teşebbüsât-ı vataniyede bulunmasını kararlaştırmışlardır."
''Dünkü Tezâhürat-ı Milliye,'' Sabâh, Numero: 10600, 18 Şaban 1337 / 19 May 1919, p. 1.
132 Karl G. Larew. ''Great Britain and the Greco-Turkish War, 1919-1922,'' Historian, Vol: 35 No: 2 (February, 1973), p. 257.
61
civilization and the progress of the world, is a matter which should cause all conscientious people to pause and think.''133 There is such a big disproportionality between the understanding of who and what the Turks are between the two sides that it makes one wonder if they are actually talking about the same entity.
We also learn from the article that the head of the Medical School Akil Muhtar (Özden) explained that he would not be able to moderate the whole panel due to health issues, and left the stage to Besim Ömer Paşa (Akalın) who began his speech with a little introduction about the occupation, and suggested that the faculty say a few words on the topic. Faculty members such as Müslihiddin Adil Bey from the Faculty of Law gave a speech, in which he talked about the disasters that the country had faced and emphasised that İzmir was a Turkish city, and it would stay that way. He suggested that what should be done was to stand up to such injustice instead of falling into despair.134
According to the report, Rıza Tevfik (Bölükbaşı) took the stage afterwards, and suggested that things should be handled calmly and without violent outbursts. At the end of his speech, it was reported that he urged the students not to be overcome with emotion and follow the actions of their professors.135
Afterwards Akil Muhtar (Özden) of the Medical School and Yusuf Rıza Bey of the Engineering Department gave speeches that emphasised the Turkish character
133 George Horton. The Blight of Asia: An Account of the Systematic Extermination of Christian Populations by Mohammedans and of the Culpability of Certain Great Powers; with the True Story of the Burning of Smyrna, (Indiana: The Bobbs-Merrill Company, 1926), p. 3.
134 ''Dünkü Tezâhürat-ı Milliye,'' Sabâh, Numero: 10600, 18 Şaban 1337 / 19 May 1919, p. 1.
135 Ibid.
62
of İzmir, and that it would remain that way. Yusuf Rıza Bey also pointed out that Turks were ready to make the necessary sacrifices to keep İzmir as a Turkish city.136
The article also mentioned two students who gave speeches at the panel. One of them is reported to be a student from İzmir who talked about the deeds of İzmir's youth after the news of the occupation, and who ended his speech by stating that “all people of İzmir are aware of the holiness and importance of their duty and are ready to face anything.''137 The second student mentioned in the article is a female student who was reported to have said that ''as we are more emotional than men, we are probably more affected and more saddened by this incident. Hence we, the Turkish women, are going to do our share in this holy duty with all our being."138
As we are going to see later when we discuss the other protests against the occupation of İzmir, women take a very active role in these debates. However, it is interesting that the female student speaker mentioned the ''more emotional'' nature of women during her speech. As the World War I brought the concept of total war, populations as a whole started to become affected by it, and the support of women became highly important. It is also natural for individuals who are affected by crucial events to have a say. However, the including of the emotion argument feels like it might have been intended as a tool to convince the audience that a very male-only issue such as war affect women, because they are ''emotional creatures.''
In the conclusion of the article in Sabâh, we learn that at the end of the panel, a committee composed of Rıza Tevfik, İsmail Hakkı, Muslihiddin Adil and Na’im
136 Ibid.
137 ''Bütün İzmirliler vazifelerinin ‘ulviyet ve ehemmiyetini müdrik olarak her şeyi göze aldırmıştır.''
Ibid.
138 ''Hassasiyet nokta-i nazârından erkeklere daha mütefevvik olduğumuzdan bu son hadisât karşısında belki onlardan daha fazla müte’eesir ve mey’ûsuz. Bunun için biz Türk kadınları bu ulvi vazife uğrunda hissemize terettüb eden vazifeyi bütün mevcûdiyetimizle ifâ edeceğiz.''
''Dünkü Tezâhürat-ı Milliye,'' Sabâh, Numero: 10600, 18 Şaban 1337 / 19 May 1919, p. 1.
QuickTime™ and a decompressorare needed to see this picture.
63
Beys wrote a deed of protest signed by the professors and the students to be presented to the Allied Powers' representatives.139
İleri also has an elaborate article on the event at Dârü'l-fünûn. The article is titled ''Gathering at Dârü'l-fünûn – The Youth Feels [the weight of] Its Responsibility.''140 The article began with stating that all the Muslim shops were closed down. Theatres, cinemas and Mekâtib-i Âliyye were also reported to be shut down. It was reported that thousands of students had gathered in Dârü'l-fünûn. The article mentioned that Müslihiddin Adil Bey pointed out in his speech that the Ottomans were never faced with such a saddening event in their entire lives; and that an important part of Anatolia was handed over to a country ''that has been our arch-nemesis for hundreds of years;"141 and he suggested to the youth of Dârü'l-fünûn to work with all their patriotism for the achievement of national solidarity.
The article in İleri also mentioned the speech given by Rıza Tevfik Bey. It reported that after pointing out the serious negative propaganda about the Turks in Europe, he said that he hoped the truth would come out sooner or later. There was also an excerpt from his speech, which is as follows: ''We are the owners of this country. We built these mosques. When we took İstanbul from the Palaeologus, there was nothing except for the Sarayburnu and the area around Fener. We have given life to this giant city. Let us not endanger our right to this city with unnecessary overreactions.''142
139 Ibid.
140 "Türkler İzmir'i Unutamaz - Gençlik Vazifesini Hissediyor,'' İleri, Numero: 491-109, 19 Şaban 1337 / 19 May 1919, pp. 1-2.
141 ''…asırlardan beri hasm-ı canımız olan bir millete verilmesi…''
Ibid.
142 "Bu memleketin sahibi biziz, bu camileri biz yaptık. İstanbul'u biz Paleoloğlar'ından aldığımız zaman bir Sarayburnu bir de Fener tarafları vardı. Bu koca şehri biz vücûda getirdik. Bî-lüzûm taşkınlıklarımızla bu hakkımızı tehlikeye düşürmeyelim.''
64
Although Sabâh gave a summary of Rıza Tevfik's (Bölükbaşı) ideas in general, we are able to get a glimpse of the actual speech in İleri. This paragraph by Rıza Tevfik is very telling for a number of reasons. First of all, he refuted the argument by the Greeks that the Modern Greek state was the heir of Byzantine Empire, which was supposed to justify their the occupation of İzmir. He did not refer to the Byzantine Empire itself, but just to the royal family of Palaeolugus that ruled the Byzantine Empire at the time of its conquest by the Ottomans. He did not even mention a Byzantine state that could be used as a link to an ethnicity, but directly referred to a single family. Furthermore, according to Rıza Tevfik, İstanbul as it was known at the time was created by the Ottomans themselves. As far as he was concerned, there was nothing but a palace and some settlements around the Fener area during the time of the conquest of İstanbul. His words also pointed out that there was a real fear that İstanbul might be next in line. İzmir was handed over to the control of the Greek army based on the Seventh Article of the Mudros Armistice, even though there was no substantial danger to any of the Allies in the city. So, Rıza Tevfik warned people not to give the Allies a reason to justify the occupation of İstanbul by overreacting to the Greek occupation of İzmir.
One cannot be sure if Rıza Tevfik warned against an Allied invasion of the city, or an Allied approved Greek invasion like in the case of İzmir. Yet, it could be said that even though İzmir had been under the Ottoman rule before İstanbul was conquered and was inhabited by Turks for hundreds of years, it did not stop the Allied forces from consenting to a Greek landing. Even if the claims on İstanbul by the Greek state might be perceived as ridiculous, the occupation of İzmir clearly showed that these assertions could very well turn into a reality. As painful as it must
Ibid.
65
have been to see İzmir occupied, if the same event took place in İstanbul, it would mean a deadly blow straight to the heart of the Ottoman Empire.
Rıza Tevfik might not be the first man that comes to mind when we talk about patriotism in the Ottoman context. We have no way of knowing if his words stem from a wish to appease a resistance or not. However, given that the Greek army was allowed to occupy İzmir at the whim of Lloyd George, Wilson and Clemenceau, and that it became obvious the articles in Mudros Armistice were abused by the Allied Forces, he seems to raise a fair point.
So, in conclusion, the gathering in Dârü'l-fünûn was the first large scale gathering that was organized by the Ottoman public two days after the news of the occupation of İzmir hit the news-stands. What we understand from the reports is that members from various faculties endorsed this act and that university students were active participants. The general discourse of the speakers is similar to the ones that we have seen in our analysis of the articles published on the newspapers of 16 and 17 May 1919. The occupation was condemned as unjust by the speakers; and it is repeated that İzmir was a Turkish city. It is pointed out that the Turkish nation was willing to make the necessary sacrifices to take the city back. It should be noted that the newspapers mostly gave summaries of the speeches rather than the minutes, so we cannot be exactly sure if different discourses came up during the discussions. Yet, there are still interesting aspects that show us a different side of the struggle against the occupation from the editorials of the newspapers.
For instance, the fact that the first protest gathering took place at a university is also interesting. First of all, there is, of course, the physical convenience -as the students and the staff gathered at a certain place as part of their daily routine in the first place. Yet, it is pointed out repeatedly both by the newspapers and the speakers
66
themselves ''the youth'' played a crucial role in this struggle. İkdâm calls the report ''The Patriotic Feelings of the Young Students,'' and İleri ''The Youth Feels [the weight of] Its Responsibility.'' The second title is especially telling of the fact that this reaction was expected from the youth of the nation. They were not just reacting, but they were supposed to act out against the occupation that deeply affected the society.
The reports on this event also let us see a glimpse of the Ottoman women in relation to this issue. Even though there seems to be only a token sample, we see that women were an integral part of the debate. As we look at the other public gatherings, it is going to be evident that the Ottoman women became a bigger part of the opposition against the occupation.
The Gathering in Fatih (19 May 1919)
The second protest against the occupation of İzmir by the Greek forces took place on 19 May 1919 in Fatih. With the exception of Alemdâr, all the newspapers within the scope of this thesis had extensive coverage of the event, including the transcripts of the speeches. There are, of course, some differences among the texts, which is not surprising given that the speeches were not recorded on tape. Even though these differences are mostly minimal, in cases where there are substantial differences between the reports of the same speech by different newspapers, they are going to be duly noted.
If we look at the report in Alemdâr on 20 May 1919, it was stated that the crowd gathered in front of the municipality building in Fatih at three o'clock. The speakers were Hâlide Edip (Adıvar), Salâhaddin Âli, Hüseyin Râgıp (Baydur),
67
Müslihiddin Adil (Taylan), and two students from the Dârü'l-fünûn Philosophy Department, Tahsin Fazıl Bey and Meliha Hanım.143 The newspaper did not go into much detail either about the description of the protest, or the speeches themselves. Also, no other newspaper mentioned Müslihiddin Adil Bey giving a speech in the Fatih protest. Instead, Doctor Sabit Bey, who was reported to be one of the speakers by the other newspapers in the gathering, was not mentioned in the short coverage of Alemdâr.
It should be noted that there are a few inconsistencies among the five newspapers that we are dealing with when it comes to the speakers. In Sabâh, Salâhaddin Âli Bey's speech is reported before Hâlide Edip's. Also Hüseyin Râgıp's name is written as Hüseyin ''Rauf'' which seems to be a typo as none of the other newspapers referred to him as ''Rauf.'' Kemal Arıburnu's work on the protests names the speaker Hüseyin Râgıp, too.144 There are also some differences between the sequencing of the speakers. For instance, İleri and Hadisât reported Tahsin Fazıl Bey as the third speaker, whereas in İkdâm and Alemdâr, he is reported as the last speaker.
The coverage of the protest in İleri began by informing its readers about the protest in Fatih with the article ''The National Protest at the Sublime Porte.''145 The subtitle stated thirty thousand women and forty-five thousand men gathered at the site. However, a few paragraphs later, the number of the gatherers was reported to be ''twenty thousand women and fifty thousand men.''146
The general description of the event according to İleri is as follows:
143 ''Dünkü Miting.'' Alemdâr, Numero: 147-1458, 20 Şaban 1337 / 20 May 1919, p.2.
144 Kemal Arıburnu. Milli Mücadelede İstanbul Mitingleri. (Ankara: Yeni Matbaa, 1951), pp. 15-16.
145 ''Pay-i Tahttaki Tezâhürat-ı Milliye,'' İleri, Numero: 492-110, 20 Şaban 1337 / 20 May 1919, p. 1.
146 Ibid.
68
With a dignified calmness that is only reserved for Turks, people who started to gather at the municipal square since the afternoon created such a huge gathering and one mission in mind with a grandness that was appreciated even by the foreigners who were present. They have declared their willingness to show to humanity and civilisation in a good-natured manner their aim of saving the motherland, proving the unity of Turkishness with the motherland and the fire of patriotism that boils in the souls with kindness, righteousness and a sobriety that is only reserved for Turks.147
Here, we can clearly see how the newspaper perceived and chose to reflect Turkishness. The crowd is reported to display a dignified calmness and sobriety in a way ''that is only reserved for Turks.'' The crowd is perseverant and determined. They are described as one in body and mind. The language is overly dramatic, portraying a hurting crowd that manages to stay gracious and civil.
The description of the event by Hadisât was much more dramatic and detailed than the one in İleri. We see that the newspaper tried to start the report by describing the environment in more detail much like a newscaster in a rally would do on television, which brought out the human character of the massive gathering in their article entitled “Yesterday, İstanbul Struggled for İzmir.'' The article began to depict the suffering caused by the occupation of İzmir which was described as transcending all differences within the community, and that the news of a gathering in Fatih that travelled through word of mouth was a huge relief to all:148
A national unity: This news [of the gathering] was a huge relief. Since the early morning the good thinkers, enlightened and intelligent people of the nation jumped out of their beds and ran off to inform others about the
147 "Türklüğe has bir vakar-ı sekinet ile zevâlden itibâren dâire-i belediye meydanında toplanmaya başlayan halk nihayet saat üç buçuk raddelerinde yek-vücûd ve yek-emel bir kitle halinde o kadar kesâfet kesb etmişti ki yalnız bu manzara bile hiçbir hisse tabi olmaksızın Türkler'in böyle millî ve muhteşem bir ictima'ını orada hâzır bulunan ecânibin bile mazhar-ı takdîri olan bir ulviyetle yalnız bir gayeyi, vatanı tahlîs, Türklüğün memlekete olan merbûtiyyetini isbât ve ruhunda kaynayan ateş-i hamiyyeti kibarlıkla, nezâhetle, ve yalnız Türklüğe has ağır başlılıkla âlem-i insaniyet ve medeniyete göstermek gâyesini istihdâf eylediğini nebîl bir tarz ile teslîm ettirmiştir."
Ibid.
148 ''İstanbul Dün İzmir İçin Çırpındı,'' Hadîsât, Numero: 140, 20 Şaban 1337 / 20 May 1919, p. 1.
69
gathering. In the afternoon there was an impressive sight in the streets of İstanbul. Shops were closed down and the owners were waiting on the sidewalks with others. All faces exhibited a nervousness that is peculiar to extraordinary days. Everyone had the consolation that despite all the suffering that has harmed the national spirit, they were coming together as one.149
Hadisât also included a small anecdote about two people who talked about the event sub-titled ''Spirit of the People'':
Younger and shorn moustached one: Ahmed Efendi, there is a gathering in Fatih. Are you going to go? Older and hoary moustached one: What do you mean, are you going to go? On a day like this, if you or I do not go, who will? I will work until God does not leave a drop of blood left in this old body of mine and we will overcome this. We have been wretched one way or the other.150
It was described that around 2:30, hundreds and thousands of people were making their way to Fatih; and the students from Dârü'l-fünûn started making their way to the area of the gathering. From the report, we understand that the municipality was surrounded by thousands, and black flags were hung on the building's balcony.151
Hadisât also had a few words to say about the women who attended the gathering that day. It was stated that: ''We are especially delighted to let our readers know that about half the attendants of the protest were women. Those were the
149 ''Millet bir kitle-i vâhide: Bu haber pek büyük bir teselli idi. Sabahleyin erkenden memleketin iyi düşünen, münevver ve fatîn zümresi yataklarından fırlamış ve bütün tanıdıklarını ictimâ'dan haberdâr etmeğe koşmuşdu. Öğleden sonra İstanbul caddelerinde cidden müessir bir manzara vardı. Esnâf, dükkânlarının kepenklerini indirmiş, ahâli ile birlikte kaldırımlar üzerinde bekliyordu. Bütün simalarda fevkalade günlere mahsûs bir heyecan eseri görülüyordu. Herkesde, ruh-ı millîyi rencide eden bunca felaketlere rağmen milletin bir kitle-i vâhide halinde toplanmağa karar verdiği bir gün olmak itibâriyle bir teselli hissi vardı.''
Ibid.
150 ''Biraz genç ve kırpık bıyıklısı: Ahmed Efendi, Fatih’de toplanacaklarmış. Sen gideceğin mi?
Biraz ihtiyarca ve kıranta bıyıklısı: Gideceğin mi ne demek? Böyle günde sen ben gitmezsek kim gidecek? Evvel Allah şu ihtiyar vücûdumda bir damla kan bırakmayıncaya kadar didinir, bu işin altından kalkarız. Öyle de perişan olduk, böyle de!''
Ibid.
151 Ibid.
70
respected, distinguished mothers and sisters of ours.''152 There was also a separate paragraph in the article sub-titled ''Our Women.'' It was reported that they were ''appreciating their duty as much as men, if not more,'' and making their way to the protest site. We also learn that the female students of Dârü'l-fünûn wore pins that said ''İzmir is in our hearts.''153
Here we can see that there is a special focus on the women who attended the conference. The newspaper shared with its readers the involvement of women in the protest as good news, and praised ''the mothers and sisters'' for their attendance. It was also pointed out that these women understand what their responsibilities are. The comparison between women and men in relation to ''appreciating their duty'' is telling, as if women were supposed to be less aware of this national duty, yet they prove the newspaper wrong, hence their attendance is pointed out specifically as happy news.
This is all very nice, but the singling out women makes one think that this kind of attitude was not expected from women in the first place. It is like praising a naughty child when she behaves properly, in order to give her positive encouragement and make sure she continues to behave. Even though the words of admiration in the newspapers are meant to be sincere, they are still very patronising as it assumed that the women of the Ottoman Empire would do anything for their country in this time of need.
Sabâh's report on the protest in Fatih began with the gathering in Dârü'l-fünûn:
152 ''Bilhassa şunu karîlerimize kemâl-i memnûniyetle haber verelim ki mitinge iştirâk edenlerin hemen nısfını kadınlarımız, o muhterem, güzide, sevgili validelerimiz, hemşirelerimiz teşkîl ediyordu.''
Ibid.
153 ''İzmir kalbimizdedir!''
Ibid.
71
In Dârü'l-fünûn that has seen many nationalist protests and has had many hours full of tension, a huge activity began the day before. The youth of Dârü'l-fünûn who carried the sufferings of the last years and shed tears of sadness were once again running to carry out the very noble and holy duty for their motherland with the excitement that overflowed from their hearts and the will to protect their nation that rose from their souls.154
The emphasis on the participation of the students of Dârü'l-fünûn by the newspapers in these protests should be noted. Sabâh talked about these students in a very praising manner, putting a special emphasis on the female students: ''The distinguished and righteously proud female students of the Dârü'l-fünûn were accompanying the male students who had the mourning pins on their collars.''155 As it was discussed in the former chapter concerning the protest at Dârü'l-fünûn, the notion that the students were aware of their national duty at this time of crisis is constantly stressed upon.
When we look at the reports of speeches we see that unlike Alemdâr, İleri provided us with the transcript of the speeches that were delivered that day. The first speech that was reported by İleri is by Hâlide Edip (Adıvar). She began her address by stating that there was a horrible and endless night, but in the end, it would be torn apart and a bright morning will be created.156 The next paragraph in her speech is rather worthy of note: ''As our bright and majestic past has luminous days, our
154 ''Şimdiye kadar bir çok tezâhürat-ı milliyeye sahne olmuş, bir çok heyecankâr saatler yaşamış olan Dârü'l-fünûn'umuzda dün daha öğleden evvel büyük fa’aliyetler başlamışdı. Yüreklerinden son senelerin âlâm ve ıztırabâtını taşıyan, gözlerinden matemli yaşlar akıtan, Dârü'l-fünûn gençleri yine kalblerinden taşan heyecan, ruhlarından yükselen asabiyet-i milliye ile bugün uhdelerine terettüb eden pek ulvi ve pek mukaddes bir vazifenin, bir vazife-yi vataniyenin ifâsına koşuyorlardı.''
''Dünkü Miting,'' Sabâh, Numero: 10601, 19 Şaban 1337 / 20 May 1919, p. 1.
155 ''Yakalarına iliştirdikleri matem rozetleriyle izhâr-i faaliyet eyleyen talebeye vücûdlarıyla bi-hakkın iftihâr eden Dârü'l-fünûn'umuzun güzide talebâtı da iştirâk ediyordu.''
Ibid.
156 "Pay-i Tahttaki Tezâhürat-ı Milliye,'' İleri, Numero: 492-110, 20 Şaban 1337 / 20 May 1919, p. 1.
72
country also has sins. But brothers, such boiling blood has flown over these small sins that not only would they wash away our sins, but the sins of the whole world.''157
It is not exactly obvious which sins Hâlide Edip was talking about here. On the other hand, the acknowledgement that the Ottoman Empire was not completely devoid of any wrong-doing is interesting. Even though she stated that the suffering endured was enough to wash away "the sins of the whole word," which sounds like white-washing, one cannot be absolutely sure as she did not necessarily specify what these sins were. Still, it is a change from the general tone of the newspapers discussed in Chapter II, where the Ottomans are the absolute victims.
It should also be noted that religious discourse seems to constitute a very important part of her speech:
Today, we do not have cannons and bullets in our hands. Yet we have a weapon much more powerful. And that is our faith. Women, may the creator of all people, our great God bear witness that this faith of ours have a flame so powerful and so bright that will stand against any cannonball or the fire of oppression.158
This reminds one very much of the "Ulusun, korkma nasıl böyle bir imanı boğar / Medeniyet dediğin tek dişi kalmış canavar" rhetoric. All this obviously would be very romantic if it was delivered after the War of Independence was won to fire up a crowd at a celebration. However, given the circumstances the country is in on 19 May 1919 when the speech is delivered by Hâlide Edip, it seems desperate and naïve. Needless to say, it is also the very same day that Mustafa Kemal and his fellow commanders landed in Samsun. It is acknowledged that the country is devoid
157 ''Pür-şân u şevket mazimizin en parlak günleri olduğu gibi memleketimizin günâhları da vardır. Fakat kardeşler, bu pek ufak günâhlarımızın üzerine öyle ateşîn bir kan akmıştır ki, değil bizim günâhlarımızı, bütün dünyânın günâhlarını yıkamaya ve temizlemeye kâfidir.''
Ibid.
158 ''Bugün elimizde top, kurşun denilen alet yok. Fakat ondan büyük, ondan kuvvetli bir silâhımız var. O da imânımızdır. Hanımlar, bütün insanların hâlıki büyük Allah'ımız şahid olsun ki, bu imânımız bizi herhangi bir topun güllesine, herhangi bir zulmün ateşine karşı götürecek kadar kuvvetli ve ateşlidir.''
Ibid.
73
of any physical means to defend itself; and as it is mostly the case with desperate people, God remains to be the only refuge even though faith is yet to be proven as an effective Kevlar. Yet given that all was not lost just yet, one had to work with what one had; and being pessimistic about the whole issue was surely not going to help anyone. If we bear in mind that the Ottoman Empire had barely seen a proper time of peace since the Balkan Wars, and suffered a horrible defeat in World War I, the speech feels like it is trying to muster whatever strength the public had left through whatever means.
In the total of 396 words of Halide Edip reported in İleri, the word ''God'' (Allah, Hak) is invoked eight times, ''Muslim(s)'' three times, ''faith'' (imân) three times, and ''âlem-i İslâm'' once. This is a very different Hâlide Edip from her usual portrayal as the face and the model of the modern Turkish woman of modern secular Turkey. However, given that the average Ottoman attending the gathering is not a graduate of the American Academy for Girls or an Anglophone as well as a Francophone, the language seems fitting to the audience it targets. Hâlide Edip hereby utilising the common language that brings the Turkish element of the Ottomans together transfers the religious jargon and values to the nationalistic cause. It can be likened to the way that the Greek nationalists in the previous century employed the Greek Orthodox Church to amalgamate the Greek nation.
Hâlide Edip also mentioned the Ottoman women, their character and role in this very struggle. The portrait that was drawn in her speech was the altruistic female. The women that she addresses in her speech did not seem to be the type that takes matters into their own hands, but rather side-kicks to their men whom they will support unconditionally and indefinitely:
But we have self-sacrificing women and heroic men, and above all else our God… We trust our God against the will that tries to rob us of what is
74
rightfully ours and shout that we have strong women that will send men to face any disaster… If their men stand up for the love of the motherland, they will always see the Turkish women right behind them.159
However, the most striking sentence from the speech as it is reported in İleri is this: ''The Turkish woman seen here is not a woman. She has a strong (metîn) Turkish heart.''160 Bear in mind that traduttore, traditore; metîn is a word that connotes not only strength, but also endurance and firmness. With these words, it looks as if it is suggested that a woman represents the opposite of these qualities, and what seems to be admirable about the women who attended the protest is the fact that they are devoid of their femininity. That is how they can have a metîn Turkish heart. Furthermore, since the word metîn is used as part of an adjective complement defining the Turkish heart, it could also be argued that in order to possess it, one should be free of her femininity. It can be said that although there are many types of national movements, the nationalist discourse in general has an inherent misogynistic character, and it usually casts out everything feminine with the exception of motherhood while it treasures qualities such as masculinity and virility.
Hence, here it can be suggested that the strength of Turkish women’s hearts is so unnatural to their gender, it single-handedly exalts their existence to the ranks of their men. By making this point, Hâlide Edip, as a woman herself, might be trying to appease the suspicions of those men who would think a woman’s word is worth less than a man’s. Thus, Hâlide Edip sheds her femininity and describes herself and other Turkish women as strong as men in this war to gain national rights. To speak on the rights of the nation, the women here lose their right to speak as women.
159 ''Fakat bizim fedâkâr kadınlarımız, kahraman erkeklerimiz, her şeyden büyük Allah'ımız vardır… Biz gasb edilmek istenilen hakkımız karşısında Allah'ımıza güvenerek bağırıyoruz ki, erkekleri her hangi bir felâkete karşı sevk edecek kuvvetli kadınlarımız vardır... Erkekleri her hangi bir vatan aşkı için ileri atılırsa, Türk kadınlarını dâimâ arkasında görecektir.''
Ibid.
160 ''Burada görünen Türk kadını, kadın değildir. Onda metîn bir Türk yüreği vardır.''
Ibid.
75
If we look at the report of the speech in Sabâh, we see that it does not differ much from İleri except for the aforementioned sentence concerning women. In this version of the speech, we see what İleri reported as ''The Turkish woman seen here is not a woman. She has a strong (metîn) Turkish heart'' is given as ''Whoever walks away [from this] is not a Turkish woman.''161 And İkdâm reported the sentence as ''the women are not armed and they are weak. They are weak but very strong. All Muslims and Turks are your brothers. Whoever walks away [from this] is not a Turkish woman.''162
It seems like the mix-up of dönen and görünen is the main problem causing the difference between the reports. If we look at Kemal Arıburnu's work on the İstanbul Protests, we see that this sentence is the same in Sabâh and İkdâm. If İleri's account is the faulty one, which is highly likely, it is still telling that the reporter did not dismiss the sentence ''The Turkish woman seen here is not a woman.'' It could be argued that if the sentence was too absurd, the reporter would have dismissed it as a mishearing, yet the fact that it made it to the final cut of the report might suggest that this kind of an outlook towards women might not be all that bizarre.
We also see that Hâlide Edip used the rhetoric of pleading with the Ottoman sultan. She suggested that a committee should submit the wishes of the gathered crowd to the sultan; and she added: "We ask the sultan to be a father to us. Today, we
161 ''Dönen kadın, Türk kadını değildir.''
''Dünkü Miting,'' Sabâh, Numero: 10601, 19 Şaban 1337 / 20 May 1919, p. 2.
162 ''…kadınlar silahsız ve zayıfdır, zayıf fakat gayet kuvvetlidir. Bütün ‘âlem-i İslâm ve Türk hep kardeşindir. Bundan dönen, Türk kadını değildir.''
''Sevgili İzmir İçin İstanbul Müslümanlarının Dünkü Tezâhüratı,'' İkdâm, Numero: 8002, 19 Şaban 1337 / 20 May 1919, p. 1.
76
ask the sultan to employ a government that would save the nation’s rights and its future."163
Hâlide Edip voiced a concern about the competency of the current government, which was a sentiment voiced in the gathering at Dârü'l-fünûn and the newspapers discussed before. It seems that the government that was put together after the annexation of İzmir did not satisfy the public. As the people of the motherland are seen as the members of an extended family where everyone supposedly shares a bloodline to an extent, the sultan seems to be the father of the household here; and the children are in serious trouble to be asking him to help them out.
We see that Hâlide Edip's speech as reported in Hadisât is considerably shorter than in Sabâh, and the transcript of the speech does not differ in content from what is reported in the other newspapers. On the other hand, some of the crowd's reactions are noted by the newspaper: ''Today, we do not have guns in our hands. However, we do have our love of the motherland and our faith. (Sounds of Of course, Allah! General excitement.)''164
The second speaker of the day was Salâhaddin Bey. He began his speech by explaining why the Ottomans were not responsible for the beginning of World War I. His explanation is that the Ottomans entered the war in October-November
163 ''Biz padişahımızdan bize babalık etmesini ricâ ediyoruz. Bugün biz padişahımızdan milletin hukûk ve istikbâlini kurtaracak erkân-ı hükûmeti iş başına getirmesini istiyoruz.''
"Pay-i Tahttaki Tezâhürat-ı Milliye,'' İleri, Numero: 492-110, 20 Şaban 1337 / 20 May 1919, p. 1.
164 ''Bugün elimizde silahımız yok. Fakat hamiyetimiz, imânımız var. (Elbette, Allah sedaları, heyecân-ı umûmî).''
''İstanbul Dün İzmir İçin Çırpındı,'' Hadîsât, Numero: 140, 20 Şaban 1337 / 20 May 1919, p. 1.
77
(teşrînlerde) even though the war began in August.165 He claimed that the main reason why the Ottomans went to war was the Russian involvement:
It could not be suggested that the Turks should refrain from fighting against the Russians who have been trying to destroy our country for three centuries. Also, the people who were drafted to the army have never been heard to argue against the decision to go to war. We would like to stress this fact that everyone knows; the punishments which threaten the existence of the Turkish nation are not a natural outcome of our participation in the war.166
Salâhaddin Bey also mentioned the Fourteen Points in his speech and claimed that the Ottomans surrendered in relation to these principles:
We asked for an armistice due the peace programme that was announced by the president of the United States of America, Wilson in 1917 which has been welcomed by everyone. When we expressed this request [for an armistice] we knew what sacrifices and what guarantees the Twelfth Article would hold for us. We believed and trusted, and we still do, that the Great Powers who have approved the armistice based on these principles will implement what is guaranteed by this article. However, certain acts from time to time were seen in some parts of the country and lastly in İzmir, certain fait accompli were carried out which suggests that the Paris Conference is trying to be turned into a place where only these fait accompli are recorded. It is not possible for the spirit of the nation not to be offended by this despite all the articles of the armistice.167
165 "Pay-i Tahttaki Tezâhürat-ı Milliye,'' İleri, Numero: 492-110, 20 Şaban 1337 / 20 May 1919, pp. 1-2.
166 ''Devletimizin üç asırdan beri hayât-ı siyâsiyesine kasd eden çarlık Rusyası'na karşı harb etmekten Türk'ün imtina etmesi lazım geleceği iddia olunmazdı. Zaten daha evvel ve sonra harbe giren devletler de silah altına davet edilenlerin ilân-ı harb karârını münâkaşa ettiği görülmüş şey değildi. Herkesin bildiği şu hakîkatlerle şu neticeyi ifâde etmek istiyoruz ki Türk milletinin, millet sıfatıyla mevcûdiyetini tehdîd eden cezalar harbe duhûlümüzün netice-i tabiiyesi değildir.''
Ibid.
167 "Amerika hükûmât-ı müttehidesi reis-i fazl ve muhteremi Wilson tarafından 1917 senesinde ilân olunan ve her tarafta hüsn-i kabûle mazhar olan sulh programı dâiresinde tâlîb-i sulh olduk. Bu talebimizi ifâde ederken Wilson esâsât ve desâtir-i hukûkiyesinin on ikinci maddesinin bize ne fedakârlık tahmîl edeceğini ve hayât-ı siyâsiyemiz için ne gibi te'mînât ihtiva edeceğine vâkıf idik. Bu esâslar dâiresinde mütârekeyi tasvîb eden düvel-i fahîmenin hakkımızda bu maddenin tazammun edeceği taahhüdü tatbîk edeceklerine itimâd ve istinâd ediyorduk ve elân ediyoruz. Lakin vakit vakit memleketimizin bazı aksâmı ve nihâyet İzmir hakkında müstakbel için bazı emr-i vakiler ihdâs ederek belki de Paris Konferansı'na ancak emr-i vakileri kayd etmek vazifesini bırakmak isteyen bazı hareketler görüldü. Mütârekenin bütün mevâddına rağmen ruh-ı millînin bundan rencide olmaması kabil değildir."
Ibid.
78
The claim that the Fourteen Points of President Wilson were not properly implemented has been a rhetoric used by the newspapers as formerly discussed in the earlier chapters. Here, Salâhaddin Bey claimed that the reason the Ottomans asked for an armistice was due to the assurance that they received from these principles. It was also pointed out that the country was aware of the sacrifices it would have to make, as the principles guaranteed national sovereignty to any ethnicity that has the majority in a certain area. However, it seems that this calculated sacrifice did not include İzmir, which was perceived as an inherently Turkish city. Salâhaddin Bey also mentioned the Paris Peace Conference; and his fear seemed to be that the conference would just be a forum where the unlawful occupation would get an automatic seal of approval, and not a platform where participants of the war would get their just share. He also pointed out in his speech if the decisions of the peace conference were not based on the principles of justice, the whole system would implode on itself.168
Salâhaddin Bey further pointed out that it is the right of the Ottomans to assume that their national sovereignty should not be put in jeopardy at a time when ethnicities that had never founded a state now could find legitimate grounds to establish one:
At a time when abolished states are trying to be revived, or even groups that have not had an autonomous political presence are trying to gain independence, it is the right of our nation which has a state of seven hundred years to hope that the same kind of political murder that was carried out to the Kingdom of Poland one century ago will not be carried out against Turkey. It is our right to think that the example of the Congress of Vienna that separated people as if they were flocks of sheep will not be followed.169
168 Ibid.
169 ''Münkarız devletlerin ihyâsına ve hatta mürûr-ı a’sâr içinde müstakil bir mevcûdiyet-i siyâsiye geçirmemiş heyetlerin te'mîn-i istiklâline çalışdığı bir sırada yedi asırlık bir mevcûdiyet-i siyâsiyesi olan milletimiz, bir asır evvel Lehistan hakkında yapılan cinâyet-i siyâsiyenin Türkiye'ye karşı tatbîk
79
He also pointed out in his speech that the nations who had possessed the feeling of patriotism were revived from the dead and that ''our age is the age of nations.''170
Here, it is clearly pointed out that any action that would mean the destruction of the Ottoman Empire as a sovereign state is unacceptable and absurd, as this is an era when states that ceased to exist centuries ago are trying to re-emerge, or nations that did not previously have the right to self-governance are being formed. Even though Salâhaddin Bey stated in his talk that the Ottomans had ''the right to hope that the same kind of political murder'' would not be carried out, the reminder that it happened to the Kingdom of Poland insinuates that it could very well happen to the Ottoman Empire.
Hence, it seems to me that even though the passage has a reassuring language, it also points out a grave danger. However, he also calls attention to the fact that the old nations revive, and they live in an ''age of nations'' since the existence of a Turkish nation was indisputable in Salâhaddin Bey’s eyes, and that the sheer fact of living in a time when the nation-state started to be viewed as the natural way to govern might hopefully mean that they would not end up being severed like the Kingdom of Poland. He almost reminded the Great Powers of Europe that the Turkish people knew very well what the Europeans were capable of, but this would go against their principles and the spirit of the age.
He finished his speech by stating that the representatives of the Allied Powers in the city would be notified about the gathering, adding that:
In accordance with the logical outcome of their own principles, they will not refrain from communicating this civil protest and the feeling that surrounds it
edilemeyeceğini ümid etmekde haklıdırlar. Akvâmı koyun sürüleri gibi taksîm eden Viyana Konferansı'nın eserine ittiba' edilemeyeceğini zann etmek hakkımızdır."
Ibid.
170 Ibid.
80
to their governments. We are sure of our rights and that injustice does not last. We are saying this, as the Turkish nation that we believe this right is sacred. So much so that the word right (hakk) also means God.171
The report on Salâhaddin Bey's speech in Sabâh is almost identical to the one given in İleri. There are minor differences such as when İleri used the word teşrînlerde, Sabâh used teşrînde. But besides these small distinctions, the account of the speech is the same. Hence, reanalysing of the article in Sabâh does not give us a different picture than the İleri article, which is already discussed above.
If we look at the two other newspapers that are within the scope of this thesis, namely İkdâm and Hadisât, we see that they have a much more condensed and summarised version of Salâhaddin Bey's speech. The general points, however, remain the same. The responsibility for World War I is rejected; and it is pointed out that the country would be much better off if it had time to repair its wounds, rather than joining yet another war.172 The protest is offered as an example of the existence of a Turkish nation and spirit; and it is emphasised that if the Wilson Principles are properly followed, any action that resulted in the destruction of a Turkish nation would be in a direct violation of the Fourteen Points.173
The next speaker was Hüseyin Râgıp Bey; and he gave the most passionate speech of the gathering up to this point. The coverage in İleri reported his speech as follows:
171 ''Kendi prensiplerinin netâyic-i mantıkiyesine sadık olarak halkımızın şu edibâne tezâhüratı ile mazrûf olan hissiyatını hükûmet-i metbu'alarına bildirmekte kusûr etmezler, biz hakkımızdan ve haksızlığın bekâsı olmadığından eminiz. Türk milleti sıfatıyla söylüyoruz, bizce hakk pek mukaddestir. O kadar ki hakk kelimesi zât-ı kibriyayı da ifâde eder.''
Ibid.
172 ''İstanbul Dün İzmir İçin Çırpındı,'' Hadîsât, Numero: 140, 20 Şaban 1337 / 20 May 1919, p. 1; ''Sevgili İzmir İçin İstanbul Müslümanlarının Dünkü Tezâhüratı,'' İkdâm, Numero: 8002, 19 Şaban 1337 / 20 May 1919, p. 2.
173 Ibid.
81
My fellow townsmen, my brothers! İzmir's annexation to Greece is an inexplicable injustice. It is enough to look at the extraordinary protest that emanates from Anatolia, from the mountains of Ödemiş. (One line is censored.) The ones who want to swallow Aydın should know for certain that the will of the people will rip the throats of whoever wants to swallow them. Our door is open to the ones who want to leave our house and family (emphasis is mine). We cannot tolerate the tyranny of the ones who want to be our masters in our own house. The ones who want to throw us out deserve guns and blades (emphasis is mine)… The youth is going to paint the waters of İzmir red, in the name of our rights… The fate of İzmir cannot be decided upon four people's votes. First and foremost, the efes of İzmir must have the floor… Citizens, a few people gathering here and there cannot decide for nations. People are not sheep in this century.174
This speech is the most aggressive one of the protest. First of all, Hüseyin Râgıp used the very familiar ''love it or leave it'' argument by stating that if there were people who did not want to live under the Ottoman rule, they are more than welcome to go away. There were also blatant threats in his speech where he stated that anyone who wanted to throw the Ottomans out of their land deserved to be dealt with lethal force, adding that the waters of İzmir would run red if necessary. This, without any doubt, was a call for arms. It should be noted that some sentences of Hüseyin Râgıp Bey's speech in İleri had been censored; and it really makes one wonder if these were the sentences allowed to be printed, what was left to be censored.
He also pointed out in his speech that ''four people'' could not decide on the fate of a nation. I believe he was referring to the representatives of the Big Four whom he also belittlingly referred to as ''a few people meeting here and there.'' He
174 ''Hemşerilerim, kardeşlerim, İzmir'in Yunanistan'a ilhâkı hiç bir sûretle tefsîr edilemeyecek bir haksızlıktır. Anadolu içlerinden, Ödemiş Dağları'ndan feverân eden muhteşem tezâhürâtı seyretmek kafidir. (Bir satır sansür). Aydın'ı yutmak isteyenler emin olsunlar ki, oradaki azamet-i milliye onu yutmak isteyenlerin boğazlarını parçalar. Bizim evimizin ailemizin içinden çıkmak isteyenlere kapımız açıktır. Bizim evimizde bize efendi olmak isteyenlerin tahakkümüne tahammül edemeyiz. Bizi kovmak isteyenlerin hakkı tüfenkle satırdır... Gençler o sarih hakkımız uğrunda İzmir sularını al renklere boyayacaklardır... İzmir'in mukadderâtını dört kişinin reyi ta'yîn edemez, söz herkesten evvel İzmir efesinin hakkıdır. Vatandaşlar, öteden beri beride toplanan birkaç kişi milletler için karar veremezler. Milletler bu asırda koyun değildir.''
''Pay-i Tahttaki Tezâhürat-ı Milliye,'' İleri, Numero: 492-110, 20 Şaban 1337 / 20 May 1919, pp. 1-3.
82
stated that the people of İzmir should be the ones deciding on its future, because in his opinion, people were not sheep anymore. The use of this word catches one's attention, as the word reâyâ used to describe the subjects in the Ottoman context is also a synonym for sheep. Given that the speech was delivered within the context of a protest of the occupation of İzmir, it is a safe bet that his intention with the use of the word was to point out that those four people did not possess the right to decide for a huge population. Hence, it could be argued that he supported a democratic Ottoman state where the people should be the ones to determine their own fate and ''the four people'' could not be the legitimate decision-makers in affairs that was to affect the whole country.
The speech as reported in Hadisât had very little to do with what we see in İleri. Conceptually, it was very similar, but the text was much shorter in Hadisât. It should be noted that the speech appears to be four sentences in total –the first one simply being ''Dear citizens''- yet the rest of the speech had been censored; and a section that could fit another four sentences had been left blank by the newspaper. Considering that Hüseyin Râgıp Bey had a very aggressive speech, this is not surprising. On the other hand, it is curious that the report of İleri was not censored. Even if one assumed that İleri did get censored but did not choose to leave the area blank, it is unlikely, because during my transcriptions I saw many instances where censored parts of the newspaper were left visible due to the clear page, and also the text was longer and more coherent than it was in Hadisât. This could mean that the authorities either did not work very effectively and was overlooked some newspapers which escaped their wrath, or İleri was able to find a way to publish this material. Yet, given that the national opposition was at its very beginning, the former explanation might be more probable.
83
The Hadisât version of the speech includes a sentence that none of the newspapers reported on. Even though it is not in direct contradiction of what Hüseyin Râgıp Bey said, it simply does not exist in any other coverage: ''Seeing the martyred zeybeks' body is enough to prove that İzmir is Turkish. Efes are not a people that can be easily vanquished.''175 This might be a simple error on the journalist's part, in case he missed some parts of the speech for whatever reason and had to come up with something. Yet the next two sentences are almost identical to the report in İleri. Since we know that the newspaper had been censored, it might have been an attempt to soften the tone of the speech, but still squeezed the part mentioning efes and zeybeks in.
Sabâh seems to go with a completely different solution as it only reports a summary of the general points delivered in Hüseyin Râgıp Bey: ''Hüseyin Râgıp Bey said that the patriotism of Aydın could be likened to a sharp razor, the solemnity of the zeybek and the honour of the efe could only be reconciled by the Turkish rule…''176 Some parts of the 20 May 1919 issue of Sabâh seems to be censored, hence this might have been a smart way to report on the speech without getting it deleted.
İkdâm's report of the speech was almost completely different from all the other newspapers, yet it does not lose its striking edge:
I am neither going to stoop to benefit from the Wilson Principles nor am I going to give examples from history or ethnography to show that the people of İzmir are righteous and that İzmir belongs to the Turks and not the Greeks. Citizens, in order to understand how hard it would be to swallow İzmir, one
175 "İzmir’in Türk olduğunu isbât için zeybeğin şehid olan bedenini görmek yetişir, zeybek, efe kolay kolay mağlûb olur kimseler değildir."
''İstanbul Dün İzmir İçin Çırpındı,'' Hadîsât, Numero: 140, 20 Şaban 1337 / 20 May 1919, p. 1.
176 ''Hüseyin Râgıp Bey, aydın asabiyet-i milliyesinin keskin bir usturaya teşbîh edilebileceğini, zeybeğin vakarı, efenin izzet-i nefsi ancak Türk hakimiyeti ile kabil-i te'lîf olabileceğini beyân etmiş...''
''Dünkü Miting,'' Sabâh, Numero: 10601, 19 Şaban 1337 / 20 May 1919, p. 2.
84
look at our citizens, who are like pine blocks, and who follow their camels from Ödemiş to the Yemiş Pier would be enough. The efe of Aydın and his patriotism is such a razor that it will cut the throat of whomever wants to swallow it.177
We see that there are similar themes here also mentioned in the former reports, but this is the only coverage which includes the Wilson Principles and other rhetoric used to invalidate the legitimacy of the occupation of İzmir. Even though there Hâlide Edip and Salâhaddin Bey's speeches without a doubt support a strong opposition against the occupation, they both use a more politically correct way of getting their message across and argue within a framework determined by the Allied Powers; i.e. they use the Wilson Principles and claim that the decision of the occupation is against the rules set up by the Allied Powers themselves. Both in the other newspapers and in İkdâm, Hüseyin Râgıp Bey used a much more basic and daily language devoid of a diplomatic tone. Additionally, he had a sneering tone concerning the usage of such rhetoric as he uses the word stoop to define the act of defending and explaining the Turkishness of İzmir. As this is so very blatant to him, it seems like he regards a historical, political or an ethnographic defence of the Turkish rights over İzmir as useless and futile.
Hüseyin Râgıp had the most realistic argument and pointed out the ineffectiveness of pleading one's case with the same people that have everything to benefit from one's destruction. This is quite easy to say after all is said and done. It is true that the Ottoman Empire had lost a very crucial city; however, it still has more to
177 ''Ben İzmir halkının bütün dünyâda en çok haklı bir millet olduğunu ve İzmir'in Yunan malı olmayıp Türk malı olduğunu bildirmek içün ne Wilson Prensipleri'nden istifâdeye tenezzül edecek ne de tarihden etnoğrafyadan misaller getireceğim. Vatandaşlar, İzmir'in ne yutulmaz lokma olduğunu anlamak içün Ödemiş kazasından devesini önüne katarak Yemiş iskelesine gelen çam bölmesi gibi iri vatandaşlarımızı seyretmek kâfidir. Aydın efesi ve onun ‘asabiyet-i kavmiyesi öyle bir ustura mahiyetindedir ki onu yutmak isteyenlerin gırtlağını yırtar.''
''Sevgili İzmir İçin İstanbul Müslümanlarının Dünkü Tezâhüratı,'' İkdâm, Numero: 8002, 19 Şaban 1337 / 20 May 1919, p. 2.
85
lose. It should also be remembered that this protest takes place just three days after the news of the occupation was publicly announced by the newspapers. Even though the organisation of such a gathering in such a short time is remarkable, the idea that İzmir will not be given back no matter how well the Ottomans argue their case, and use the Fourteen Points or any demographic evidence they have still needs some time to sink in. It is evident from Hüseyin Râgıp Bey's speech that he has grasped that, as most others must have. However, saying this out loud and coming to grips with the fact that the country is faced yet again with a bloody battle before all political options are exhausted must have been difficult to accept.
The next speaker in the protest is Meliha Hanım, from the Philosophy Department of Dârü'l-fünûn as it was noted earlier. Her speech is not even mentioned in Sabâh, and the reports in the remaining three newspapers have quite different versions even though the themes are similar.
The speech as reported in Hadisât is as follows:
Citizens! When this great state is being dismantled, it should be done with such an uproar that the whole world should tremble with the sound and take it [the world] down with it. This noise will of course sadden us, women. Dying is nothing for us, nothing! But let us work for the future and die for this common goal. The rights that are taken by force will of course be returned.178
Meliha Hanım's speech as reported in İleri follows pretty much the same line of rhetoric: dying for the motherland and the triviality of death. On the other hand, the speech in İleri includes sentences that stress the importance of uniting as a country in this struggle even if it means that many sacrifices have to be made.179
178 ''Vatandaşlar! Bu büyük devlet yıkılırken öyle bir tarraka ile yıkılmalıdır ki bu gürültü bütün dünyâyı sarsmalı, beraberinde sürüklemelidir. Bu tarraka, bu gürültü, bu sarsıntı tabiatıyla biz kadınları da üzecekdir. Ölmek bizim için de hiçdir, hiç. Fakat ati için, istikbâl için çalışalım ve müttehid bir gâye uğrunda terk-i hayât edelim. Cebr ile alınan hak elbette iâde edilecekdir.''
''İstanbul Dün İzmir İçin Çırpındı," Hadîsât, Numero: 140, 20 Şaban 1337 / 20 May 1919, p. 1.
179 ''Pay-i Tahttaki Tezâhürat-ı Milliye,'' İleri, Numero: 492-110, 20 Şaban 1337 / 20 May 1919, p. 3.
86
The most extensive coverage of Meliha Hanım's speech can be found in İkdâm. The language of the speech as reported in İkdâm is much more dramatic and moving. There is one aspect that differs significantly from the other reports of the speech where Meliha Hanım talks about the role of the Ottoman women in this struggle:
But when this huge state is crumbling, it should go down so tumultuously that the sound of this strong and powerful building's cracking should shake all the world and all humanity. Under this rubble, not only the men of the nation but the women will also be crushed. Maybe their sensitive and fragile bodies will be more affected by this incredible disaster.180
Both Hâlide Edip and Meliha Hanım touched upon the role of women in this struggle. Yet, the language used both by Hâlide Edip and Meliha Hanım mentioned this fragile and sensitive woman. It is as if there are two separate and antithetical attributes they have. It is hard to understand the rationale behind the explanation as to how these sensitive women are also capable of this level of sacrifice and endurance, to the point that they do not fear death itself.
The next speaker at the protest was Tahsin Fazıl Bey of Dârü'l-fünûn Philosophy Department, who had a short but a very dramatic address. If we look at the coverage of his speech in the newspapers, we see that İleri and Hadisât has the almost exact transcript in print. The difference is, in İleri, he was reported as the third speaker in the protest, right after Salâhaddin Bey. Yet, all other newspapers put his speech afterwards. Even though İleri printed his speech after Salâhaddin Bey's, their introductory paragraph about the protest recounted him as the last speaker.
180 ''Fakat bu koca devlet yıkılırken öyle bir tarraka ile devrilmeli, öyle bir çatırdı ile devrilmelidir ki o metîn ve rasîn binanın çatırdısı bütün cihânı sarsmalı, bütün insâniyeti titretmelidir. Bu enkaz altında yalnız bu milletin erkekleri değil, kadınları da ezilecekdir. Hem belki de onların hassas ve narin vücûdları bu müdhiş felaket altında daha çok müteessir olacakdır.''
''Sevgili İzmir İçin İstanbul Müslümanlarının Dünkü Tezâhüratı,'' İkdâm, Numero: 8002, 19 Şaban 1337 / 20 May 1919, p. 2.
87
İkdâm's report of the speech seems to be the summarised version when compared to the aforementioned two newspapers. Also, Sabâh does not cover Tahsin Fazıl Bey's speech at all.
Tahsin Fazıl Bey's speech is shorter compared to the ones delivered by Hâlide Edip and Salâhaddin Ali, and closer to the rhetoric of the other speakers as it has a less politically correct and more intense language. It reads more like a wake-up call for the crowd to get them fired up:
Brothers! Our mosques, schools and all that we hold sacred that we bless in our hearts with deepest respect... Our dear İzmir... Everything, everything is being taken away from us in the name of a deceitful right and justice. We are being strangled. Our religion and honour is being trampled on. Turk! The rusty dagger that is tried to be buried into the sultanate of seven hundred years is calling you to your historical and national duty. You know very well that İzmir is the cradle, the bed and finally the grave of our Anatolia that has been moulded with the heroism and blood of our grandfathers. Today, an Anatolia without İzmir is a soulless corpse. The motherland waits for your calmness for today, and your life and action for tomorrow. Brother! Do not be saddened by the clamour of your enemies. And know what will bring your end will be your sorrow. Do not lose hope!181
This speech delivered by Tahsin Fazıl Bey did not go much into a political analysis of the situation. The language was much more direct and agitative, and it was aimed at stirring-up excitement in the crowd by touching on sensitive issues such as honour and religion. Even though the first two speeches touched on these issues, they involved more political arguments against the occupation.
181 "Kardeşler! Kalplerimizde pek derin hürmetlerle takdîs ettiğimiz camilerimiz, medreselerimiz ve bütün mukaddesâtımız... Sevgili İzmir'imiz hepsi, hepsi işte bugün yalancı bir hak ve adâlet nâmına elimizden alınıyor. Boğazlanıyoruz. Dinimiz, ırzımız, namûsumuz çiğneniyor, yaşamak hakkımız gasb ediliyor. Ey Türk! Yedi yüz yılllık saltanatın kalbine indirilmek istenilen paslı hançer seni, tarihî ve millî vazifene davet ediyor. Pekala bilirsiniz ki İzmir, dedelerinin kahramanlığıyla kanıyla, imânıyla yoğurulmuş Anadolu'muzun bir beşiği, bir yatağı ve nihâyet bir mezarıdır. Bugün İzmir'siz bir Anadolu ruhsuz bir cesettir. Vatan bugün için senden sükûnet, yarın için hayât ve hareket bekliyor. Kardeş! Bugün düşmanlarının yaygaralarından sakın kederlenme. Ve bil ki seni inkırâza sürükleyecek kederindir. Sakın bedbîn olma.''
''Pay-i Tahttaki Tezâhürat-ı Milliye,'' İleri, Numero: 492-110, 20 Şaban 1337 / 20 May 1919, pp. 1-3.
88
The next speaker of the protest was Doctor Sabit Bey. Sabâh only had a small summary of his speech where it was stated that ''Doctor Sabit Bey delivered a passionate speech which concluded that there was not an İzmir, or a Turk that would accept the Greek rule.''182 İleri, İkdâm and Hadisât had a more detailed account.
Although the length of the speech differs from newspaper to newspaper, there are no inconsistencies as far as the content is concerned. His speech also had elements of warnings and threats as we saw in Hüseyin Râgıp Bey, where he stated that ''if the Turks' rights are not taken into account, Turks will clean up this injustice and murders with their own blood''183 and that ''death is nothing to us. The Turks can kill himself with his own weapon, but he will not die and İzmir will not belong to the Greeks.''184
The rhetoric of the speeches that started out in a more level-headed and discussing manner seems to have completely changed to an aggressive tone, or even passive-aggressive one. One cannot be entirely sure how beneficial it would be for the Turks to kill themselves with their own weapon, yet, the emphasis is more on the assertion that the Turks were not afraid to die so much so that they can even take their own life.
Doctor Sabit Bey delivered the last speech of the day. Afterwards, Salâhaddin Âli took the stage for a second time for the conclusion of the protest. This is the only place where we get detailed information about the protest from Alemdâr. The newspaper reported that two main points were declared by Salâhaddin Ali at the end of the gathering:
182 ''Dünkü Miting,'' Sabâh, Numero: 10601, 19 Şaban 1337 / 20 May 1919, p. 2.
183 ''Sevgili İzmir İçin İstanbul Müslümanlarının Dünkü Tezâhüratı,'' İkdâm, Numero: 8002, 19 Şaban 1337 / 20 May 1919, p. 2.
184 ''Pay-i Tahttaki Tezâhürat-ı Milliye,'' İleri, Numero: 492-110, 20 Şaban 1337 / 20 May 1919, p. 3.
89
1- Now do you want us to choose a committee and proclaim to the sultan about our gathering and protest here, and use this opportunity to ask that a more competent government is brought to power that understands the needs of the people and the country?
2- Do you also want that we proclaim our gathering and decisions here to the representatives of the Allied Powers in our city and that we approach the United States as it is impartial and also it is a country far away and as we are not at war with the United states? Alright then! (Aye, aye!)185
Afterwards, according to Alemdâr, the crowd was reported to have declared that they would die for the motherland if need be. According to the article, towards the end of the protest Hâlide Edip (Adıvar) returned to the balcony where the speeches were delivered; and she thanked the crowd. After a public prayer, the protest came to an end.186
It is interesting to see that the concluding speech of the gathering that was delivered by Salâhaddin Âli who pointed out that there is a discontent about the existing government in relation to their actions concerning the Greek occupation of İzmir. Here, it would be appropriate to mention that due to the occupation of İzmir by the Greek forces, the Ottoman government resigned and the news was reported in the press on 17 May 1919.187 However, Ferid Paşa who had been the head of the former government was given the task of forming a new one. Hence, the words of Salâhaddin Âli that expressed a wish for ''a more competent government… that understands the needs of the people and the country'' were a clear indication that the
185 ''1- Şimdi istiyor musunuz ki buradan bir hey'et intihâb edelim ve zât-ı hazret-i padişâhiye buradaki ictimâ'mızı ve tezâhüratımızı ve bu vesile ile de milletin ve memleketin ihtiyâcını müdrik ve daha ehil bir kabinenin mevki'-i iktidâra getirilmesini arz edelim?
2- Yine istiyor musunuz ki şehrimizde bulunan düvel-i İtilâfiye mümessillerine buradaki ictimâ'mızı ve mukarrerâtımızı beyân edelim ve bi'l-hassa gerek bi-taraflığı, gerek memâlik-i baidede bulunması ve gerekse bizim Amerika ile hâl-i harbde olmadığımızdan dolayı Amerika millet-i devleti nezdinde teşebbüste bulunalım? Hay, hay!"
''Dünkü Miting,'' Alemdâr, Numero: 147-1458, 20 Şaban 1337 / 20 May 1919, p. 2.
186 Ibid.
187 ''Kabinenin İstifâsı,'' Sabâh, Numero: 10598, 16 Şaban 1337 / 17 May 1919; Mim. Re. "Heyet-i Vükela Dün İstifâ Etmişlerdir," İleri, Numero: 479-108, 17 Şaban 1337 / 17 May 1919, p. 1.
90
public was not happy with the officials who were in charge of the affairs. We can also see that the editorial of İleri on 20 May 1919 confirmed that the new cabinet is highly criticised:
But, unfortunately a government that could be helpful to appreciate and enforce the work of the nation is still not formed. Just three days after the former government faced a difficult situation due to the occupation of a rich area of the holy motherland and announced that they had to resign; we cannot find much meaning in the fact that the same people with only a few changes occupy the government and try to manage the will of the people… We repeat again that the members of the cabinet who should be representing the unity of the people must be chosen from amongst active and cautious people, and from amongst distinguished and exceptional faces.188
The second part of Salâhaddin Âli's speech as reported in Alemdâr pointed out something rather interesting. He did mention that the representatives of the Allied Powers should be contacted about the gathering. However, he especially emphasised that the United States should be contacted because they were, in his own words, ''impartial,'' and because the Ottomans had never been at war with them. As it was discussed in the chapter concerning the first reactions to the occupation of İzmir, the articles in the newspapers considered pleading their case with the Allied Powers; and some of the telegraphs sent to various representatives of the Allied forces to communicate the discontent of the Ottomans in relation to the occupation of İzmir were published in the newspapers. However, none of the newspapers had a discourse where they singled out the United States as an impartial state as they addressed the Allied Powers in general. The Wilson Principles and the wish that they would be upheld was a common sentiment; however, the United States was never specifically
188 "Fakat va esefâ ki hâlen amel-i milliyenin tervîc ve tatbîkine hâdim olacak mahiyatte bir hey'et-i vükelâ teşekkül edememiştir. Mübârek vatanın bir kıta-ı feyyâzı gasb edildiğinden dolayı bir vaziyyet-i müşkilede kalan sâbık hükûmet istifâ etmeye mecbûr kaldığını ilân ettikten üç gün sonra pek az bir tebeddül ile aynı zevâtın makam-ı hükûmeti işgâl edip mukadderât-ı milleti tedvîre kalkışmasına doğrusu mana vermekten izhâr-ı acz ediyoruz… İttihâd-ı milliyi irâe edecek bir mahiyette olması lazım gelen kabinenin a’zâsı -yine tekrar ediyoruz- faâl ve müdebbir bir zevâttan, güzide ve müstesna simâlardan teşekkül edilmelidir."
İleri, Numero: 492-110, 20 Şaban 1337 / 20 May 1919.
91
addressed as a neutral state. This new reaction in the reports of the protests conveyed the need to convince the United States of the rightful cause of the Ottomans. It can be argued that perhaps this is the outcome of the shock and awe the Ottomans lived through in the short period of time after the occupation of İzmir. After the wishful thinking that the Allied Powers would hold true to their own principles proves erroneous, neither the intellectuals nor the protestors had the courage or maybe the nerve to actually believe that they had the power to stop the occupation by themselves. What they needed in fact to convince a great power like the United States to take up the defence of the now-fallen Ottomans and protect them from being obliterated.
Hence, it could be argued that even though the Allied Powers are called upon to act against the injustice of the occupation, this might have been just to keep up appearances. The Allied Powers such as Britain and France, the two countries of the Big Three, did fight actively against the Ottoman Empire during World War I, and assisted the occupation of İzmir by the Greeks. The United States, on the other hand, had no direct conflict with the Ottomans, and could be the weakest link that the Ottomans could use to their own advantage. This is apparently acknowledged by Salâhaddin Âli who emphasised the need to plea their protest of the occupation with the American authorities.
In İleri, we are informed that in his second appearance on the stage, Salâhaddin Bey informed the crowd that the decisions taken that day would be conveyed to the sultan; the representatives of the Allied Powers would be sent the decisions in written form. It is also added that the American public will be sent a proclamation as ''we were not at war with them.''189 It is reported that the crowd
189 ''Gün Geçirmeyelim,'' İleri, Numero: 492-110, 20 Şaban 1337 / 20 May 1919, p. 2.
92
started to disperse after a ''loud and mournful'' prayer was recited; and the declaration to the sultan was sent with a convoy of five men and five women.190
İkdâm has a very short paragraph on the conclusion of the gathering where we are informed that the Dârü'l-fünûn students and the representatives of women's organisations gathered in Dârü'l-fünûn after the protest ended; and a committee of three people were chosen to draft the proclamation which was to be presented to the sultan.191
Hadisât's report of the conclusion of the gathering paints a more dramatic picture stating that ''there was not a single person who had not cried. Everyone felt the importance of the overwhelming and tragic moments that they had lived and could not hold back their tears.''192
In Hadisât, Hâlide Edip is the one noted to address the crowd at the end; thanking them for their participation in the protest, and stating that a committee would be sent to the sultan to deliver the message of the protest.193 It is also stated that she asked the crowd if they approved sending a proclamation to the Americans regarding the wishes expressed in the gathering. The crowd's reaction was reported to be: ''sounds of aye aye, strongly and in unity.''194
The public prayer was reported to be led by a Hacı Ali Şevket; and afterwards a group went over to the Dârü'l-fünûn where five men and women were chosen to be envoys to the sultan. Hadisât also gave us a list of the people in the committee as
190 Ibid.
191 ''Sevgili İzmir İçin İstanbul Müslümanlarının Dünkü Tezâhürâtı,'' İkdâm, Numero: 8002, 19 Şaban 1337 / 20 May 1919, p. 2.
192 ''İstanbul Dün İzmir İçin Çırpındı,'' Hadîsât, Numero: 140, 20 Şaban 1337 / 20 May 1919, p. 1.
193 Ibid.
194 Ibid.
93
Hâlide Edip Hanım, Müfide Ferid Hanım, Selma Rıza (Feraceli) Hanım, Mutiye Hanım from Dârü'l-fünûn and Şükûfe Nihal Hanım, Galib, Abdülkadir Muammer, Ziya Cemal, and Tevfik Bey. We also learn that Hâlide Edip Hanım, Ruşen Eşref and Müslihiddin Adil Bey drafted the proclamation to be presented by the committee.195
When we look at Sabâh, we do not get different information about the conclusion of the gathering compared to the other newspapers. However, we see that Sabâh reported that the committee, which was chosen to go to the sultan, was composed of four women and five men, as opposed to five women as reported in İleri and Hadisât.196
There is an account in Sabâh where it was stated that Miralay Foulon and his executive officer, a French lieutenant came to the area of the gathering; and it was reported that Miralay Foulon who was claimed to be ''a sincere friend of the Turks'' stated that ''this gathering is the result of the most sincere feelings that stemmed from the soul of the Turkish nation. The Turkish solemnity has the power to compel them to make the best decisions.''197
We see that İleri, Sabâh and Hadisât printed identical texts of the proclamation that was to be sent to the sultan. The document started with declaring that the Turkish nation with the history of six hundred years is being deprived of its most valuable pieces of its motherland without any regard for justice and
195 Ibid.
196 ''Dünkü Miting,'' Sabâh, Numero: 10601, 19 Şaban 1337 / 20 May 1919, p. 2.
197 ''Bu içtima Türk milletinin ruhundan kopmuş en samîmi hissiyâtın muhassalasıdır. Türkler'in vakarı, haklarında en iyi hükümleri verdirecek kudrete hâizdir.''
Ibid.
94
righteousness.198 The committee stated that they are convinced that they are in a situation where ''steps are being taken towards some parts of the Ottoman Empire;"199 and that they refuse the ''unlawful infringements of the Great Powers'' with all their being.200
There is an apparent sense of pleading to the sultan in the document. The proclamation stated that:
Our sultan! There is one and only bright star in the dark black sky of the nation. This is such a star that its light will show us the way we should take: the way of righteousness and prosperity. That star is the imperial majesty's holy throne, and we will sacrifice ourselves to prevent it from being extinguished.201
Bearing in mind that the gathering was initiated by the public, and it condemned the actions of the Allied Powers, it is highly likely that the Sublime Porte would be stuck between a rock and a hard place as this protest could be interpreted as a sign that the Sublime Porte was unable to control its own subjects. As it was discussed earlier, the newspapers had already started to be censored, hence, it is obvious that the pressure of the Allied Forces already began to manifest itself, and a gathering of this magnitude might end up alarming the allies who might exert pressure on the sultan himself. Thus, it could be argued that the committee aimed to clear the air with this proclamation where they clearly state that this protest is not to contest the authority of the sultan, but to show that the people are ready, willing and able to support the
198 ''Dünkü Miting,'' Sabâh, Numero: 10601, 19 Şaban 1337 / 20 May 1919, p. 1; ''İstanbul Dün İzmir İçin Çırpındı,'' Hadîsât, Numero: 140, 20 Şaban 1337 / 20 May 1919, p. 1; ''Pay-i Tahttaki Tezâhürât-ı Milliye,'' İleri, Numero: 492-110, 20 Şaban 1337 / 20 May 1919, pp. 1-3.
199 Ibid.
200 Ibid.
201 ''Padişahımız. Şimdi milletin karanlık ve siyah semâ-yı hayâtında tek bir parlak yıldız var! Bir yıldız ki yalnız onun nuru bize gideceğimiz yolu, hak ve selamet yolunu tenvîr edecek. O yıldız, şevketmeâbım senin yüce tac-ı tahtgâhıdır ve biz onun müntafi olmaması için fedâ-yı nefse azm etdik!''
Ibid.
95
Sublime Porte and the nation in these dire times. The Allied Powers and the Greek army are strong enough as adversaries, and the last thing the anti-occupation movement needs is to add the sultanate to its enemy list.
The gathering in Fatih held on 19 May 1919, was the first large-scale protest against the occupation of İzmir. From what we understand from the reports in the newspapers, people from all walks of life attended the event to show their support for the national cause. Even though we are not able to get a definite number of the participants, we see that some accounts place the number at around seventy thousand people. Bearing in mind that this event took place just three days after the news of the occupation of İzmir was made public, it is safe to say that this is a great success on the organisers' part.
Even though there are differences in the transcription of the speeches, or the sequence of the speakers at the event, İleri, Hadisât, İkdâm and Sabâh all have very extensive coverage of the protest, and present the gathering in a highly praising language. The only exception seems to be Alemdâr. Despite the fact that the information that we get is very limited compared to the other four newspapers, we do see a discourse that does not approve of the protest in Fatih.
The speeches delivered in the protest range from level-headed, diplomatic approaches to the issue to outright calls to armed struggle against the occupiers, yet they all have one thing in common: the existing situation is unacceptable and unbearable, and the Turkish nation will fight against it through whatever means, to whichever end. Unfortunately, the diplomatic approach to the occupation and pleas to re-enforce the Fourteen Points properly will bear no result; and yet another bloody war will have to be fought to ensure the continuity of the Turkish nation.
96
The Gathering in Üsküdar, Doğancılar (20 May 1919)
The newspapers of 21 May 1919 inform us that a gathering had been held in Üsküdar, Doğancılar, except for Alemdâr which does not have a coverage about the event. We see that Sabâh has a relatively short article on the protest titled ''The National Protest in Üsküdar.''202 We are informed that about thirty thousand people gathered near the Doğancılar Park, and expressed ''bitter feelings stemming from their sorrowful hearts against this last injustice.''203 Sabâh also stated that the speakers in the gathering are Poet Talât Bey, Doctor Ferruh Niyazi, Necati Kemal, Muzaffer Hamdi Bey, Naciye Hanım and Sebahat Hanım. The newspaper went on to state that men and women, young and old, everyone was crying ''bitter tears'' over the occupation of İzmir;204 however, we cannot obtain further information about the gathering except for the participants and the general feeling, as the newspaper did not print any of the speeches given at the protest.
İkdâm informed its readers about the gathering in its article ''The İzmir Event Laid Roots into the Nation’s Heart.''205 The event is described as follows:
The national outcry due to the occupation of İzmir by the Greeks continue with all its vehemence and grandeur, and the sorrow of this incident is taking root at the heart of the nation. Yesterday, a huge gathering was organised in Üsküdar, near the Nasuhi Efendi Dergah-ı Şerifi and Dârü'l-muallimin-i âliye students, the Medical Faculty and female and male students of various departments have participated in the gathering.206
202 ''Üsküdar'da Tezâhürât-ı Milliye,'' Sabâh, Numero: 10602, 20 Şaban 1337 / 21 May 1919, p. 1.
203 Ibid.
204 Ibid.
205 ''İzmir Hadisesi Milletin Kalbine Kök Saldı,'' İkdâm, Numero: 8003, 20 Şaban 1337 / 21 May 1919 p. 1.
206 ''İzmir'in Yunanlılar tarafından işgâlinden mütevellid feverân-ı millî bütün şiddetiyle, azametiyle devam eylemekte ve bu bâbdaki teessür milletin kalbine kadar kök salmaktadır. Dün Üsküdar'da Nasuhi Efendi Dergâh-ı Şerifi civârında muazzam bir miting akd edilmiş ve Dârü'l-muallimin-i âliye talebesi Tıp Fakültesi ve muhtelif inâs ve zükûr mekâtib talebe ve talibâtı iştirâk etmişdir.''
Ibid.
97
Hadisât's editorial about the event informed us that the people of Üsküdar came to attend the event; and that the front of the Mutasarrıflık Dairesi and the cemetery in front of the park were decorated with black flags.207 İleri's coverage stated that a big gathering took place in Doğanbey, Üsküdar; and the protest against the occupation of İzmir continued both in the Sublime Porte and the peripheries.208 It was said that the gathering attracted thirty thousand people.209 It was added that ''the gatherings held with dignity and calmness reserved for Turks in Fatih the day before and yesterday in Üsküdar proves that our nation is ready for all kinds of sacrifices for İzmir.''210
The first speaker of the day was Talat Bey who was reported to be a poet from Üsküdar.211 Hadisât, İleri and İkdâm had the transcripts of the speeches delivered that day; and there is not a substantial difference between their coverage of Talat Bey's speech. He had a passionate and heartfelt tone with heavy religious overtones. He stated he could not imagine a single Muslim who would not shed tears at the sight of the flag that descended into a black mourning.212 He also added that: ''Today our İzmir had calls of prayers from its minarets, the Koran in its mosques,
207 ''Dün Üsküdar'da Büyük Bir İctima' Akd Edildi,'' Hadîsât, Numero: 141, 21 Şaban 1337 / 21 May 1919, p. 1.
208 ''Dünkü Tezâhürat-ı Milliye – Dünkü Büyük Miting,'' İleri, Numero: 493-111, 21 Şaban 1337 / 21 May 1919, p. 1.
209 Ibid.
210 ''Evvelki gün Fatih'de, dün de Üsküdar'da halkımıza mahsûs bir vakar ve sekinetle akd ve tertîb edilen mitingler milletimizin İzmir uğrunda her fedâkârlığa amâde olduğunu isbât eylemektedir.''
Ibid.
211 ''Üsküdar'da Tezâhürât-ı Milliye,'' Sabâh, Numero: 10602, 20 Şaban 1337 / 21 May 1919, p. 1.
212 ''Dün Üsküdar'da Büyük Bir İctimâ' Akd Edildi,'' Hadîsât, Numero: 141, 21 Şaban 1337 / 21 May 1919, p. 1.
98
and zikr in its tekkes for four hundred years; and has a million and a half Turkish inhabitants who will never give up.''213
The next speaker of the gathering was Ferruh Niyazi Bey. His speech began by stating that the city of İzmir was authentically Muslim, but it was handed over to the enemies.214 Some of the themes of his speech are close to the ones delivered in the Fatih gathering. For instance, Ferruh Bey mentioned that ''we still do not want to lose hope that the Great Powers will reach a just conclusion about us,''215 which was in parallel with the Salâhaddin Bey's rhetoric that had been used in the protest gathering the day before. He addressed the European countries stating that ''no nation has been forcefully killed. We see that formerly killed nations are reviving. Hence, how can a people like us be destroyed?''216 This is also in correlation with the speeches in the Fatih protest, where Salâhaddin Bey pointed out that this was a time when abolished states were trying to be revived.217
On the other hand, Ferruh Bey finished his speech by stating that ''we are looking forward to the decisions of the states. If we see that we do not get what is rightfully ours, we die like heroes.''218 So, even though there is a temperate side to his
213 ''Bugün dört yüz bu kadar seneden beri minârelerinde ezân, camilerinde Kur’an, tekkelerinde ezkâr okunan bir buçuk milyon Türk ahaliyi havi olan İzmir'imizi hiçbir zaman bağışlayamayız.''
''İzmir Hadisesi Milletin Kalbine Kök Saldı,'' İkdâm, Numero: 8003, 20 Şaban 1337 / 21 May 1919, p. 1.
214 ''Dün Üsküdar'da Büyük Bir İctimâ' Akd Edildi,'' Hadîsât, Numero: 141, 21 Şaban 1337 / 21 May 1919, p. 1.
215 ''Biz hâlâ düvel-i muazzamanın hakkımızda bir hükm-i adâlet vereceğinden ümidimizi kesmek istemiyoruz.''
''Dünkü Tezâhürat-ı Milliye – Dünkü Büyük Miting,'' İleri, Numero: 493-111, 21 Şaban 1337 / 21 May 1919, p. 1.
216 ''İzmir Hadisesi Milletin Kalbine Kök Saldı,'' İkdâm, Numero: 8003, 20 Şaban 1337 / 21 May 1919, p. 1.
217 ''Pay-i Tahttaki Tezâhürat-ı Milliye,'' İleri, Numero: 436, 19 Şaban 1337 / 20 May 1919.
218 ''İzmir Hadisesi Milletin Kalbine Kök Saldı,'' İkdâm, Numero: 8003, 20 Şaban 1337 / 21 May 1919, p. 1.
99
speech where he stated the belief in the Allied nations, he also spoke slowly but carried a big stick, by pointing out that the people of the nation were not afraid to die in case they did not get what it was believed to be rightfully theirs.
Afterwards, Sabahat Hüsamettin Hanım from the Asri Kadınlar Cemiyeti took the stage, and as Hadisât put it, gave a ''fiery speech.''219 We also see here that there is very little difference between the coverage of the newspapers in relation to her speech. She started her talk by addressing this ''holy and unfortunate crowd''220 and went on to state that new voices join the fifty thousand that gathered in Fatih on the previous day.221 After pointing out that everyone was devastated by the same catastrophe, she added that ''However, today we, women, mothers and sisters are in despair. We, women are going to be at the forefronts of this struggle for justice, and we will always curse the creatures that tell hypocrisies and lies to the civilisation.''222
Her underlining of women's role in the struggle was slightly different from the speeches delivered in Fatih. In contrast to the rhetoric used by Hâlide Edip and Meliha Hanım whose speeches focused on the supportive and secondary nature of the role of women as discussed in the previous part, Sabahat Hüsamettin Hanım suggested that women should take a much more active role by suggesting that they should be at the frontlines of the national struggle.
219 ''Dün Üsküdar'da Büyük Bir İctimâ' Akd Edildi,'' Hadîsât, Numero: 141, 21 Şaban 1337 / 21 May 1919, p. 1.
220 Ibid.
221 ''Dünkü Tezâhürât-ı Milliye – Dünkü Büyük Miting,'' İleri, Numero: 493-111, 21 Şaban 1337 / 21 May 1919, p. 1.
222 ''Biz kadınlar bu hak cihâdında en önde olacağız ve medeniyete riyâlar, yalanlar söyleyen varlıklara her zaman lanetler edeceğiz.''
''Dün Üsküdar'da Büyük Bir İctimâ' Akd Edildi,'' Hadîsât, Numero: 141, 21 Şaban 1337 / 21 May 1919, p. 1.
100
Sabahat Hüsamettin Hanım's speech pointed out the great disappointment after a four year long devastating war. Ottomans still had to face the fact that one of the most important cities of their motherland was handed over to the Greek state:
We were not this saddened when we were losing the precious bodies of our families in order to win the right to live in peace and recovery in our country because we were giving those martyrs for a hope, to win a motherland so that our country would reach prosperity. What happened now? That right we have been waiting and wanting after so many sacrifices is not in sight. All the blood that has been shed does not get respect.223
Yet, the most interesting part of her speech lies in the following sentences:
Today, the Greeks have taken İzmir whose life and soul is Turkish. Maybe tomorrow they will want our Konya, our Bursa or maybe even our beloved İstanbul that turns heads with all its beauty, as if they are snatching away compassion from our bosom, a life from our hearts. Are we then going to live in silence and submission when these oppressive forces sink their poisonous nails in our lives and bring us closer to death? I say no to this!224
This is the first time that İstanbul along with other cities was mentioned as a potential target. The fact that a city like İzmir that had a Turkish demographic majority and was perceived as an integral part of the Ottoman Empire was allowed to be occupied by the Greek forces obviously raised a red-flag about the possibility that other cities might end up having the same fate as İzmir.
223 ''Fakat bugün en çok biz kadınlar, o anneler, kardeşler bedbahtız. Memleketimizde sükûn ve istirâhatle yaşamak hakkını kazanmak için âilelerimizin kıymetdâr vücûdlarını bir bir kayıp ederken bile bu kadar keder duymuyorduk çünkü bir ümid için, bir vatan kazanmak için, evet vatanımızın felâha kavuşması için o muhterem şehidleri veriyorduk. Fakat şimdi ne oldu? Bütün bu fedâkârlıklarla beklenen, istenen hak da görülmüyor.. Bunun için dökülen kanlara da hürmet edilmiyor.''
''İzmir Hadisesi Milletin Kalbine Kök Saldı,'' İkdâm, Numero: 8003, 20 Şaban 1337 / 21 May 1919, p. 1.
224 ''İşte hayatı, ruhu Türk olan İzmir'i bugün Yunanlılar aldılar. Belki yarın da sinemizden bir şefkat, kalbimizden bir hayat koparır gibi Konya'mızı, Bursa'mızı, hatta evet bütün güzellikleriyle nazarları celb eden çok sevgili İstanbul'umuzu da isteyecekler o zaman da bu hayatımıza zehirli tırnaklarını takıp her tarafta bizi bir az daha ölüme yaklaştıran bu kahir kuvvetler karşısında yine böyle sükûn ve tevekkülle yaşayacak mıyız? Ben buna hayır diyorum!''
''Dünkü Tezâhürât-ı Milliye – Dünkü Büyük Miting,'' İleri, Numero: 493-111, 21 Şaban 1337 / 21 May 1919, p. 1.
101
She finished her speech by addressing the crowd to unite: ''What the sons and women of a nation that has such proud moments in its history are supposed to do is to shout until their lungs give out and not fall into silence in the face of injustice.''225
According to the articles in İleri and İkdâm, the following speaker at the gathering is Muzaffer Bey who delivered a short address. The tone of the speeches in the Üsküdar meeting was harsher compared to the ones delivered in Fatih the day before, and Muzaffer Bey's speech is no exception. He stated that ''our first sultan Osman Gazi built his throne with his own hands. We are not going to give that throne up. It turns out that those who promised us justice lied to us.''226 As we can see, there is no longer a diplomatic rhetoric that suggests the Allied Powers might have made an error of judgement; and that if only the Ottoman stance was properly communicated, it would be corrected. In Muzaffer Bey's speech, on the other hand, the Great Powers were directly called liars.
The last part of his speech seems to be censored in İkdâm; however, we can still find it in İleri where Muzaffer Bey stated that ''I am sure today, my mothers and brothers, we are always ready to die, but we shall not give up the motherland. We do not have guns not to give up, but we still have one thing and that is the heart and soul of the Turk.''227 One cannot be sure why these particular sentences were deducted from İkdâm, while others were not, and they got to be published by İleri. Yet, it is
225 ''Mâzisinde şanlar, şerefler parlayan bir milletin bugünkü evlatlarına, kadınlarına düşen vazife sesleri kısılıncaya kadar bağırmak ve haklarının karşısında susmamaktır.''
Ibid.
226 ''İlk padişahımız Osman Gazi kendi tahtını kendi eliyle kurdu. Biz tahtı kirli mülevves ellere yıktırmayız. Bize adâlet vaad eden ağızlar bize yalan söyledi.''
''İzmir Hadisesi Milletin Kalbine Kök Saldı,'' İkdâm, Numero: 8003, 20 Şaban 1337 / 21 May 1919, p. 1.
227 ''Dünkü Tezâhürât-ı Milliye – Dünkü Büyük Miting,'' İleri, Numero: 493-111, 21 Şaban 1337 / 21 May 1919, p. 1.
102
consistent with what we saw in the former part that some newspapers somehow managed to escape the claws of censorship, and some did not.
Even though there is no mention of this speech in Sabâh and İkdâm, Bahati Kemal Bey is reported to have delivered a speech after Sabahat Hüsamettin Hanım in Hadisât. Sabâh printed the names of the people who gave a speech in the gathering, but he was not mentioned there either. Neither can he be found in Kemal Arıburnu's book as a speaker in Üsküdar.228 Hence, it is curious why he was added in İkdâm's coverage of the event, but in none of the other newspapers.
In his speech, we see that Bahati Kemal addressed ''Unfortunate brothers, innocent children and lion-like women!''229 He described the state of affairs as ''stomping on the graves of the children of the nation who died in Çanakkale.''230 He ended his speech by stating that there were ''300 million Muslim towns that shout hak from their minarets'' and that ''this red flag will once again cheerfully glide.''231
Naciye Hanım, who is reported to be a student of Dârü'l-fünûn Tabiat Şubesi232 by Hadisât, was the next speaker of the protest in Üsküdar. She began her speech by talking about the tragedies that the Turkish nation had to endure by stating that:
We are the unfortunate children of the most devastating revolution that time, maybe even the earth has ever seen. The civilised people who would not even
228 Kemal Arıburnu. Milli Mücadelede İstanbul Mitingleri, (Ankara: Yeni Matbaa, 1951).
229 "Bedbaht kardeşler, ma'sûm çocuklar, arslan kadınlar!''
''Dün Üsküdar'da Büyük Bir İctima' Akd Edildi,'' Hadîsât, Numero: 141, 21 Şaban 1337 / 21 May 1919, p. 1.
230 Ibid.
231 Ibid.
232 Ibid.
103
let us mourn for the ferocious four years have wounded us at our most vulnerable spot.233
A similar argument had been made earlier by Sabahat Hüsamettin Hanım that the Ottoman Empire was not allowed to breathe easily even after all it had to suffer during World War I.
We can see that the next sentence of the speech had been censored in İleri; however, we can learn from İkdâm that: '' the Muslims who have the majority of the population will carry the grudge of such injustice, and such grudge from the cradle to the grave.''234 It might be understandable that this could be perceived as an inflammatory sentence as it denotes a feeling of deep-seated animosity. Yet it is still hard to understand what kind of criteria –if any- was used in this censorship process. There were speeches that contained just as provocative remarks in Üsküdar, too. As we saw earlier in some of the Fatih protests, somehow they make it to the print. Yet, this sentence seems to have raised an eyebrow, and got slashed out. Secondly, the fact that another newspaper was able to print it on the same day seems to render the censorship process completely useless as all one needs to do is just pick up another newspaper to find out what was left out in the other. This might have happened because the opposition was still in its budding stage. It was just five days after the occupation of İzmir was communicated to the public, so the necessary tools were either not properly implemented yet. Or this was not seen as a definitive threat, but
233 ''Biz tarihin belki arzın şâhid olduğu ihtilâlli bir inkılâbın zavallı, kara bahtlı yavruları bedbaht evlâtlarıyız, dört kanlı senenin matemli mersiyesini bile bize çok gören medeni insanlar son darbeleriyle can evimizi yaraladılar.''
''Dünkü Tezâhürât-ı Milliye – Dünkü Büyük Miting,'' İleri, Numero: 493-111, 21 Şaban 1337 / 21 May 1919, p. 1.
234 ''Fakat büyük bir ekseriyet-i hayâta sâhib olan İslâmlar bu kadar haksız bu kadar şenî‘ tagallübün intikâmını beşiklerden mezârlara kadar taşıyacaklardır.''
''İzmir Hadisesi Milletin Kalbine Kök Saldı,'' İkdâm, Numero: 8003, 20 Şaban 1337 / 21 May 1919, p. 1.
104
rather as the public blowing off steam, hence it did not have to be so closely monitored.
Naciye Hanım also talked about the role of women in the 'national struggle': ''You are not alone in this struggle. Behind you, you have your mothers, sisters and children who are running behind you and catching up with branded hearts and teary eyes.''235 Here, we see a return to the ''woman behind his man'' rhetoric that we saw in Hâlide Edip and other female speakers at the protest in Fatih. Even though Sabahat Hüsamettin Hanım talked about women, and how they should be the vanguards of the struggle, in Naciye Hanım's speech, women were once again put in the position of men’s helpers who would support them through great suffering.
According to the news in İleri and Hadisât, the next speaker of the day was Memduh Necdet Bey, who was reported to be a student of the Medical Faculty, according to Hadisât.236 We cannot see any information in İkdâm about his speech. This does not seem to be a matter of censorship, but a choice by the newspaper itself not to publish the material, because both İleri and Hadisât published his speech right after Naciye Hanım's. However, in İkdâm's coverage, a Hamdi Bey is reported to take the stage after Naciye Hanim, who was covered by the other two newspapers after Memduh Necdet Bey's speech.
He began his speech by addressing ''Muslims and Turks,'' and went on to state that ''they are unjustly giving the vilâyet of İzmir, where the seven hundred year old Turkish Empire ruled, to another nation; a nation that is inferior to us in [population]
235 ''Siz bu cidâlde yalnız değilsiniz arkanızda yanık bağırlarıyla yaşlı gözleriyle koşan, yetişen kadınlar analarınız, kız kardaşlarınız, evlâdlarınız var."
''Dün Üsküdar'da Büyük Bir İctimâ' Akd Edildi,'' Hadîsât, Numero: 141, 21 Şaban 1337 / 21 May 1919, p. 1.
236 Ibid.
105
density, civilisation and science.''237 Hadisât's coverage informs us that the crowd responded to this by shouting ''say its name!''238
It was pointed out in the earlier part about the articles published on 17 May 1919 issues where the newspapers adapted a sneering tone towards the Greek state, claiming it to be ''weak and unimportant.''239 Here, in Memduh Necdet Bey's speech, we see a similar approach towards the Greek state, which he claimed to be inferior to the Ottoman Empire. The difference between the Ottoman perception of Greeks as an inferior race and that of the Europeans who think they are the cradle of civilisation is remarkable.
It should be noted that unlike the former speeches, the differences between the reports of the two newspapers are quite different from one another. Even though they do not essentially differ, they do not completely overlap like the speeches discussed previously. Yet, the speech remains the same in its core message. Memduh Necdet Bey talked about the irrefutable testimony to the bravery of the Turks, which can be found if one looks at how the Turks fought in the Caucasus, Çanakkale and the Straits.240 The version of the speech in Hadisât stated that ''Raise your heads. Look at your surroundings. These minarets, these mosques, these monuments inform you that this country is Turkish and Muslim. İzmir is just like that. Hence, İzmir is
237 ''İslâmlar, Türkler; yedi asırlık Türk imparatorluğunun saltanat sürdüğü İzmir vilâyetini bugün haksız olarak başka bir millete, kesâfet, medeniyet, ilm itibâriyle bizden dûn olan bir millete veriyorlar.''
''Dünkü Tezâhürat-ı Milliye – Dünkü Büyük Miting,'' İleri, Numero: 493-111, 21 Şaban 1337 / 21 May 1919, p. 2.
238 ''Dün Üsküdar'da Büyük Bir İctimâ' Akd Edildi,'' Hadîsât, Numero: 141, 21 Şaban 1337 / 21 May 1919, p. 1.
239 "İzmir'in İşgâli," İkdâm, Numero: 7999, 16 Şaban 1337 / 17 May 1919, p. 1.
240 ''Dün Üsküdar'da Büyük Bir İctimâ' Akd Edildi,'' Hadîsât, Numero: 141, 21 Şaban 1337 / 21 May 1919, p. 2.; ''Dünkü Tezâhürat-ı Milliye – Dünkü Büyük Miting,'' İleri, Numero: 493-111, 21 Şaban 1337 / 21 May 1919, p. 2.
106
ours and cannot be anybody else's.''241 He also added that ''we laid down our weapons because we believed in Wilson,''242 which was an argument used by Salâhaddin Bey the day before in the Fatih protest. According to İleri's report, Memduh Necdet Bey finished his speech with these words: ''we are saying that you are tricking us, you tricked us that the peace would be based on the nations' basic structure and majority.''243
After stating the reasons why İzmir is irrefutably a Turkish city, he went on to explain that the Turks only agreed to stop fighting, because they were promised that an agreement would be made based on the Fourteen Points, as opposed to surrendering, because they were in no position to continue fighting. It could be argued that the reason behind stressing this is to indirectly point out that the Ottomans could -if they wanted to- continue fighting, but chose not to as they were led to believe a fair treaty would be drafted. Thus, he refuted any arguments that would suggest they lost the war, and hence they had to face the consequences without having the right to complain. However, anyone who wanted to successfully argue that the Ottomans did not actually lose the war, or that they could have continued to fight if a fair treaty had not been promised would have their work cut out for them. Hence, claiming that the assurance of a just peace agreement was the
241 ''Başlarınızı kaldırınız. Hepiniz muhitinize bakınız. Bu minâreler, camiler, bu âsâr sizin bu memleketin Türk ve İslâm memleketi olduğunu bildiriyor. İzmir de böyledir. O halde İzmir de bizimdir ve kimsenin olamaz.''
''Dün Üsküdar'da Büyük Bir İctima' Akd Edildi,'' Hadîsât, Numero: 141, 21 Şaban 1337 / 21 May 1919, p. 2.
242 ''Dünkü Tezâhürat-ı Milliye – Dünkü Büyük Miting,'' İleri, Numero: 493-111, 21 Şaban 1337 / 21 May 1919, p. 2.
243 ''Biz diyoruz siz bizi aldatıyorsunuz, milletlerin esâsı, ekseriyeti üzerine bir sulh yapılacak diye bizi aldattınız.''
Ibid.
107
actual reason behind the Ottoman decision to ask for an armistice seems like a safer approach.
The last speech of the gathering was delivered by Hamdi Bey, whom we learn to be a student in Dârü'l-fünûn from the report in Hadisât.244 All three newspapers report his speech albeit some differences in the manner of their deliverance. However, the main points remain the same. He underlined the sadness felt by the Ottomans: ''…the news hurts the hearts and drains colour from the faces for the past two-three days in this city,''245 and stressed the unity of the Ottomans after such news regardless of where they are from:
O Brothers, I am a village child. I would like to tell you something. Do you think that when these sad moments befell us, that only İstanbul is in upheaval? No, no. In my village, my old father whose hair has gone all white, as he was grieving for my brother, took his beard in his hands and made his last decision in the face of death and honour. He is preparing his çarıks. And my old mother is undoubtedly preparing him bread for the road.246
We mentioned that the newspapers printed telegraphs from all over the Ottoman Empire; however, this was the first time we heard a speaker from taşra (the countryside) to address the support given from the peripheries. The need to underline the backing of taşra and the assertion that İstanbul was not alone in this outcry against the occupation of İzmir is curious. It is as if it is not expected that an attack
244 ''Dün Üsküdar'da Büyük Bir İctimâ' Akd Edildi,'' Hadîsât, Numero: 141, 21 Şaban 1337 / 21 May 1919, p. 2.
245 ''…bu şehirde iki üç günden beri yürekler üzen benizler solduran bir kara haber duyulmakta.''
''İzmir Hadisesi Milletin Kalbine Kök Saldı,'' İkdâm, Numero: 8003, 20 Şaban 1337 / 21 May 1919, p. 1.
246 "Ey kardeşler, ben köylü bir çocuğum. Size bazı şeyler söylemek isterim. Aramızda bu matemî dakikaları yaşarken zanneder misiniz yalnız İstanbul ayaktadır. Hayır hayır.. Benim köyümde ihtiyâr kardaşımın matemiyle saçları ağaran ihtiyâr babam, ak sakalını eline alarak ölüm ve namûs karşısında son karârını verdi. Çarıklarını ıslatıyor. Ve ihtiyâr annem şüphesiz ona kepekli undan yol ekmeği hazırlıyor."
''Dünkü Tezahürât-ı Milliye – Dünkü Büyük Miting,'' İleri, Numero: 493-111, 21 Şaban 1337 / 21 May 1919, p. 2.
108
on a very important city of the country should draw opposition from all parts of the Ottoman Empire. It was discussed in the previous chapters that the support given by women to the opposition against the occupation was also heavily underlined both by the speakers of the gatherings, and in the newspapers when they reported on the female participants of the gatherings, as if it was a pleasantly unexpected event, and the emphasis put on it read like encouragement. So, as it was stressed that women were also supportive of the opposition, and here we see that the peripheries also support the national struggle.
Towards the end of his speech, Hamdi Bey also pointed out that ''when nations that only have a history of a few pages are crowned, could the crown of this six hundred-year-old nation’s crown be taken?''247 This is in compliance with the rhetoric of Salâhaddin Bey's speech delivered in the Fatih gathering the day before, where he pointed out nations that were not autonomous were trying to gain independence at that day and age, and it would be unacceptable to deny this right to the Ottomans.
We see that Hamdi Bey did not openly say which nation or nations he was talking about. However, given the condescending tone of the statement, it could be speculated that the Greek state was referred to. If we remember Memduh Necdet Bey's speech, the crowd's reaction ''say its name'' prompted me to think that explicitly addressing the Greek state might be something deliberately avoided during the gathering. Indeed, if we look at the transcriptions in the three newspapers, we see that İleri and Hadisât's version of the speeches have the word 'Greek' once and İkdâm only three times. Given that the very reason of the protest is the Greek
247 ''Bugün birkaç sahifelik tarihi bulunan milletlere taç verilirken altı yüz senelik bir kavmin tacı alınır mı?''
''İzmir Hâdisesi Milletin Kalbine Kök Saldı,'' İkdâm, Numero: 8003, 20 Şaban 1337 / 21 May 1919, p. 1.
109
occupation of İzmir, the scarcity of the mention of the word Greek might be a conscious choice. There is a strong chance that Hamdi Bey referred to the Greek state when he mentioned those nations that ''only have a history of a few pages.''
The end of the report about the gathering in İleri stated that ''many more men and women delivered speeches;'' and at the end, a prayer was recited by a hoca.248 The rest of the report is unfortunately censored.
İkdâm, on the other hand, stated that this was the last speech ''that had a deep impact on the crowd.''249 It was added that Hoca Ali Şevki Efendi delivered the prayer that marked the end of the speech; and the final conclusion of the gathering was to reaffirm all the decisions of the Fatih gathering that took place on the previous day.250
Just after the report on the gathering in Üsküdar, we see a small article that informs us there was a small protest by the women of Bakırköy on the previous day where around five thousand people gathered. It was stated that the principal of Adile Sultan Mektebi, Reşide Malume Hanım, and students Seniha and Vechiba Hanım delivered speeches denouncing the occupation ''in the name of the Turkish women.''251 However, there is no mention of this protest in any of the other newspapers.
Hadisât's conclusion of the gathering also mentioned Hoca Şevki Efendi's prayer and added that ''this common prayer had a profound effect on the crowd, and cries began to be heard in the crowd. Children recited 'long live the Sultan' three
248 ''Dünkü Tezâhürât-ı Milliye – Dünkü Büyük Miting,'' İleri, Numero: 493-111, 21 Şaban 1337 / 21 May 1919, p. 2.
249 ''İzmir Hadisesi Milletin Kalbine Kök Saldı,'' İkdâm, Numero: 8003, 20 Şaban 1337 / 21 May 1919, p. 1.
250 Ibid.
251 Ibid.
110
times.''252 It was also added that poet Talat Bey proclaimed: ''Now, you can calmly disperse. There were similar gatherings such as this one all around. The decisions of the organisation committee will be communicated to you.''253
To sum up, even though some of the arguments put forward in the Fatih gathering resonated in the protest in Üsküdar, we can see that despite the censorship the newspapers had to endure, the tone of the talks became harsher. Unlike the long and diplomatic arguments delivered in the Fatih gathering, particularly by Salâhaddin Bey and Hâlide Hanım, the speakers here did not refrain themselves from calling the Allied Powers ''liars," and saying that they were blatantly tricked into signing an armistice. The unity of the nation is also highly stressed upon.
We also see that the role of women in the 'national struggle' is underlined in this gathering as well. However, we see that some of the speeches in the Üsküdar meeting does not subscribe to the strictly secondary role deemed suitable for women in the speeches in Fatih. While speakers like Hâlide Edip and Meliha Hanım in the gathering on the previous day talked about a supportive and sacrificing female model that stands behind her man, we see that Sabahat Hüsamettin Hanım's speech depicted a more active and aggressive role for women who were at the fore-fronts of the national struggle.
This gathering also gives us information about a different dynamic within the national struggle; namely the relation between the pay-i taht and taşra, which could be found in Hamdi Bey's speech. A good portion of his talk was dedicated to communicate it to the crowd that the countryside was in complete solidarity with the rest of the country in this matter. Even though the unity of the nation was a theme
252 ''Dün Üsküdar'da Büyük Bir İctimâ' Akd Edildi,'' Hadîsât, Numero: 141, 21 Şaban 1337 / 21 May 1919, p. 2.
253 Ibid.
111
repeated many times in the speeches delivered at the gatherings, this is the first time that a self-proclaimed ''village child'' openly stated that the Sublime Port was not alone in this fight and had the peripheries’ full support.
The Gathering in Kadıköy (22 May 1919)
The newspapers of 23 May 1919 inform us that a huge gathering had been held in Kadıköy on the previous day. Right before the coverage, all newspapers notify us that a huge gathering will be held in Sultanahmet on that very day. Sabâh's statement about the gathering notifies the readers: ''After the Friday prayer, a huge gathering will be organised by various parties and communities at the Sultanahmet Square today.''254 It is added that: ''We are sure that all people of İstanbul will participate in this national gathering which will show to the whole world that there is a Turkish nation ready to defend its national rights, and will not give its rights up during these distressful times that our country is going through.''255 Apparently, the announcement goes on a bit longer; however, it has been censored.
İkdâm's report on the upcoming gathering stated that ''a people’s gathering''256 will be held in Sultanahmet. It was added that: ''Considering all esnâf, merchants, civil servants and students of various schools will be attending the gathering, it is expected that the total turnout will be over a hundred thousand people.''257
254 ''Bugün Sultanahmet meydanında muhtelif fırak-ı siyâsiye ve cemiyât tarafından cuma namazından sonra muazzam büyük bir miting tertîb edilecekdir.''
''Bugünkü Miting,'' Sabâh, Numero: 10604, 22 Şaban 1337 / 23 May 1919. p. 1.
255 ''Memleketimizin geçirdiği bu buhranlı devrede hukûk-ı milliyesini müdâfaaya azimkâr bir Türk milletinin mevcûd olduğunu ve bu hakkından feragât etmeyeceğini bütün âleme gösterecek olan bu muazzam tezâhür-i milliye bütün İstanbul halkının iştirâk edeceğini şüphesiz add ediyoruz.''
Ibid.
256 ''Halk Mitingi Bugün Akd Ediliyor,'' İkdâm, Numero: 8005, 22 Şaban 1337 / 23 May 1919, p. 1.
257 ''Şehrimizin bütün esnâf, tüccâr, me’mûrîn-i hükûmet, bi'l-umûm mekteb talebesi mitinge iştirâk eyleyeceğine nazârân iştirâk edecekler mikdârı yüz bini tecâvüz eyleyecekdir.''
Ibid.
112
The newspaper urged ''all Muslims who love their motherland'' to attend the gathering adding that the mourning pin to be handed out by the Ahâli İktisâd Fırkası should be worn by the attendants of the gathering.
Alemdâr's announcement of the event stated that: ''Whole İstanbul prepared for a gathering today… The stores are closing. Esnâf also run to the meeting area in Sultanahmet. The voices of the whole Muslim world should stream out of our chests today.''258 İleri, on the other hand, only had a headline that informed its readers about the gathering, and nothing more.
About the Kadıköy Gathering, it should be noted that the coverage of the speakers by the newspapers does not overlap much. There were similar instances where certain speakers were mentioned by one newspaper and left out by the others. However, as far as the Kadıköy gathering is concerned, the lack of synchronisation is the worst. Alemdâr did not print any of the speeches as usual. The remaining newspapers have gotten the sequencing of the speakers almost entirely different from one another except for the fact that they list Hâlide Edip as the last speaker of the day. Some speakers that were only mentioned by name in one newspaper have their speech published in another. Some newspapers such as Sabâh and Hadisât informed us of a ''Fahri Bey'' delivering one of the speeches, but we see that the same speaker is reported to be ''Fahreddin Bey'' in İkdâm and İleri. Although the speeches and the sequencing of the talkers were not fully synchronised in the other gatherings, the Kadıköy gathering remains the most irregular.
Alemdâr had a characteristically short coverage of the event, as it had for the former gatherings held in protest of the occupation of İzmir. The only information
258 ''Bugün bütün İstanbul bir mitinge hazırlandı… Dükkânlar kapanıyor. Esnâf da Sultanahmed’e, miting mahalline koşuyor. Bütün âlem-i İslâm’ın sesi bugün bizim göğüslerimizden fışkırmalı.''
''Kardeşler!'' Alemdâr, Numero: 151-1471, 23 Şaban 1337 / 23 May 1919, p. 1.
113
we see about the gathering in the newspaper is that thousands have gathered in front of the Kadıköy municipality building, proclaiming that they are ready to sacrifice their lives to ensure that İzmir stays Turkish.259 We are also informed that there were some protests held in Bakırköy.260 However, there is no more information on the gathering besides a small paragraph with a commonplace description.
Sabâh's coverage of the event began by stating that around twenty thousand people gathered near the Kadıköy municipality building in protest of the occupation of İzmir by the Greek state despite the heavy rain.261 The first speaker of the gathering was reported to be Fahri Bey, a journalist of the newspaper Memleket although his speech is not printed in the newspaper.262
İkdâm's introduction about the gathering stated that around twenty thousand men and women gathered in Kadıköy despite the heavy rain, and that on the Kadıköy municipality building hall an Ottoman flag was put up with a black background as a sign of mourning. Fahreddin Bey is reported to have delivered a speech to protest the occupation of İzmir. The newspaper did not give the transcription of the talk just like Sabâh although the name was stated as Fahreddin instead of Fahri.
Hadisât informed its readers about the event: ''Yesterday, in Kadıköy in front of the municipality building, a huge gathering took place, and the unjust violation towards İzmir and the decision to divide our motherland was protested with great enthusiasm despite the heavy rain.''263
259 Ibid.
260 Ibid.
261 ''Bugünkü Miting,'' Sabâh, Numero: 10604, 22 Şaban 1337 / 23 May 1919, p. 1.
262 Ibid.
263 ''Dün Kadıköy’ünde Belediye Dâiresi’nin önünde yağan pek şiddetli yağmura rağmen büyük bir içtimâ akd edilerek, İzmir’e karşı gösterilen haksız tecâvüz ile memleketimizin mukarrer taksîmâtına karşı büyük bir heyecânla protesto edilmiştir.''
114
It was also added that the fiery words of the speakers made everyone cry: ''It was heart-wrenching to see the sobs of mothers and sisters who sacrificed their sons, fathers, brothers just so that they would not see these days.''264 As it was discussed in the former chapter about the gathering in Üsküdar, the realisation that all the suffering the Ottoman had to live through during World War I basically turned out to be for nothing was a huge blow, and probably one of the most important contributing factors to the protests against the occupation of İzmir.
İleri's preface of the event is similar to the other newspapers. It informed us that around twenty-five thousand men and women gathered in Kadıköy in the afternoon, and prints the text of the speech delivered by Fahreddin Bey, which could not be found in the other newspapers. His speech is highly passionate, and has a strong religious tone:
Muslims, God is with us. Hakk is ours. We make sacrifices in the name of justice. The time we are living in is a time of calamity. A small group of people who stump on the rights and destinies of people are becoming our butchers; sacrificing us. The council of ten has been reduced to four, because European nations have been resigning due to protests in the name of rights and justices. God did this. Now, three countries are attacking a seven hundred year old, innocent nation's right to life. However, we are not afraid of this plot. We are Turks who have 350 million Muslims. We are not ten million. We have 350 million brothers in the world.265
''Dünkü Kadıköy İctimâsı – Yağmur Altında 15,000 Kişi,'' Hadîsât, Numero: 143, 23 Şaban 1337 / 23 May 1919, p. 1.
264 ''Evlâdını, babasını, kardeşini hep bugünleri görmemek için fedâ etmiş ve ileri sürmüş olan valideler, hemşirelerin yeni felâketler karşısında hıçkırıklarını görmek hakikaten pek dil-hırâş bir manzara teşkîl ediyordu.''
Ibid.
265 ''Müslümânlar Allah bizimledir. Hak bizimdir. Biz adâlet nâmına kurban veriyoruz. Yaşadığımız tarih, tarih-i fecaattir. İnsanların hukuk ve mukadderâtını çiğneyen bir zümre-i kalîle bize kasaplık yapıyor. Bizi kurban ediyor. Avrupa devletlerinin Onlar Meclisi hak ve adalet protestolarından ayrıldıkları için dörde tenezzül ettiler. Bunu Allah yaptı. Şimdi ise üç devlet yedi yüz senelik masum, necip bir milletin hakk-ı hayâtına kasd ediyor. Fakat bu suikastten asla korkmuyoruz. Biz 350 milyon Müslüman'a mensub Türkleriz. On milyon değiliz. Kainatta 350 milyon kardeşimiz vardır.''
''Kalplerimizin Mâtemi Devam Ediyor – Kadıköy'de Büyük Miting,'' İleri, Numero: 495-113, 23 Şaban 1337 / 23 May 1919, p. 1.
115
We see the familiar theme of a seven hundred year nation in Fahreddin Bey's speech. Yet, there are also points in his talk that have never been raised before such as his mention of the reduction of the Council of Ten to four, and eventually to three members. He claimed they are because of the injustices committed that forced some parties to resign. However, if we remember the conflict between Italy and the remaining three members of the Council of Four, it could be argued that the fallout was caused because some members were not happy with the shares they were given, not because they thought the council was acting against the principles of justice while dealing with the losers of the war.
In the following parts of his speech, he had a request from the demonstrators:
I am going to say something, please do not get emotional. People should abandon music and singing. Let us mourn. Let us work together. I have personally argued with some of the European notables the other day. I told them. We, Muslims, Turks are not afflicted by this decision. We know our duty. You have the power. You cheated us, took away our weapons.266
It was formerly argued in the earlier gatherings that the Ottoman Empire only agreed to an armistice, because they wanted to put an end to the bloodshed, and not necessarily because they were devoid of any power, allies or any means to continue fighting for that matter. But this time, the argument was turned around. Instead of the claim we laid down our weapons because we thought there would be peace, Fahreddin Bey argued that we were tricked into an armistice and our weapons were taken away. Hence, he blatantly accused the Allied Forces of treachery against the
266 ''Bir şey söyleyeceğim, ricâ ederim, müteessir olmayınız. Millet çalgıyı, şarkıyı, telezzüzâtı ricâ ederim bunların hepsini terk etsin, mâtem tutalım, müttehiden çalışalım, geçen gün buradaki Avrupa ricâlinden bazıları ile bizzat vuruştum. Onlara dedim. Biz Müslümanlar, Türkler bu karardan müteessir değiliz. Vazifemizi biliyoruz. Kudret sizdedir. Bizi aldattınız, silâhımızı aldınız.''
Ibid.
116
Ottoman Empire, and urged people not to give up what is rightfully theirs, and work towards a solution.267
According to Sabâh, Hayriye Melek Hanım was the next speaker at the gathering who delivered a very passionate and intense speech. Yet, none of the other newspapers reported on her speech. We see that she was only mentioned by name in Hadisât, but no other details can be found. She argued about the Turkishness of the land:
The whole world of civilisation should know what creates the humidity at the deepest layers of these lands is the blood of this race that has sipped through it. These lands are not without an emotional tie for us. That is where our heart beats, where our blood lives. As long as the blood in our veins does not dry, and our hearts continue to beat, these lands will continue to be ours.268
After a rather gory description of the emotional and historical ties that the Turks have with their motherland, we see that Hayriye Melek Hanım used a theme similar to the one used by Fahreddin Bey: religion. She argued that:
There are many places on the face of the earth where the cry 'God is Great'
raises to heavens from their minarets five times a day. Believe that three hundred million people who listen to that sound cry 'Great God, the Turk is oppressed and wishes justice to be served. As long as that does not happen, that cry will not cease, just like the blood of the Turks. Because God is great, and justice is exalted.269
267 Ibid.
268 ''Bütün âlem-i medeniyet bilmelidir ki şu toprakların en derin tabakalarındaki rutûbeti bile yapan, bu ırkın oralara asırlardan beri süzülerek sinmiş olan kanıdır. Bu topraklar bizim için hissiz değildir. Onlarda bizim kalbimiz çarpıyor, onlarda bizim kanımız yaşıyor. Damarlarımızda kan kurumadıkça, kalplerimiz çarpmakda devam ettikçe o topraklar bizimdir bizim kalacaktır.''
'' Bugünkü Miting,'' Sabâh, Numero: 10604, 22 Şaban 1337 / 23 May 1919, p. 1.
269 ''Kürenin üzerinde birçok yerler vardır ki oralarda günde beş defa minârelerden ''Allah büyükdür'' nidâsı göklere yükselir. İnanınız ki bugün o sesleri dinleyen üç yüz milyon insan “Ey büyük Allah, Türk mazlûmdur” diye bağırıyor, hakkın tecellisini istiyor. Hak tecelli etmedikçe Türk’ün kanı gibi o ses de dinmeyecek ve susmayacakdır. Çünkü Allah büyük, hak âlidir.''
Ibid.
117
It is not unusual for religious themes to be used during speeches in the gatherings; and this is the second speaker at the gathering who pointed to the whole Muslim population in the world to support the Turkish cause. It cannot be denied that the Ottoman Indian Muslims aided the future stages of the Turkish national struggle. On the other hand, it is also an undeniable fact that the Muslims under the Ottoman rule collaborated with the Allied Powers during World War I. Hence, the three hundred million Muslims wishing for justice to be served does not seem to be a very powerful argument that can go much further than being a facile rhetoric meant to boost the morale of a crowd coming to the end of its rope.
According to İkdâm, İleri and Hadisât, Münevver Saime Hanım was the next speaker after Fahreddin Bey at the gathering. She began by addressing God, asking Him to listen to the cries of the mothers, widows and orphans of the martyrs, and inquired the reason behind letting such noble people to shed tears.270
The most hard-hitting part of her speech is when she describes how she will raise his son:
When my son asks me for the first time 'who am I?' I will tell him like an angel crying from the heavens that he is a Turk with a great history. This voice, this varnished sound will stir up storms in his soul. As I sing him his lullaby with my sorrowful voice, I will seed these days in his soul. I will recite to him the songs of the great Turkish nation. I will embellish his cradle with these monuments of the architects. I will tell him about Fatihs and Yavuzes in stories. He will see İzmir in his handkerchief, in his book, his wallet and his fez. When I die, I will give him the golden enchased sword from my father and the folded flag as inheritance. The shackles put on by the winners are bound to be broken, because on that day, the seeds that I planted in his heart will bloom as flowers of freedom, and will erupt as a red rebellion. The ones who think of an eternal peace should not forget that the echo of the blow to us will definitely damage the peace of humanity in the future.271
270 ''Halk Mitingi Bugün Akd Ediliyor,'' İkdâm, Numero: 8005, 22 Şaban 1337 / 23 May 1919, p. 1.
271''Oğlum bana ben neyim diye ilk sorduğu gün ona semâlardan haykıran bir melek gibi büyük tarihli bir Türksün diye hitab edeceğim. Bu nidâ, bu sırlı ses onun ruhunda ne fırtınalar hazırlayacak.
118
The former speeches delivered in the gatherings by women mostly portrayed a strong woman standing behind his man, or in some cases, as we saw in the Üsküdar meeting, called women to get directly involved with the struggle. Yet, what we see here is neither a wife supporting her man, nor a woman who takes the reigns into her hands, but a mother making long-term plans about how she is going to raise her son as if the conflict is expected to last long enough that the future generations will have to put an end to it. Münevver Saime Hanım, as the mother, talked about how she would be bringing her child up, instilling in him that he is a Turk and teach him about the glorious history of his ancestors, which is nationalistic indoctrination at its finest.
She finished her speech by stating that she wants to ''point out something that every Muslim wants to say, but for whatever reason, cannot.''272 She urged the crowd not to believe the latest rumours: ''They will preserve the integrity of our nation but within which boundaries? As long as this is not made clear, there will not be peace in Turkey.''273
Although she did not directly state what these aforementioned rumours are, it is certain that there was new information about the situation which shifted the focus from the occupation of İzmir and turned into a more encompassing discussion. It
Ninnisini söylerken bu günleri yanık sesimle ruhuna serpeceğim, ona büyük Türk ırkının şarkılarını terennüm edeceğim, kundağına mimarların yaptığı bu abideleri işleyeceğim, masallarda Fatihler'i Yavuzlar'ı anlatacağım, mendilinde, kitâbında, cüzdânında, fesinde hep İzmir'i görecek. Ölürken ona babamdan kalan altın kakmalı kılıncı rafda sarılı duran bayrağı bir mirâs olarak vereceğim. Galiplerin takdığı zincirler çözülmeye mahkûmdur. Çünkü o gün oğlumun kalbine ekdiklerim hürriyet çiçekleri olarak açacak, kızıl isyan olarak taşacak, sulh-ı müebbed düşünenler bize indirilecek darbenin aks-ı sedâsının yarınki insanlığın sükûnetini mutlaka ihlâl edeceğini unutmamalıdır.''
''Dünkü Kadıköy İctimâsı – Yağmur Altında 15,000 Kişi.'' Hadîsât. Numero: 143, 23 Şaban 1337 / 23 May 1919, p. 1.
272 ''Halk Mitingi Bugün Akd Ediliyor,'' İkdâm, Numero: 8005, 22 Şaban 1337 / 23 May 1919, p. 1.
273 Ibid.
119
should also be noted that Hadisât used the words ''decision to divide our motherland'' in its introduction about the gathering. Hence, it is obvious something changed although not explicitly stated in the speeches of the gathering.
We might need to take a few steps back, and check the newspapers of the previous days, which might shed some light on these rumours. The 21 May 1919 articles of the newspapers inform us that the Grand Vizier sent a telegram to the members of the Paris Peace Conference stating that Anatolia, from the Arabian border to the Black Sea, and the Rumeli region including Edirne should stay under the sovereignty of the sultan.274
On 22 May 1919, the Grand Vizier had a new declaration in the newspapers stating that that there was no need to hide the fact that the situation was dire.275 He stated that the events of the past few days created a huge distress among the Ottomans, and more and more people who saw what was going on throughout the country started to understand the real nature of the situation. He pointed out that he was not talking about Armenian provinces, or areas where Arabic was spoken, but about Anatolia and Trakya, including Edirne, which he stated should be kept under Ottoman sovereignty due to the majority of the Turkish population in there.276 Hence, it could be argued that the Grand Vizier's publicly declared concerns about the future of the territories perceived as Turkish beyond any doubt, and the fact that he felt the need to communicate these concerns to the Paris Conference must have alarmed the Ottoman public leading them to believe, or confirm their worst fears, that no part of the mother-land was safe from suffering the same fate as İzmir.
274 '' Bugünkü Miting,'' Sabâh, Numero: 10604, 22 Şaban 1337 / 23 May 1919, p. 1.
275 ''Dünkü Kadıköy İctimâ'sı – Yağmur Altında 15,000 Kişi,'' Hadîsât, Numero: 143, 23 Şaban 1337 / 23 May 1919, p. 1.
276 '' Bugünkü Miting,'' Sabâh, Numero: 10604, 22 Şaban 1337 / 23 May 1919, p. 1.
120
Münevver Saime Hanım finished her speech: ''Gentlemen! Ladies! The time to talk little and work hard has come. We cry alone. There is no right won by crying, no heart to listen to our sobs. Stop organising, begin acting.''277
At this point, it is pretty evident that the optimistic -and retrospectively speaking, naïve- idea that the Allied Powers could be reasoned with to undo what was done to İzmir, and that the unity of the motherland could be secured through diplomatic means is considered totally out of the question. Münevver Saime Hanım with her last words call the masses to act and act fast, pointing out that there was no authority that had ears to the protests and the cries of the Ottomans.
The next speaker of the day was Kemal Bey who was reported to be a student of the Faculty of Medicine.278 We see that all four newspapers reported Kemal Bey's speech. He began his talk by addressing the crowd:
Unfortunate Muslims! Heroes that sacrifice their lives for their home, religion and honour! Heroes who roar like lions who were wounded in the heart! Dirty feet are stumping all over the sacredness of Muslims who died in the name of religion and honour, for justice and righteousness! They want to tear the heart of Turkishness, Islam and Anatolia. The ones whose eyes are blinded by passion and insanity are lusting over the capital of the Sultan and the Caliph.279
The idea that İstanbul itself could have been a target was voiced before in the Üsküdar meeting, although it was suggested only as a possibility. However, we see
277 ''Efendiler! Hanımlar! Az söylemek, çok iş görmek zamanı hulûl etmiştir. Biz yalnız ağlıyoruz. Ağlamakla kazanılmış hak, hıçkırıklarımızı dinleyecek kalp yok. Teşkîlâta niyâhet, faâliyete mübâşeret.''
''Dünkü Kadıköy İctimâ'sı – Yağmur Altında 15,000 Kişi,'' Hadîsât, Numero: 143, 23 Şaban 1337 / 23 May 1919, p. 1.
278 ''Bugünkü Miting,'' Sabâh, Numero: 10604, 22 Şaban 1337 / 23 May 1919, p. 1.
279 ''Ey kara bahtlı Müslümanlar: Ey din, namûs uğruna can veren kahramanlar! Ey kalbinden vurulmuş arslanlar gibi kükreyen kahramanlar, din ve namûs namına, hak ve ‘adâlet namına can veren Müslümanlar'ın mukaddesatını mülevves ayaklar çiğniyor. Türklüğün Müslümanlığın Anadolu'nun kalbini parçalamak istiyorlar. Gözleri ihtiras ve cinnetle dönmüş olanlar hakan ve halifenin o mukaddes pây-i tahtına gözlerini dikmişler.''
''Halk Mitingi Bugün Akd Ediliyor,'' İkdâm, Numero: 8005, 22 Şaban 1337 / 23 May 1919, p. 1.
121
that the rhetoric shifts slightly away from İzmir, and starts to focus on the whole motherland. It is not believed what happened in İzmir and the surrounding areas was an insulated incident, but rather a full-fledged attack on the Ottomans as a whole was underway.
He addressed the Allied Powers: ''I am asking you, what do you want from us? Don't we have science? Don't we have virtues? Don't we have monuments or universities? Didn't we bring up geniuses?''280 He finished his speech by stating that he is well aware that they [Allied Powers] have mitrailleuses that could kill thousands within minutes, but even though the Ottomans do not have shields, they have their God and the martyrs in Wallachia, Galicia and Iraq should rest in peace because God, who is greater than all, is the avenger of the oppressed.281
It could be argued that by referencing science and architecture, Kemal Bey wished to point out that the Ottomans were a civilised people who contributed to the human enlightenment, hence not an inferior nation, and did not deserve to be divided. Afterwards, he acknowledged the military superiority of the winners, but stated that the Ottomans had their God who would avenge the sufferings of the nation, which was in parallel with the divine justice argument that we saw in the earlier protests.
After Kemal Bey's speech, we learn from the newspapers that Ahmet Kemal Bey took the stage. Sabâh and İleri stated that he read a poem although the text can only be found only in İleri. İkdâm, on the other hand, prints a small speech delivered by him where he stated that the Ottomans showed their comparative population to the
280 ''Size soruyorum: bizden ne istiyorsunuz? Bizde ilim mi yok, bizde fazilet mi yok, bizde abideler mi yok, bizde camiler mi yok. Biz dahiler yetiştirmedik mi? Camilerimiz, her şeyimiz var.''
"Bugünkü Miting,'' Sabâh, Numero: 10604, 22 Şaban 1337 / 23 May 1919, p. 1.
281 ''Dünkü Kadıköy İctimâ'sı – Yağmur Altında 15,000 Kişi,'' Hadîsât, Numero: 143, 23 Şaban 1337 / 23 May 1919, p. 1.
122
Europeans, and if they do not believe it, they should let the two nations [Greeks and Turks] battle it out to see who survives, and finished his words by asking God ''to grant mercy to the civilisation.''282
The last speaker of the day is Hâlide Edip. The speech seems to be heavily censored in Sabâh. However, we see that the other newspapers were able to print a more complete version thanks to the discrepancies in the censorship process which we discussed earlier. Hadisât introduces Halide Edip's speech thus: ''she delivered a moving speech, left the attendants sobbing.''283 It is added that they will be communicating the parts that they could catch of the speech.284
She began her address as follows:
The mourning that is rippling in Muslim skies is not only the mourning of the Turks, but of all the Muslims. It is not only a disaster for the Turks but a disaster of the history of İslam. You can be sure that the excitement of today is shaking the Muslim world like a wave. You should know that Turkey and the Turks who seem small are the heart of the Muslim world.285
Here, we can see the parallel with Fahreddin Bey's speech where he stated that 350 million Muslims were behind the Ottoman cause. On the other hand, Halide Edip touched upon the obvious contradiction with this statement, and the fact that the fellow Muslims rebelled against the Ottomans, and co-operated with its enemies during World War I:
Be sure that during the War, many Muslims shed blood side by side with our enemies. When they battled in Galicia, Çanakkale, in Iraq, against the
282 ''Halk Mitingi Bugün Akd Ediliyor,'' İkdâm, Numero: 8005, 22 Şaban 1337 / 23 May 1919. p. 1.
283 ''Dünkü Kadıköy İctiması – Yağmur Altında 15,000 Kişi,'' Hadîsât, Numero: 143, 23 Şaban 1337 / 23 May 1919. p. 1.
284 Ibid.
285 ''Müslüman ve Türk dünyasının üstünde en siyah bir matem dalgalanıyor. Türkiye'nin üzerinde dalgalanan bu matem yalnız Türklerin değil bütün Müslümanlarındır. Türkün felaketi yalnız Türklerin değil İslam tarihinin bir sahifesidir. Bugünkü heyecan emin olunuz ki Müslüman âlemini bir dalga gibi sarsıyor… Biliniz ki küçük görünen Türkiye ve Türkler Müslüman dünyasının kalbidir.''
"Bugünkü Miting,'' Sabâh, Numero: 10604, 22 Şaban 1337 / 23 May 1919. p. 1.
123
Caliphate, they fought for justice and humanity, and be sure that they were fooled, they were deceived. The Indian-Muslim blood that was shed against Turks in Çanakkale was not for the sake of Venizelos's few palikaryas.286
Hâlide Edip addressed a huge loophole in the whole Muslim world shares our pain argument, as the battles that were waged in the Arabian Peninsula and Gallipoli were still very fresh in everyone’s mind. Claiming that the whole Muslim population were behind the Ottomans and hurting with them without making any references to the issue makes a weak argument. Here, Hâlide Edip used the for they do not know what they were doing defence claiming that they were tricked by the enemy, and were led to think that they were fighting for a good cause.
It should be noted that half of the sentence where Venizelos's name is uttered was censored in İleri, leaving only the ''was not for'' part, and the whole paragraph was censored in Sabâh. When we look at Hadisât, we see that the whole sentence was censored. The inconsistency in the censorship was discussed in the former chapters, and it was also pointed out in the chapter concerning the Üsküdar gathering, the speakers usually refrained from directly uttering Greece in an accusatory tone, but rather resorted to using phrases such as that country, usually followed with a pejorative noun. Given that out of four newspapers that printed Hâlide Edip's speech, only one of them was able to print this sentence involving Venizelos, and the remaining two newspapers had only this sentence taken out in that paragraph is interesting. On the other hand, we cannot see a consistency in this matter, as Hâlide Edip went on to directly address Venizelos and other leaders of the Big Three in the following parts of her speech; and we see that they were printed in Hadisât, İleri and İkdâm, but those paragraphs were censored in Sabâh.
286 ''Emin olunuz muharebede birçok Müslümanlar düşmanlarımızla beraber kan döktüler. Galiçya'da, Çanakkale'de, Irak'da Makam-ı Hilâfete karşı harb ederken adâlet ve beşeriyet için harb ettiler, ve emin olunuz ki aldandılar aldatıldılar. Çanakkale'de Türke karşı akan bu Müslüman Hint kanı Venizelos'un birkaç palikaryasının hatırı için değildir.''
''Halk Mitingi Bugün Akd Ediliyor,'' İkdâm, Numero: 8005, 22 Şaban 1337 / 23 May 1919. p. 1.
124
Halide Edip continued her speech by stating that:
Today, there is an excitement. Let us not believe the faulty news spread to extinguish this excitement. (Sounds of we do not believe them.) Germany that once shook the world bows its head in shame. People who want to distribute land that does not belong to them will bow before the voice of justice and deliver it. Behind Clemenceau, who gave his friend Venizelos [two-three words are censored] a present, stands a French nation that fought for the rights of its people. Behind Lloyd George stands an appreciative English nation that fought the Turks in Çanakkale like lions. They will rebel against this injustice, and say that they did not spill their blood for this. The justice of God will always manifest itself.287
At this stage, it is clear that Halide Edip was not afraid of naming names. The speeches delivered earlier in this gathering, and the former ones used a more ambiguous language when they addressed the parties of the issue, such as the winners. President Wilson's name was only uttered in a pleading or a reproachful manner. Yet here, we see that Hâlide Edip directly used and accused both Lloyd George and Clemenceau in her speech. It should also be noted that in İkdâm's version of the speech, Lloyd George was accused of wanting to break up the Turkish nation and Turkey,288 although the version in Hadisât did not have those words.
Since at this point, it must have become obvious that appealing to the Allied Powers will be futile, and the speakers in the gatherings started to openly admit that the promises by the leaders of the Entente turned out to be empty words. Hâlide Edip
287 ''Bugün aldanmayalım hissedilen bir heyecan var. Bunu söndürmek içün icad edilen yalancı haberlere inanmayalım. (İnanmıyoruz sedaları) bugün alemi titreten Almanya başı önünde gidiyor. Fakat kendilerinin olmayan toprakları aleme tevzî' etmek isteyenler hakkın sedası önünde inleyecekler ve hakkı teslîm edeceklerdir. Dost Venizelos'a [iki-üç kelimelik sansür] bir hediye veren Mösyö Clemenceau'nun arkasında milletin hakkı için harb etmiş bir Fransız milleti var. Lloyd George'un arkasında da Çanakkale'de arslancasına çarpışmış Türklerle harb eden kadirşinas bir İngiliz milleti var. Haksızlığa isyan edecek, kanımızı bu yağma için sarf etmedik diyecekdir. Allah'ın adâleti ne zaman olsa tezâhür edecektir.''
''Dünkü Kadıköy İctiması – Yağmur Altında 15,000 Kişi,'' Hadîsât, Numero: 143, 23 Şaban 1337 / 23 May 1919. p. 1.
288 ''Halk Mitingi Bugün Akd Ediliyor,'' İkdâm, Numero: 8005, 22 Şaban 1337 / 23 May 1919. p. 1.
125
stated that even if the leaders of those nations acted against the principles of justice, people of those nations who fought for the rights of the citizens in the past, or who had to suffer the consequences of World War I will see the hypocrisy and the unfairness of what was done to the Ottoman Empire, and will have none of it. Hence, we see the rhetoric that the Ottoman Empire is amongst the civilised nations entitled to be treated as such, and then the argument shifts to a brotherhood of people where the public of the Allied Forces will stand behind the principles set forth by their nations.
Hâlide Edip finished her speech by reassuring the crowd that injustices were temporal, and righteousness would prevail sooner or later.289 She also added that there is also divine justice above all, and it will come to shake all nations from their foundations.290
To sum up, it can be seen that a huge momentum building up within the Ottoman public sparked after the occupation of İzmir. On the gathering in Kadıköy on 22 May 1919, less than one week after the news of the occupation reached the newspapers, it can be seen that the retrospectively naïve first reaction claiming that things can still be made right by explaining the Ottoman stance to the Allied Powers is totally abandoned. The civilised nations -or at least their leaders- believed or hoped to deliver justice after the armistice are openly called on their hypocrisy. And the Ottoman public is advised to hold on tight to their opposition, which by this point not only concerned İzmir and its surrounding areas, but the whole nation and its very existence. The speeches get much more direct; and there is a call for resistance and struggle without the use of appeasing language concerning the Allied Powers.
289 ''Kalplerimizin Matemi Devam Ediyor – Kadıköy'de Büyük Miting,'' İleri, Numero: 495-113, 23 Şaban 1337 / 23 May 1919. p. 2.
290 ''Dünkü Kadıköy İctiması – Yağmur Altında 15,000 Kişi,'' Hadîsât, Numero: 143, 23 Şaban 1337 / 23 May 1919. p. 1.
126
The First Gathering in the Sultanahmet Square (23 May 1919)
The first of the best-known and most significant protest gatherings in İstanbul took place on 23 May 1919 in the Sultanahmet Square. As we have seen in the earlier chapter, the organisation of the gathering was well publicised in the newspapers; and all citizens of the city were encouraged to attend the meeting. According to some accounts, around three hundred thousand people came together in the Square
— which is roughly one third of the population of the capital city — so it is fair to say that the message reached the targeted audience, and was very much welcomed.
If we look at the introductory writings of the newspapers about the gathering, we see that Alemdâr, unlike its previous reports, has a large and detailed section devoted to the event. In its article ''Almost 300,000 Muslims in Yesterday's Protest,'' Alemdâr reported that ''İstanbul saw its biggest and saddest protest of its history.''291 The article informs us that Sultanahmet Square was packed full, including even the boroughs nearby. The crowd poured in from Fatih, Şehzadebaşı, Bayezid, Salkımsöğüt and Babıâli directions.292
The general atmosphere described in Alemdâr is one of sorrow where ''young, old, men, women -everyone's face was filled with sadness; and even the little children had tears in their eyes.''293 It is further stated that:
The rising, emotional sound of the speeches that we report below trembled hearts. The sobs were shaking chests. At that moment sounds of selâ and tekbîr could be heard from the minarets of the Sultanahmet Mosque. The domes of the mosques were trembling. İstanbul was shaking to its tiniest bits.
291 ''(300,000)e Karib Müslüman,'' Alemdâr, Numero: 152-1462, 24 Şaban 1337 / 24 May 1919. p. 1.
292 Ibid.
293 Ibid.
127
These tekbîrs were not just the voices of İstanbul, Anatolia and all the Turkish towns, but they were also the unified sounds of the lands that five hundred million Muslims inhabit. Islam was beating as one heart with these spiritual sounds, and it was sending the prayers of its children who are wished to be enslaved.294
It is interesting to see that Alemdâr not only has a large section devoted to the coverage of the gathering, but also has an emotionally charged introduction about the mood of the protest along with physical descriptions. We learn that a lot of schools carried banners at the gathering with various inscriptions such as ''We want justice. 350 million Muslims’ rights cannot be sacrificed for 220 thousand Rum.''295 Also, pins were handed out stating that ''İzmir is going to stay Turkish,''296 which is described by the newspaper as ''eye pleasing.''297 We also learn from the article that the pulpit had an Ottoman flag in front of it; and the Twelfth of the Fourteen Points was written in the middle with two black flags for mourning.298
It is reported that the gathering began at 2:30, ending at 4 o'clock with a prayer delivered by the hodja. Apparently, before the crowd dissembled, we learn that Halide Edip Hanım announced that she would organise a mevlîd for the souls of the martyrs of İzmir on Wednesday in the Sultanahmet Square, adding that the
294 ''Aşağıda yazdığımız üzere hatiblerin teessürle yükselen sesi kalplere dökülüyor. Hıçkırıklar göğüsleri sarsıyordu. O esnada Sultanahmed Camii’nin minarelerinden selâ ve tekbîr avazları duyuldu. Şimdi caminin kubbeleri inliyor. İstanbul topraklarının en küçük zerresine varıncaya kadar titriyordu. Bu tekbîrler İstanbul’un, Anadolu’nun ve bütün Türk illerinin değil, beş yüz milyon Müslümanın sakin olduğu bütün toprakların müşterek sesleriydi. İslamiyet bu lahuti seslerle tek bir kalp gibi çarpıyor ve esir edilmek istenen evladlarının münâcâtını Allah’ına gönderiyordu.''
Ibid.
295 ''Hak istiyoruz. Üç yüz elli milyon Müslümanın hakkı iki yüz yirmi bin Ruma feda olunamaz!''
Ibid.
296 ''İzmir Türk kalacaktır.''
Ibid.
297 Ibid.
298 Ibid.
128
following Friday, gatherings would be held for a prayer, and a final decision would be announced.299
Alemdâr added that it is remarkable that the citizens allowed no uproar despite the size of the gathering. This is interpreted by Alemdâr to be proof that the Ottomans are a highly civilised people, and that they are going to see the justice is upheld very soon.300 It is also pointed out the security at the gathering was provided by the Ottoman soldiers; and the Minister of War, İstanbul Muhâfızı and the Police Chief were present at the site.301
If we look at the coverage in Sabâh, we see that the newspaper put the estimated number of people who were also present in the gathering at around one hundred and fifty thousand people.302
The gathering is described as ''historically the most important day of İstanbul'' when hundreds of thousands of people gathered in the Sultanahmet Square, an area which ''had seen many of our nation’s greatest days, but was full of sorrow and grief-stricken protests yesterday.''303 Besides this, the relatively short introductory information in Sabâh does not differ greatly from what we see in Alemdâr.
If we look at the coverage of the gathering in İkdâm, we see that the opening of the article is much more elaborate than those in both Sabâh and Alemdâr. The article began with the words ''we want justice,'' and went on to state that close to one
299 Ibid.
300 Ibid.
301 Ibid.
302 ''Dünkü Muazzam Miting,'' Sabâh, Numero: 10605, 23 Şaban 1337 / 24 May 1919. p. 1.
303 Ibid.
129
hundred thousand people were at the gathering. The square was reported to be so crowded that people could be found on the trees and on the railings of the Mosque.304
The newspaper pointed out that this huge crowd had gathered to protest the injustices that the Turks and Muslims were subjected to, yet they had not acted out on their rage, and no skirmish took place during the entire protest. İkdâm went on to state that:
This behaviour proves that the Muslims, even at their most agitated and grief-stricken state, have the moral ability and possess a strong civility that prevents them from giving in to rage and anger, and to restrain the strongest feelings of fury and grudge. The difference between this nation and the Greeks who were brought to İzmir to teach us about civility is truly worthy of notice.305
Similar to what has been done by Alemdâr, İkdâm also presented the lack of civil unrest and anarchy that could be expected from such a huge and angry crowd as an indication of the graciousness and civility of the Turks. Taking this argument one step further, İkdâm compared the Greeks and the Turks, where it is suggested that given what the Greek forces did in İzmir, they cannot be in any position to ''civilise'' the Turks. Turks are seen as undoubtedly at a higher level in this matter than the occupiers; and the way they carried themselves courteously throughout the protest in İstanbul bears witness to this.
The newspaper also noted that many communities and unions participated in the protest, making their way towards the gathering area. They held black banners with slogans such as ''Muslims won't die, or be killed,'' and ''More than one million
304 ''Yüzbin Müslüman Sultanahmet Meydanında Muazzam Bir Miting Akd Eyledi,'' İkdâm, Numero: 8006, 23 Şaban 1337 / 24 May 1919. p. 1.
305 ''Bu hal isbât ediyordu ki Müslümanlar en heyecanlı ve matemli devrelerinde bile kendilerini hiddet ve gazaba kaptırmamağa ve en şiddetli hiss-i gayz ve kinlerini kalblerinde saklamağa muktedir olacak derecede büyük bir meziyet-i ahlâkiye ve kuvvetli bir terbiye-i medeniyeyi hâizdir. Bu millet ile kendisine terbiye-i medeniye dersi vermek üzere İzmir'e getirilen Yunanlılar arasındaki fark hakikaten nazâr-ı dikkat ve ibrete alınmağa şayândır.''
Ibid.
130
Turks cannot be subjected to the rule of two hundred thousand Greeks,'' but they all had the sentence ''We want justice'' in the title.306
İkdâm also informed its readers that ''gazis who have sacrificed one or more limbs of their body... were making their way to the gathering area, leaning on their crutches, without arms or eyes.''307 The women who attended the gathering are also mentioned as "grieving daughters, wives, sisters and mothers who sacrificed their fathers, husbands, brothers and sons in this war for the motherland and freedom."308 The newspaper also added that: ''Without a doubt, the holy souls of the people that they have sacrificed were present at the great gathering yesterday, and said that they too want justice.''309
İkdâm pointed out that even though the gathering was organised to protest the injustices that the nation had to endure, it also served as a way of communicating the ideas and feelings of the Turkish nation whose future was decided by the Paris Conference. It was mentioned that Paris Conference listened only to the nation ''that was deranged with ambition and hostility,'' and ''they saw no need to take it [the Turkish side] into consideration, and decided to base their judgement on false assertions that could not be backed up with truth.''310
It was further stated in İkdâm that:
The Turk who has been imprisoned inside the Turkish borders and isolated from the whole world, and even when its most sacred right of freedom and existence is at the balance, is forbidden to state its opinion and its right to
306 Ibid.
307 Ibid.
308 Ibid.
309 Ibid.
310 Ibid.
131
protect its rights is taken away. It can do nothing but to struggle to organise protest meetings in its own land to try and reach the ears of the authorities.''311
So according to İkdâm, these protest gatherings were a way of showing displeasure about the occupation of İzmir, and a way in which the Great Powers handled the Turkish issue. It was also a way of conveying their opinion to the Allied forces, since other legitimate ways to express their side of the story on the matter was not made available to them. At a time when the very existence of the Turkish state was at stake, and when they were not even allowed to have a say in the affairs that would decide their fate, they were left with no other choice but to come together in large numbers where their physical existence would serve as a manifestation of their wishes.
If we look at the physical description of the gathering by İkdâm, we see that they placed the number of participants at around one hundred thousand people. We are informed that the square was full before the speeches began, and the area between Ayasofya court and Sultanahmet cemetery.312 We also learn that alongside the Minister of War, the İstanbul Muhafızı, and the Police Chief, the French representative Colonel Foulon were also present to ensure the public order.313
Hadisât's coverage of the event was entitled ''A Day Recorded in History – A Nation that Would Die for Its Sultan.'' The title itself differed from the other newspapers, as there was almost no mention of the sultanate angle in the other publications' introduction to the coverage. We see that the other newspapers focused
311 ''Türkiya'nın hudûdları içine haps ile bütün âlemden tecrîd edilmiş ve kendisinin istiklâl ve mevcûdiyeti gibi en mukaddes hukûk mevzû‘-i bahs olurken bile kendisi söz söylemekden ve hakkı müdâfaa ve isbât çarelerinden mahrûm edilmiş bulunan Türk, bugün ancak kendi memleketinde ve kendi bulunduğu yerde protesto mitingleri akd etmek ile çırpınıyor, ve sözünü selâhiyetdâr kulaklara yetişdirmeğe çalışıyor.''
Ibid.
312 Ibid.
313 Ibid.
132
more on the nationalist character of the event, at least in their titles. Hadisât's sub-title also reads: ''Yesterday was truly a great day recorded in history and an event that proved how deeply the country was devoted to its sultan.''314
The newspaper argued that ''İstanbul could not have seen such a day since its first stone was laid.''315 It was claimed that the gathering was the day when ''All Muslims and Turks of İstanbul became a single heart and prayed to God and took refuge in him, declaring to the world, to their friends and enemies that they are one, in procuring their rights.''316
Hadisât claimed that the even-tempered atmosphere of the protest was noted by the observers of the event. It was stated that:
Even the ones who were at war with us until a few months ago, and had feelings of rage and malice towards us, had words of praise after they saw all the excitement and the anger. We heard this with our own ears. Actually, they let it slip and said that in Europe, it would not be possible to contain such rage.317
Similar to what the other newspapers did, Hadisât also assumed the orderly manner in which the protest took place, to be the confirmation of the civil nature of the Turks:
314 ''Dün hakîkaten tarihin kaydettiği azametli bir gün olmuş ve bir hâdise memleketinin padişahına nasıl bir kalble merbût bulunduğunu isbât etmişdir.''
''Tarihin Kayıd Ettiği Bir Gün – Padişahı İçin Can Veren Bir Millet.'' Hadîsât. Numero: 144, 24 Şaban 1337 / 24 May 1919. p. 1.
315 Ibid.
316 ''Çünkü bütün İstanbul Müslüman ve Türkleri bir kalb halinde ellerini Allah'larına açtılar ve büyük Allah'larının kudretine sığınarak haklarını istihsâlde yekvücûd olduklarını bütün dünyâya, dostlarına, düşmânlarına ilân ettiler.''
Ibid.
317 ''Daha birkaç ay evveline kadar bizimle karşı karşıya harb eden bundan dolayı memleketimiz hakkında pek tabii kinler, gayzlar his eyleyenler bile bu müheyyic vahdet karşısında pek çok takdîrlerde bulundular. Bunları kulaklarımızla duyduk. Daha doğrusu onlar ağızlarından kaçırdılar ve «Avrupa’da bu kadar sükûnetin muhafazası kâbil olamayacağını» söylediler."
Ibid.
133
Hopefully, this will be a lesson to those who deem us outsiders to the circle of civilisation. See İzmir, and see Sultanahmet. The Muslims of İstanbul showed such dignity and calmness yesterday that they have put everyone to shame about the security measures, and they are proud of this.318
When we look at the physical descriptions of the gathering, we see that the newspaper does not give an estimate of participants, because ''thousands, hundreds of thousands could not be enough to measure the number of the gatherers,'' as it was claimed that ''all the Muslim and Turkish inhabitants of İstanbul were in Sultanahmet or on the streets leading there.''319 It was added that a lot of women passed out due to the effect of the tekbîrs recited in between and at the end of the speeches, described as a ''divine and holy occurrence.''320
İkdâm's coverage was titled ''Hundreds of Thousands of Muslims in Sultanahmet;'' and we are informed that ''each square metre held more than six people'' at the square.321 It was noted that thousands of people from all walks of life and representatives of more than fifty societies and political parties were present at the gathering.322
The newspaper describes the atmosphere of the crowd as follows:
Everyone was grieved but not hopeless. Each heart's devotion and interest was just for İzmir, only for İzmir. This huge crowd was the greatest, the
318 ''Bizi dâima dâire-i medeniyetden haric tutanlar için bu da bir ders olur inşallah. İşte İzmir, işte Sultanahmed. Dün İstanbul Müslümanları ittihâz olunan tedbîrlerden dolayı bile herkesi mahcûb edecek bir vakar ve sükûnet gösterdiler ve bununla iftihâr ediyorlar.''
Ibid.
319 Ibid.
320 Ibid.
321 ''Yüzbin Müslüman Sultanahmet Meydanında Muazzam Bir Miting Akd Eyledi,'' İkdâm, Numero: 8006, 23 Şaban 1337 / 24 May 1919. p. 1.
322 Ibid.
134
complete proof of how Turks, Muslims were united against the national disaster.323
When we compare the reports of the speeches delivered in earlier gatherings with this one, we see that the number of speakers reported and the sequence of the speakers in the coverage of the Sultanahmet gathering is pretty uniform. The first speaker of the day according to all the newspapers is reported to be Şair Mehmet Emin Bey. Alemdâr's coverage, which was noted to be an abridged version, began with a lament:
Brothers, I wish that the nights of centuries and the graves of the world filled my eyes and made me sick. I wish I begged on the streets, rather than hear these sounds of disaster that ruined the ears of my nation, or see these dark days. I wish the thunders of the sky, the monsters of the earth came together and dragged me through the mud so that I would not be facing this catastrophe and did not have to endure this suffering.324
The fate of the second paragraph of his speech is rather interesting. We do not see this covered in Alemdâr, which could merely be due to the fact that it was a summary as indicated by the newspaper. However, when we look at the remaining four newspapers, we see that it did not quite make it, either. Sabâh, İkdâm and Hadisât managed to print a part of the next paragraph, but we see that İleri had to omit it all. The most that we can learn is from Sabâh, which reads:
Yes brothers. After the defeat of our country and the sufferings of our nation, we see that our İzmir has been invaded by the Greeks. The Greeks, these enemies who have been trying to place the flag of pan-Hellenism on the ruins
323 ''Herkes müteessir fakat meyûs değildi. Her kalbin müşterek tahsîs ve tehyîci yalnız İzmir, hep İzmir içindi. Türklerin, Müslümanların millî felâket karşısında nasıl müttehid olduklarını isbât için bu mahşer en bülend en beliğ bir isbâtıdır.''
Ibid.
324 "Kardeşler, keşke asırların geceleri ve dünyâların mezârları gözlerime dolarak bir alîl olsaydım. Sokak sokak dilense idim de milletimin kulağını parçalayan bu felâket seslerini işitmeseydim, bu kara günleri görmeseydim. Keşke göğün yıldırımları, yerin canavarları birleşerek beni kanlar içinde topraklara yuvarlasaydı da vatanın bu musibeti huzûrunda bulunmasaydım ve bu azâbları çekmeseydim."
''(300,000)e Karib Müslüman,'' Alemdâr, Numero: 152-1462, 24 Şaban 1337 / 24 May 1919. p. 1.
135
of our land for a long time, have been (censored) even though they have no..."325
When we look at İkdâm and Hadisât we see that they did not make it past the word "pan-Hellenism." As we have demonstrated earlier, censorship did not necessarily follow a regular pattern; part of a speech that could not be found in one newspaper was printed in another; or in other cases, the coverage of the gatherings did not overlap, and there was no way of comparing the texts due to the fact that some newspapers did not print a speech at all. Yet here, we have five newspapers that all printed a speech pretty much verbatim, hence it is interesting to be able to compare them to see what made authorities tick. Here, it is clear that the word "pan-Hellenism" raised a red flag for the officials.
Afterwards, Mehmet Emin Bey went on to talk about the inherently Turkish nature of İzmir. He stated that the area had been a land of Muslims for six hundred years, and it was ''historically, culturally, religiously and racially Turkish and Muslim,'' adding that it would always stay that way.326
He went on to state that Turks were resilient people who faced many challenges, but successfully quenched their enemies:
These holy lands have dealt with many trials and it said to the ones who looked at it with greedy eyes: Enemy, stay back. My green mountains and blooming highlands have deep cliffs and dark graves beneath them. My sons know how to kill as much as they know how to die.327
325 "Evet kardeşlar, biz mağlûbiyet-i vatân ve milletimizin acısından sonra bugün İzmir'imizin Yunanlılar tarafından işgâl edildiğini görüyoruz. Yunanlılar, öteden beri tarih ve saltanatımızın enkazı üzerine (pan-helenizm) bayrağını dikmek ihtirâsını besleyen bu düşmanlar, ellerinde hiçbir hakk-ı salâh olmadığı hâlde bizim öz toprağımızın…"
''Dünkü Muazzam Miting,'' Sabâh, Numero: 10605, 23 Şaban 1337 / 24 May 1919. p. 1.
326 ''Yüzbin Müslüman Sultanahmet Meydanında Muazzam Bir Miting Akd Eyledi,'' İkdâm, Numero: 8006, 23 Şaban 1337 / 24 May 1919. p. 1.
327 "Bu ‘aziz toprak ‘asırlardan beri birçok sarsıntılara göğüs germiş ve öyle haris gözlerle kendisine bakanlara karşı söylediği şu olmuşdur: 'Düşman, geri, benim yeşil dağlarımın, çiçekli yaylalarımın altında derin uçurumlar, karanlık mezarlar da vardır; benim evladlarım ölmeyi bildikleri kadar öldürmeyi de bilirler'."
136
This morale boosting part of the speech underlines the similar points that we saw in the earlier gatherings beginning with the assertion of the irrefutable Turkish character of the seized land, the preposterousness of the idea that it could be given to any other nation and that the Turks were ready to defend their motherland regardless of the cost.
Mehmet Emin Bey continued his speech by stating that the Turkish nation never bowed its head to anyone except God, and "its hands that get calluses from nothing but swords will never reach for shackles."328 He asked what kind of power would be able to change this character of the Turkish nation; and his answer to this was worthy of further investigation:
Iron and fire? Brothers, I have not heard a single country or nation that was killed with these. History shows that no nation with an honourable history and civilisation, a strong sense of virtue and morals, a rich literature and poetry, religion and tradition and with memories pertaining to race and motherland that could be destroyed. The swords of the conquerors that burned down golden thrones and granite castles were always helpless when faced with the spirit of nations. Look at the Kingdom of Poland that was shred to pieces by Germans, Russians and Austrians! Look at Alsace-Lorraine that fell into the clutches of the Prussian eagle! The enslaved lands of yesterday are waving their three coloured, white eagled flags on their palaces and shrines once again as Poland was neither Slavic, nor Germanic. They had such Mickiewiczs that they kept alive an undying Poland in the spirit and consciousness of the Polish people.329
Ibid.
328 ''Sultanahmet'te Yüzbinlerce Müslüman,'' İleri, Numero: 496-114, 24 Şaban 1337 / 24 May 1919. p. 1.
329 "Demir ve ateş? Kardeşler ben bunlarla hiçbir vatan ve ırkın öldüğünü işitmedim. Şerefli bir tarih ve medeniyete, sağlam bir fazîlet ve ahlâka, zengin bir şiir ve edebiyata, dine ve milli anânelere, ırkî ve vatânî hatıralara mâlik olan bir milletin mahvolduğunu tarih göstermiyor. Altın tahtları, granit kaleleri yakıp yıkan fatihlerin kılınçları her zaman milli ruhların önlerinde âciz kalmıştır. İşte size Almanlar, Ruslar ve Avusturyalılar tarafından parçalanan Lehistan! İşte size Prusya kartalının pençesine düşen Alsas-Loren! Dünün o esir toprakları ki bugün beyaz kartallı ve üç renkli bayraklarını yine saraylarının ve mabedlerinin üzerinde dalgalandırıyorlar. Zira Lehistan İslav ve Germen değildi. Onun o Mickiewicz'leri vardı ki Lehlilerin milli ruh ve vicdanlarında bir ölmez Polonya'yı yaşatıyordu."
''Dünkü Muazzam Miting,'' Sabâh, Numero: 10605, 23 Şaban 1337 / 24 May 1919. p. 1.
137
First of all, we see that his ‘medeniyet dediğin tek dişi kalmış canavar’ rhetoric was being employed in the speech where Mehmet Emin said that "iron and fire" cannot destroy the spirit, will and determination of the people. It could be said that this ‘man versus the machine’ argument goes much deeper and wider than just within the context of this particular protest. Since the Industrial Revolution of the eighteenth century shattered the social structure for good, the idea of humankind facing a lifeless, soulless enemy which is highly destructive, albeit in the end helpless against the human spirit has been a topic used over and over again, whether it be in the Turkish National Anthem, or The Lord of the Rings. In his speech, Mehmet Emin pointed out that these ruinous elements were never able to eradicate a nation. Furthermore, he went on to talk about the reasons why a nation could not be destroyed, for example in terms of civilisation, morals, literature, culture and a historical consciousness. According to him, the Turks unquestionably possessed these characteristics that a nation was supposed to have. Thus, it was impossible for it to be destroyed. The example that he went on to give about Poland, which was given as evidence in speeches at other gatherings, was used to show that even after Poland was divided up into three between Russia, Prussia and the Habsburg Empire, it was not possible to destroy it for good. Thus, a parallel between the Ottoman Empire and Poland was drawn to exemplify that even when nations came under attack by other nations, and even if they temporarily cease to exist, it is against the nature of things for them to stay that way for long as they re-emerge.
In his speech, Mehmet Emin clearly stated whom he thought was to blame for the state that the Ottoman Empire fell into:
O Europe, o America you are the ones to blame for this. We Turks thought you were great even after the war we have fallen into and the defeat that we faced. We expected righteousness and justice from you. You had such thinkers, such poets who, like the Apostles of the Messiah, saw catastrophes
138
in a single drop of human blood and tears. They thought that the death of the vilest humans as something more tragic than the death of a star… When we saw you in front of us after the war, when we heard that you fought for humanity and freedom, we believed that the peace would bring justice and a golden age would begin… However today, when Turkish and Muslim İzmir is given to the Greeks, and the rights of one and a half million Turks are sacrificed for two hundred thousand Greeks, our hopes shattered.330
Since the first gathering, we have seen that most speeches made points concerning a feeling of deceit by the Great Powers even though the names of these countries were very seldom uttered openly. Mehmet Emin here clearly pointed a finger at Europe and America as the perpetrators of this mess, while Greece was an object in this bloody game rather than the subject. The similar points of justice, humanity, freedom and righteousness were stressed once again, where Mehmet Emin expressed that it was believed that the Western powers’ characteristics led the Ottomans to assume that they would base their actions on these principles, but in the end, the Ottomans were abandoned and extremely disappointed.
He finished his speech by calling the Ottoman people to unite against the common enemy, stating that the only way to remove the Greeks from İzmir and receiving justice would be to put an end to the discord between the people.331
The next speaker of the day is reported to be Fahreddin Hayri Bey. His speech cannot be found in İkdâm, and only his name is mentioned in Sabâh.
330 "Ey Avrupa, ey Amerika bunun mesûliyeti sizin olacaktır. Biz Türkler düştüğümüz muhârebeye ve uğradığımız mağlûbiyete rağmen sizi büyük tanıyorduk. Ve sizden hak ve adâlet bekliyorduk. Sizin o mütefekkirleriniz ve o şairleriniz vardı ki bunlar Mesihler'in şâkirdleri gibi bir damlacık insan kanında ve göz yaşında tufânlar, kıyâmetler görürlerdi, en hakir bir insanın ölümünü bir yıldızın düşmesinden daha acıklı bulurlardı… Muharebeden sonra sizi karşımızda görünce, insaniyet ve hürriyet nâmına muhârebe ettiğinizi işitince sulhun hak ve adâlet te'mîn edeceğine ve artık altın devrin doğacağına inandık… Lakin heyhat bugün Türk ve Müslüman İzmir’in Yunanlılar'a açılması ve bir buçuk milyon Türk ve Müslüman’ın hukûk ve hürriyetinin iki yüz bin Ruma feda edilmesi bizi ümidimizin harebesi karşısında bıraktı."
''(300,000)e Karib Müslüman,'' Alemdâr, Numero: 152-1462, 24 Şaban 1337 / 24 May 1919. p. 1.
331 ''Sultanahmet'te Yüzbinlerce Müslüman,'' İleri, Numero: 496-114, 24 Şaban 1337 / 24 May 1919. p. 1.
139
However, the remaining three newspapers have a transcript of his speech delivered at the gathering.
İleri informs us that Fahreddin Hayri Bey began his speech with a poem, which is only mentioned in Hadisât, although it does not seem to be censored in Alemdâr or İleri, but only left out. The first poem is a short one, warning the nation to wake up to the calling before it is too late. The second poem was written by Tevfik Fikret, praising Ottomanism and underlying its indestructible character.
After stating that the Ottomans were facing the worst times of their noble history, Fahreddin Bey assured the crowd that:
The last words have not been uttered yet. Be wary of the actions and words of the elements amongst us, who are the enemies of humanity and justice, and who deem everything a legitimate tool to plant seeds of discord and hostility between us Muslim brothers when they are in need of unity more than ever before. Do not believe in circulating false rumours.332
This warning against "false rumours" is a recurring topic in the speeches delivered at the Sultanahmet gathering. However, we do not see a mention of what these rumours are, nor are we pointed at their source. Much like the Great Powers who were not individually uttered in the first gatherings, but were rather addressed in a "powers that be" fashion, we see that whoever is spewing these malicious rumours are not called out, and the rumours themselves are not uttered.
The remaining of his speech seems to be censored both in İleri and Alemdâr, but luckily Hadisât was able to print it. Fahreddin Hayri Bey pointed out that a few Turkish newspapers had printed news about the Ottoman State receiving help from the Great Powers. He says that even though he believed gratitude towards this kind
332 "Bugün son söz söylenmemiştir. Muhitimizde aramızda şu an tarihte her vakitten ziyâde yekdil ve yekvücûd olarak başlamak ihtiyacında bulunan biz İslam kardeşlerin arasına nifâk ve şikâk tohumları ekmek için her türlü vasıtayı meşrû’ add eden insaniyet ve hak düşmanı olan anâsırın (!) ahval, harekât ve akvâline karşı pek müteyakkız bulununuz! Ve deverân eden şayiât-ı kâzibeye inanmayınız!"
140
of help was an obligation, he thought that the Great Powers' most urgent task should be to shed some light on the darkest page of the Ottoman Empire's history.333 He finished his speech by stating that: "We should now do our duty. We should ask for God's help. Hak is with us."334
Although it is not made clear, this reference to the newspapers that print positive reports about the Great Powers could be what Mehmet Emin was talking about in his speech concerning the rumours. The fact that this part of Fahreddin Hayri Bey's speech was censored in two out of three newspapers that printed it is an indication that the authorities did not want it published despite the fact it was worded in a very careful manner where he said that the help from the Great Powers should be appreciated. Unfortunately, we do not have a definite proof if the news that Fahreddin Hayri Bey was talking about indeed constituted the rumours that Mehmet Emin Bey stated in his speech.
As a side note, it should be mentioned that one of the newspapers within the scope of this thesis, namely Alemdâr is a pretty strong candidate to be one of the publications that reported positive news about the Great Powers, especially Great Britain. Alemdâr not only gave us the least detailed coverage on most of the gatherings, but a study of its articles from the first two weeks after the Greek occupation of İzmir seems as if they were more concerned with promoting Great Britain and establishing how correct publishers of Alemdâr were about opposing fighting on the side of the Germans, than reporting on the incidents that took place in İzmir. This was discussed to a certain extent in the chapter on the first reactions to
333 ''Tarihin Kayıd Ettiği Bir Gün – Padişahı İçin Can Veren Bir Millet,'' Hadîsât, Numero: 144, 24 Şaban 1337 / 24 May 1919. p. 1.
334 Ibid.
141
the news of the occupation; and it should be added that there was not much change in Alemdâr's stance in the following days.
Alemdâr is classified as "pro-British" and is usually associated with the word "collaborationist" in the literature of the Turkish nationalist struggle. However, when I began research for this thesis, there was a bit of scepticism towards this stance. Times of war usually leave no room for grey areas. People are pushed to the fringes easily; and ideas that are not extreme can be labelled as weak, cowardly or even treacherous. Yet, the analysis of Alemdâr's articles of the first two weeks after the occupation of İzmir shows us that the aforementioned descriptions on their stance were pretty spot-on. Although it is too early to talk about a treacherous character of the newspaper opposing the national struggle, as the independence movement was still at its budding stage, the pro-British standpoint of the newspaper is undeniable.
One of the most striking examples of this stance can be found in the 20 May 1919 issue of Alemdâr, under the title "We Want Justice" where we are told about a tradition that is claimed to exist in India:
An Indian who has been wronged in any way can go up to an Englishman and say: I want justice! Upon that instance, the Englishman is obliged to get out of his car if he is driving, or dismount if he is on an animal, listen to the Indian's complaint and resolve the issue right there and then if he can, if not, note it down to inform his superiors to solve it. This small example is enough to prove how much the English make themselves loved by the people of the countries under their protection.335
As it is outside the scope of our study, we are not going to dwell on more examples such as these, but this is a pretty crystallised representation of Alemdâr's stance in
335 "Her türlü haksızlığa maruz kalmış bir Hintli sokağa çıkarak tesadüf ettiği bir İngiliz'e karşı kolunu kaldırıp: Hak isterim! Diye bağıracak olursa o İngilizin derhal, arabada ise arabasını, hayvanda ise atını durdurarak Hintlinin şikâyetini dinlemesi ve o meseleyi o anda halletmek selahiyeti dahilinde ise derhal hal eylemesi, değilse not alarak ilk vasıta ile merci'ini ifâ-i vazifeye davet eylemesi bir mecburiyet-i katiye imiş. Şu ufak misal İngiltere'nin himâye eylediği memleketlerde ahâliye karşı kendini nasıl sevdirdiğini isbat eder."
Refi' Cevad. ''Hak İsterim,'' Alemdâr, Numero: 147-1458, 20 Şaban 1337 / 20 May 1919. p. 1.
142
this matter. Even though this support does not seem to extend to the other members of the Great Powers, we see that the 24, 25, 26 and 27 of May 1919 issues of the newspapers print the Twelfth Article of the Fourteen Points with the title "Has Wilson Forgotten His Promise?"336 The idealisation of the British to the point of absurdity where any Indian can just stop an Englishman to cater to his needs is quite telling about Alemdâr. Hence, it could be argued that Alemdâr could be one of the newspapers that Fahreddin Hayri Bey indicated in his speech even though there is no way of verifying it at this point, as no names are mentioned.
The next speaker of the day is Hâlide Edip Hanım. All newspapers have the transcription of Halide Edip's speech. This time, İleri has the most detailed transcription that only seems to have a single sentence censored in print, although we can find it in Hadisât, which also has a pretty elaborate transcript. Some newspapers such as İkdâm have larger blank spaces indicating censorship, while others seem to have omitted certain paragraphs of the speech since there are no blank spaces. In the beginning of her speech, Halide Edip addresses the crowd:
Brothers, sons!.. The souls of our heroic ancestors who used to do victory parades in this great square, I am raising my head and proclaim in front of those invincible soldiers who roamed the earth from one end to the other: I am the unfortunate daughter of the Turkish and Muslim history, and the unfortunate mother of the new nation who is as heroic as the old. I bow my head down and swear in the name of this new nation in front of the soul of our ancestors. I swear that the Turkish nation whose arms are cut off has a soul that is just as brave as in the olden days.337
336 Alemdâr, Numero: 157, 158, 159, 160. 24 – 27 Şaban 1337 / 24 – 27 May 1919.
337 "Kardeşlerim, Evladlarım!... Bu tarihi, bu muazzam meydânda zafer alayları yapan kahraman ecdâdımızın ruhları karşısında dünyânın bir başından bir başına at süren o nâmâğlub erlerin akınlarına karşı başımı kaldırıyor ve diyorum ki: Ben Türk ve Müslüman tarihinin bedbaht bir kızıyım. Eskileri kadar kahraman yeni milletin de bedbaht bir anasıyım. Bu yeni millet nâmına, ölü ecdâdımızın ruhları önünde başımı eğip yemin ediyorum. Yemin ediyorum ki, bugün kolları kesilmiş Türk milletinin geçmiş günlerdeki kadar cesûr bir ruhu var."
''Dünkü Muazzam Miting,'' Sabâh, Numero: 10605, 23 Şaban 1337 / 24 May 1919. p. 1.
143
We see gradual changes in the rhetoric of the speeches. At the beginning, there was a tendency to see the whole ''ordeal'' on İzmir as a misunderstanding, which would be corrected by the Great Powers given their love of justice and civilisation. Later, this changed into accusations of blatant neglect of the Great Powers to keep their promises, or a grave injustice that they not only allowed, but also promoted. The actual and historical enemy had been portrayed as Greece in some of the speeches, yet we see a change in this matter in the following paragraph, too:
The invasion policy of Europe that continued slyly for centuries has always manifested itself remorselessly upon the Turkish lands. Europe would certainly find a way to send an occupant army to the moon and the stars if they caught the wind of Turkish and Muslim lands and nations that could be conquered there, and they have finally gotten their chance. They have decided to tear apart all the lands that are represented by the crescent. They have decided to dismantle this distinguished world, civilisation, all the spirit and the sanctuaries that the Ottoman nation created under the banners of freedom.338
Here, we see that Halide Edip not only held the European governments responsible for the occupation of İzmir, but she also claimed that their intention was to conquer the Ottoman lands and destroy its nation. Her speech asserted that the occupation of İzmir was not an act of neglect or mistake as it was indicated in the earlier protests, but Europe has been a malicious enemy all along. It is really remarkable to see the change in her rhetoric within a timeframe of a week. It should also be noted that this part of the speech was fully printed in İleri and Hadisât, while the remaining newspapers either had a snippet of the paragraph, or nothing at all.
338 "Asırlardan beri sinsi sinsi devam eden Avrupa’nın istila siyâseti her vakit Türk toprakları üzerinde vicdânsız bir şekilde tecellî etmişdir. Ayda ve yıldızlarda zabt edilecek Müslüman ve Türk toprakları ve milletleri olduğunu haber alsa oraya istila ordusu göndermek için mutlak yol bulacak olan Avrupa’nın eline nihâyet bir fırsat geçmişdir. Onlar hilâlin temsîl ettiği bütün bir dünyayı başdan başa parçalamaya karar vermişdir. Osmanlı milletinin yarattığı bu güzide dünyayı, medeniyeti, bütün ruhu, bütün mabedleri istiklâl alemleri ile parçalamaya karar vermişdir."
''Tarihin Kayıd Ettiği Bir Gün – Padişahı İçin Can Veren Bir Millet,'' Hadîsât, Numero: 144, 24 Şaban 1337 / 24 May 1919. p. 1.
144
She continued her speech:
There is no European government left to apply to in this situation. The ones that do not get a share, the ones that do not directly participate in this division and plunder are too guilty in the eyes of the law, justice and humanity. Their banners were of justice, but their actions consist of nothing other than plunder!"339
In line with what Halide Edip said in the earlier paragraph, the European states were declared as the remorseless enemy by her. She explicitly stated that no European government could be trusted to correct this injustice. She also added that even the nations who do not profit from this atrocity were just as guilty.
Halide Edip also stated that the only ones who protested against the sins of Europe were from the Muslim world;340 and that the only thing the Turks wanted was for their present rights not to be taken away from them.341
Even though she portrayed the European governments as the ultimate enemy of the Ottomans, we also see that she made a clear distinction between governments and peoples in the following paragraph:
Until tomorrow, when the guilty ones bow their heads in front of the court of the nations who raise their voices against the divisive decisions of the Council of Four, let us have the banners of freedom and honour on our foreheads in the presence of the ones who will raise their voices for our freedom. The peoples of the nations that want to violate our rights today will come to the gathering of the nations that day. The first ones to convict the Council of Four, who want to seize our land, will be their own people. Listen! You only have two friends: Today's Muslim world, and the civilised nations that will shout for the freedom of tomorrow. You have already won over the first. The second one will be won over by the righteousness and sacredness of your
339 "Bunun karşısında müracâat edecek hiçbir Avrupa hükûmeti kalmamıştır. Kendisi pay almayanlar, bu taksîm ve yağmaya bi'l-fiil iştirak etmeyenler de kanûn, adâlet ve insaniyet karşısında mücrimdirler. Alemleri hak idi, fiilleri bir yağmadan ibâret!"
Ibid.
340 ''(300,000)e Karib Müslüman,'' Alemdâr, Numero: 152-1462, 24 Şaban 1337 / 24 May 1919. p. 1.
341 ''Tarihin Kayıd Ettiği Bir Gün – Padişahı İçin Can Veren Bir Millet,'' Hadîsât, Numero: 144, 24 Şaban 1337 / 24 May 1919. p. 2.
145
cause. Governments are your enemy, nations are your friends, and the rebellion in your heart is your strength.342
Halide Edip's words clearly mark the end of the disillusionment, which could be obviously seen in earlier gatherings. Although it became clear that the occupation of İzmir was much more than a mistake on the Great Power's part within a few days after the event, proclaiming the European governments, specifically the Council of Four as the malicious enemy that had the intention of destroying the Ottoman Empire from the beginning is something new. It could also be argued that her proclamation of governments as enemies is a way of underlining the futility of trying to find a diplomatic way to end the conflict. The only way to resolve an issue via diplomacy is through appropriate political channels such as governments. If those governments are our enemies, and have always been looking to get their chance to destroy us, they are not viable partners. Hence, if the diplomatic route cannot be pursued, and it only leaves the Ottomans with one choice: armed struggle!
In the following part of her speech, she called on the crowds to take an oath with her to preserve their enthusiasm, not to forget their dignity, justice and manners and not to run away from any hardship until the day Turkey received back its freedom and the right to exist.343
342 "Ta ki yarın dörtler meclisinin vereceği mukaseme kararları karşısında isyân edecek olan milletler mahkemesinde bu mücrimler de boyun eydiği zaman bizim istiklâlimiz için bağıranlar karşısında alnımızda namûs ve istiklâl alemleri olsun! O günkü milletler mahşerine bugün hakkımızı çiğneyen zalimlerin milletleri de gelecektir. Bizim hakkımızı toprağımızı gaspetmek isteyen dörtler meclisine en evvel kendi milletleri hüküm giydirecektir. Dinleyiniz! Sizin iki dostunuz var: Bugünkü Müslüman âlemi, yarınki hak için bağıracak medeni milletler. Birini kazandınız, ötekini bütün açtığınız davanın hak ve ulviyeti kazanacakdır. Hükûmetler düşmanınız, milletler dostunuz, kalbinizdeki isyan kuvvetinizdir."
''Sultanahmet'te Yüzbinlerce Müslüman,'' İleri, Numero: 496-114, 24 Şaban 1337 / 24 May 1919. p. 2.
343 ''(300,000)e Karib Müslüman,'' Alemdâr, Numero: 152-1462, 24 Şaban 1337 / 24 May 1919. p. 1.
146
Next, Selim Sırrı Bey delivered a short speech. After stating that the Ottoman people pulled together in this time of despair,344 he said that he hoped Europe and America would show mercy to a nation that sacrificed its sons, brothers and fathers. He added: "Wilson, the great political dignitary of the Allied Powers, promised. We know how Europeans and Americans value their promises, and we expect our final destiny to be built on those principles."345
This is certainly a huge a step back after Hâlide Edip's harsh words concerning the European governments. At this point, it is hard to know whether to attribute this to the extreme naivety of Selim Sırrı, or to a tactical move to soften the rhetoric of the gathering given that there were observers from the Allied Forces.
Selim Sırrı continued his speech by underlining the real cause of the Turkish backlash to the occupation of İzmir:
The annexation of İzmir, although it can hardly be called an annexation, the occupation of İzmir by Greece has come down like a thunder of misfortune. Today, the whole country and land of Islam shed tears of blood. We cannot stand this disaster any more. The ones who do not know Turks well, or the ones who do not like them say 'when Turks are cornered, they will threaten Europe with slaughter.' We strongly condemn such slander. No! Such claims against the Turk are a blatant slur. We do not threaten Europe. The people's character is above such ridiculous claims. The Turk's heart is open. He does not know how to fish in troubled waters. If he fights, he does so honourably… The hundred thousand Muslims who gathered here do not hold a religious grudge or hate Christians… We do not possess feelings of desecration or invasion. We just want to live. They should not try to take that right away from us.346
344 ''Dünkü Muazzam Miting,'' Sabâh, Numero: 10605, 23 Şaban 1337 / 24 May 1919. p. 1.
345 "Nitekim itilâfın büyük bir ricâl-i siyâsiyesi Wilson söz vermişdir. Biz Avrupa ve Amerikalılarca sözün ne büyük bir kıymeti olduğunu bilenlerdeniz. Ve o prensipler üzerine netice-i mukadderâtımıza intizâr ediyoruz."
''Tarihin Kayıd Ettiği Bir Gün – Padişahı İçin Can Veren Bir Millet,'' Hadîsât, Numero: 144, 24 Şaban 1337 / 24 May 1919. p. 2.
346 "İzmir'in işgâli, buna pek de işgâl denemez, Yunanistan'ın İzmir'i istilâsı bir saik-i bela gibi nâzil oldu. Bütün Türkiya, bütün âlem-i İslâm bugün kan ağlıyor. Oh! Bu felâkete artık katlanamayız. Türkü iyi tanımayan veya sevmeyenler 'Türkler sıkıya gelince Avrupalılar'ı katliam ile tehdid ederler'
147
We should also bear in mind that Halide Edip had also devoted a part of her speech to clarify the intentions of the Turks in relation to the opposition against the events in İzmir. We see that Selim Sırrı Bey wants to underline this issue. Here, we can see that the rumours being spread about the Turks are clearly addressed. The safety of the Christian population was a concern of the Allied Powers; and this was one of the points that the Greeks hard pressed the Entente with. However, Selim Sırrı refuted all these allegations, and stated that the only thing the Turkish people asked for was their right to exist. It is safe to say that the target audience here is not necessarily the attendants of the gathering, but rather the international community. Hâlide Edip pointed out in her earlier speech that the Turks’ second friend, the nations, are going to be won over when they see that the only intention of the Turkish people is to live. Selim Sırrı's speech indisputably underlined that the only thing the Turkish nation wanted was the right to exist.
The last speaker of the day was Doktor Sabit Bey who delivered a speech much more in parallel with Hâlide Edip's. This could also explain the extensive censorship applied to the text although it is possible to make out most of the speech by patching the reports of different newspapers together.
The beginning of his speech is censored in all four newspapers apart from İleri:
Nation! Our holy land is being torn into pieces. The honour of the nation is trampled on. Humanity is crying because of the decision to execute the poor Muslims, which does not comply with any principle of justice. Mister Wilson who thought that he had the right to grant the world justice, does he not hear
sözlerini ifşa ediyorlar. Bu iftirayı şiddetle reddediyoruz. Hayır, Türke böyle bir isnâd kuru iftiradır. Biz Avrupa'yı tehdîd etmiyoruz. Milletin seciyesi böyle gülünç teşebbüslerden çok yüksekdir. Türkün kalbi açıkdır. Bulanık suda balık avlamasını bilmez… Burada toplanan şu yüz bin kişilik İslam halkı din kini gütmüyor ve Hıristiyanlara karşı buğz ve adavet beslemiyor… Bizde tecavüz ve istila emelleri de yokdur. Biz yalnız yaşamak istiyoruz. Bu hakkı bizden nez‘e kalkışmasınlar."
''Yüzbin Müslüman Sultanahmet Meydanında Muazzam Bir Miting Akd Eyledi,'' İkdâm, Numero: 8006, 23 Şaban 1337 / 24 May 1919. p. 1.
148
that his principles are sacrificed? Wilsons, Clemenceaus, Lloyd Georges, people who promised justice to humanity!347 Don't they see (censored) what kind of murders the Greeks commit under the mask of civilisation? What kind of emotions does the civilised world have when they look upon the murders and the savagery of the Greeks who landed on İzmir? Look at the Greeks who proclaimed with pride that they were civilised with gilded declarations. They killed unarmed, unprotected civil servants, children of the motherland in their first move.348
As the beginning of Doctor Sabit Bey's speech was fully censored, it seems that İleri was only able to print a portion of it. However, even that did not get far enough. It seems that İkdâm was able to start reporting the speech a bit before from where İleri was cut off. So, when the two pieces are put together, the paragraph makes more sense. However, we cannot tell for sure by looking at the newspapers at hand if we missed a crucial link between them.
After Selim Sırrı Bey's rather mild tone, it seems that the direct and realistic language was once again employed by Doctor Sabit Bey. The harsh tone against the Greeks is indisputable as they are deemed to be murderous savages who hide behind masks. Even though he did not use the same kind of provocative words as he did when addressing the Greeks, it was sardonic and full of contempt, which he continued in the following parts of his speech.
He continued his speech by addressing President Wilson; and stated that there is not a single Muslim in the Turkish nation that would believe his false
347 "Ey millet, mukkaddes vatanımız parçalanıyor, namûs-ı millî ayaklar altına alınıyor. Beşeriyet hiçbir esâs-ı adâlete tevâfuk etmeyen zavallı Müslümanların karâr-ı idâmını muvâcehesinde hazin hazin inliyor. Kâinata feyz-i adâlet bahşetmeye nefsinde kudret hisseden Mister Wilson cenâbları prensiplerinin feda edildiğini duymuyor mu? Wilsonlar, Clemenceaular, Lloyd Georgelar, beşeriyete adâlet vaad eden insanlar!"
''Sultanahmet'te Yüzbinlerce Müslüman,'' İleri, Numero: 496-114, 24 Şaban 1337 / 24 May 1919. p. 2.
348 "Medeniyet maskesi altında Yunanlıların (sansür boşluğu) ne cinâyetler irtikâb ettiklerini görmüyorlar mı? İzmir'e ayak basan Yunan cinâyetlerini Yunan vahşetlerini âlem-i medeniyet ne hisle temâşâ ediyor? Medeni olduklarını müftehirâne yaldızlı mufassal beyânnâmelerle ilân eden Yunanlılara bakınız. İlk hamlede silahsız, müdafâasız memurları, vatan yavrularını tahkîr ile öldürdüler."
''Yüzbin Müslüman Sultanahmet Meydanında Muazzam Bir Miting Akd Eyledi,'' İkdâm, Numero: 8006, 23 Şaban 1337 / 24 May 1919. pp. 1-2.
149
proclamations, adding that the civilised world had understood what kind of monsters the Greeks were [emphasis is mine], and that "İzmir's great lands are either going to be where they [the Greeks] die, or where we become martyrs."349
In the latter part of his speech, he addressed the Ottoman Empire's involvement in World War I, and said that:
If our participation in the world war is brought up, I say with all my heart that this nation was forced into war by the aberration of a few men who had nothing to do with religion, or motherland. Hundreds of thousands of self-sacrificing people have run away. Ask this to the allies of the nation.350
The beginning of the paragraph dwells on the well-known argument that the Ottoman people were coerced into participating in the war by "a few men." It is rather interesting that even though everyone very well knows whom these Unionist "few men" are, even at this point in time their names are not even uttered. The last two sentences however are rather curious. The term used "dağa kaçmak" (go up the mountain) is for deserters, and here Doctor Sabit Bey calls them "self-sacrificing." Given the loss the Ottoman people had to endure during the war and the hundreds of thousands of people who died in war, this proclamation that the deserters were self-sacrificing people who refused to participate in this war that was thrust upon them is very odd. It could be said that this is a way for him to assert the fact that he truly believes the Turkish nation did not support the participation of the Ottoman Empire in World War I, and the desertion of the so-called self-sacrificing people is offered as evidence. However, if we bear in mind that the first active resistance against the occupation came from the unorganised groups of former deserters who used guerrilla
349 Ibid.
350 "Eğer harb-i umûmiye duhûlümüz yüzümü çarpılırsa bütün vicdânımla ilân ederim ki din ile vatan ile alâkası olmayan birkaç şahsın delâletiyle bu millet zorla harbe sürüklendi. Anayurdunu terk ederek yüzbinlerce fedakar dağa kaçdılar. Bunu memleketin müttefiklerine sorunuz."
''Sultanahmet'te Yüzbinlerce Müslüman,'' İleri, Numero: 496-114, 24 Şaban 1337 / 24 May 1919. p. 2.
150
tactics, it can be argued that Doktor Sabit Bey is referring to this quality of the deserters. Yet that would still be a very bold proclamation to be made in the capital even though the Committee of Union and Progress was no longer in charge of the country.
Doktor Sabit Bey finished his speech by saying that the noble character of the Turkish people was misinterpreted by the Europeans as meekness and if the nation had the will that they have today, and if the state had the present sultan in charge at the beginning of the war, the state would not have entered the war in the first place.351
After delivering his speech, Doctor Sabit Bey reads out the resolution of the protest committee. The resolution began by addressing the crowd:
Citizens, we are at a turning point in history. This is not the time to chase dreams or console ourselves. The danger is not in front of us, it is among us. It is down our throat… You are alone. Listen to this carefully: You are alone. The faces that smiled at you, those heinous faces are of those plunderers who want to snatch away your last heirloom. Do not believe them anymore, you are the only one who can help you. No, no. You have your God: Allah! They have their cannons, rifles, cruelty and torture; you have your hak, your Allah, your noble God and you can only trust Him.352
This proclamation stood as an official statement from the protest committee that marked a clear break from the hopeful and naïve approach that was associated with the first gatherings. We can see how the rhetoric shifted from İzmir's occupation as a mistake that could be corrected to a full-fledged injustice and plunder not only on the Greeks’ part but also the Great Powers. In the beginning, most speeches had a rather
351 ''(300,000)e Karib Müslüman,'' Alemdâr, Numero: 152-1462, 24 Şaban 1337 / 24 May 1919. p. 1.
352 "Vatandaşlar, Tarihin dönüm yerinde bulunuyoruz. Artık hayâl arkasında koşacak, kendimizi avutacak zamanda değiliz… Tehlike karşımızda değil, aramızda, boğazımızda. Onu gargara ediyoruz… Yalnızsın, şunu iyice dinle yalnızsın. Sana gülen yüzler, bayağı yüzler senin son mirasına konmak isteyen garetcilerden başka bir şey değildir. Artık inanma, senin için yalnız sen varsın. Hayır, hayır. Senin bir mu‘inin var: Allah! Onların topu, tüfengi, zûlmü mezâlimi var; senin hakkın, Allah'ın, Ulu Tanrın var, ve işte sen yalnız ona güvenebilirsin…"
''Verilen Karar,'' İkdâm, Numero: 8006, 23 Şaban 1337 / 24 May 1919. p. 2.
151
unworldly approach to the issue, but the consensus in this protest is that the Turkish nation can only save itself, and has no one to turn to for help. The only exception to this was the speech delivered by Selim Sırrı Bey. However, we see that the final proclamation leaves no doubt about the final decision of the committee; and the message communicated to thousands of people who gathered in Sultanahmet that day leaves no room for doubt.
The proclamation's five points are as follows:
1. We, the Turkish Muslim people of İstanbul, who have gathered in this place, where once upon a time many national gatherings have been seen, are ready to sacrifice our lives like an iron ring around the Sultanate until the areas that are unjustly occupied are evacuated.
2. We do not believe the policy used for us for centuries, the policy of deceit anymore. We are not going to believe the hypocritical, evil news that wants to make us think that the dark clouds in the skies are about to go away, until the storm is virtually gone. By no means will we believe. We curse the ones who knowingly want to appease us.
3. We want with all our soul that the political ambitions in our country have died out, and we have nothing else to be in our hearts but the worry for our motherland and all of us, young and old, swear by this.
4. We pray that the emergency council that will meet with the Sultan will make the best decisions for the motherland and its people.
5. We aim to make our decisions beknown to the citizens who are far away and the foreign observers of our movement, via the press.353
353 "1. Bugün şurada, bir vakitler yüz bin türlü tezâhürât-ı milliyeye sahne olan bu meydânda içtimâ' eden bizler İstanbul'un Türk Müslüman halkı mukaddes vatanımızın haksız olarak işgâl olunan yerlerin tahliyesine kadar makâm-ı mualla-yı saltânât etrafında demir bir çenber gibi fedâ-yı hayâta hazırız.
2. Bizlere asırlardan beri tatbîk edilen siyâsete, göz boyama siyâsetine artık katiyen itimâd etmiyoruz. Ufk-ı siyâsimizdeki kara bulutların çekilmekde olduğunu göstermek isteyen riyâkâr, şeytânkâr işaata ufktaki fırtına fiilen bertaraf edilmedikçe, katiyen inanmıyoruz. Teheyyücümüzü kasden teskîn etmek isteyenleri bütün ruhumuzla tel'în ediyoruz.
3. Memlekette siyâsi ihtirâsâtın sustuğunu, artık kalblerimizde vatân endişesinden başka hiçbir endişenin yer bulmamasını samimi ruhumuzla istiyor ve küçük büyük hepimiz buna ahd ediyoruz.
4. Yarın Zât-ı Şevket-simât Hazret-i Hilâfetpenâhî'nin huzûr-ı hümâyûnlarında içtima' edecek şurâ-yı fevkaladenin vatan ve millet için en hayırlı karârlar ittihaz eylemesine dualar ediyoruz.
5. Mukarrerâtımızdan uzakda bulunan vatandaşlarımızı ve bizim harekatımızı ta'kîb eden enzâr-ı ecânibi ancak matbû'at vasıtasıyla haberdar etmek azmindeyiz."
''Dünkü Muazzam Miting,'' Sabâh, Numero: 10605, 23 Şaban 1337 / 24 May 1919. p. 2.
152
Afterwards, Doctor Sabit Bey stated: "This concludes our proposal. If you accept it, I would ask of you to repeat these words: Long live the Muslim people, long live our Holy Caliph.354
The points of the proclamation reaffirm the main rhetoric of the gathering. It is clearly stated that the promises are not going to be taken into consideration until the realities on the ground are changed. Once again, the people are called to leave aside all their disputes, and unite to work on nothing but the salvation of the mother-land. The last point of the declaration shows that not only does the committee try to communicate their activities to the Ottoman people in the other parts of the country, but also to the people of other nations, which is in line with the points made by Hâlide Edip, as she stated that the people of other nations were going to be the ones to condemn the horrible acts perpetrated by their governments. Hence, it is important to let the Turkish people do whatever they can to reap benefits from this movement, and correct the misinformation spread about Turks.
To conclude, it is undeniable that the Sultanahmet Gathering is a monumental event in the history of Turkish National Struggle. Even though we had seen speeches which were pretty harshly worded towards the Greeks and to a lesser extent, the Allied Powers, the talks delivered on that day and the final proclamation clearly state that the hope for a peaceful solution to the İzmir issue is dead; and the time for diplomatic pleas to the Council of Four is no longer a path to be taken. This is made very clear by the participants of the spokesmen in the gathering both to the crowd that filled the Sultanahmet Square and to the foreign observers who were present.
354 "İşte vatandaşlar, şimdilik teklîfâtımız bundan ibâretdir. Bunlar hepinizin kabûlüne iktirân etmiş ise size cevâb-ı kabûl olmak üzere bu sözümü tekrâr etmenizi ricâ ediyorum. Yaşasın millet-i İslâmiye, var olsun mukaddes halifemiz."
Ibid.
153
Although the contribution of the participants who delivered passionate speeches that day is unquestionable, it should also be noted that the hundreds of thousands of İstanbulites who gathered on that day also sent a clear message to their fellow countrymen and to the Allied Powers: That the nation was united and willing to do whatever it takes to save their nation from the grave place that it has fallen.
The Second Gathering in the Sultanahmet Square (30 May 1919)
The second Sultanahmet Protest was held on 30 May 1919 in the Sultanahmet Square. As we have seen in the previous sub-chapter, the first gathering was a monumental event that attracted hundreds of thousands of attendants, and from what we understand from the reports, the second gathering lived up to the success of the first.
As much as the reporting of the first gathering is concerned, it had the highest consistency between the newspapers; and it was highly detailed. This cannot be said for the second Sultanahmet Protest. We saw that Alemdâr had its most detailed coverage about a protest to date for the first gathering in Sultanahmet. However, on 31 May 1919, we see that only one column of the newspaper was dedicated to the second event. The other newspapers have a more extensive coverage, yet we see that the order of the appearance of the speakers is not as uniform as it was in the first Sultanahmet Protest's reports. Some newspapers reported speeches that were not even mentioned in others; and in one case, two speakers' speeches were totally mixed-up.
154
The coverages, as usual, begin with the general description of the gathering. Alemdâr informs us that after the Friday prayer, around a hundred and fifty thousand people gathered in the square behind the Sultanahmet Mosque by three o'clock.355
When we look at Hadisât, we learn that the decision of the gathering was taken by Türkiye Müdâfaa-ı Hukûk Cemiyeti, and that people started gathering at the square from twelve o'clock onwards.356 We are also informed that the original meeting place had to be changed as ''the flowers in the park had been destroyed'' (!) at the last gathering, costing a lot. Hence, the pulpit was eventually moved to the mosque's courtyard, but afterwards, permission was granted for the pulpit to be relocated above the barrier behind the Sultanahmet Mosque.357
Regarding the physical appearance of the area, we are informed that the pulpit was covered with black flags as a sign of mourning, and the right side of the pulpit was reserved for women and female students. The front of the pulpit was reserved for ''the people'' as Alemdâr puts it, and on the left side, there was the organisation committee and the press.358
Hadisât informs its readers that the police chief Halil Bey and the third precinct chief Hafız Mehmed Ali Bey were also present at the event. We learn that police officers and a small group of soldiers were called to ensure public peace.359 It is also added that corps commander Abdülkerim Paşa arrived at the gathering, even though the time of his arrival was censored for unknown reasons.360
355 ''Dünkü Miting,'' Alemdâr, Numero: 159-1469, 1 Ramazan 1337 / 31 May 1919. p. 2.
356 ''Dünkü İkinci Sultanahmet Mitingi,'' Hadîsât, Numero: 150, 1 Ramazan 1337 / 31 May 1919. p. 1.
357 Ibid.
358 ''Dünkü Miting,'' Alemdâr, Numero: 159-1469, 1 Ramazan 1337 / 31 May 1919. p. 2.
359 ''Dünkü İkinci Sultanahmet Mitingi,'' Hadîsât, Numero: 150, 1 Ramazan 1337 / 31 May 1919. p. 1.
360 Ibid.
155
According to the report on Alemdâr, the gathering began at 3:10, and ended at 4:30.361 It is mentioned that the attendants carried banners with them bearing ''we want justice,'' ''two million Muslims cannot be sacrificed for two hundred thousand Rum,'' and ''we want to live!''362 Sabâh reported that at the front lines of the area reserved for the veterans of the Ottoman army and navy from the Caucasus and Gallipoli.363 The speeches began at around 3 o'clock. İsmail Hakkı Bey, a professor in Dârü'l-fünûn was reported to be the first speaker of the day. Hadisât only mentioned him by name, and his was the only speech that was reported by Alemdâr.
He began his speech by talking about what Turkish means:
What is a Turk? To be Turkish means a noble class364 with its minarets that rise high into the skies like an invocation, and with its perfect and glorious domes. Turkish means the one who shows mercy to the helpless, an ancient nation that does not yield before power. Turkish means a nation that has lived and continues living with civility and finds the power within itself even after all the unjust interventions of the outsiders.365
In the opening part of his speech, İsmail Hakkı Bey invoked the common characterisations of the Turks as a civilised, merciful, and ancient people. He used this as grounds to argue against the aggressive attack on the Ottoman soil. Here, we not only see his self-perception of what Turkish means, but we also see that these are the reasons why a nation does not deserve to be destroyed.
361 ''Dünkü Miting,'' Alemdâr, Numero: 159-1469, 1 Ramazan 1337 / 31 May 1919. p. 2.
362 ''Sultanahmet Meydanında Yüzbine Karib Ehl-i Tehvidin İctiması,'' İkdâm, Numero: 8013, 1 Ramazan 1337 / 31 May 1919. p. 1.
363 ''Dünkü Halk İctiması,'' Sabâh, Numero: 10612, 1 Ramazan 1337 / 31 May 1919. p. 1.
364 All other newspapers printed this word as ''san'at''.
365 ''Türk nedir? Türk demek, bir münacat gibi semalara yükselen minareleriyle, mükemmel ve azametli kubbeleriyle asil bir sınıf demek. Türk demek acizlere merhamet eden, kuvvete boyun eğmeyen tarihi bir kavim demek. Türk demek medeniyetle yaşamış ve yaşayan ve haricin her türlü haksız müdahalelerine rağmen yaşamak kuvvetini kendinde duyan bir millet demek.''
''Sultanahmet Meydanında Yüzbine Karib Ehl-i Tehvidin İctiması,'' İkdâm, Numero: 8013, 1 Ramazan 1337 / 31 May 1919. p. 1.
156
He continued by asking if the destruction and the devastation of a nation, which has a grand civilisation and has proved its will to live by making modern reforms could be considered in accordance with the laws of nature.366 It is interesting that he pointed out the reforms that took place during the nineteenth century as evidence that the Ottomans were trying to "update" themselves to reach the modern level of civilisation. He used it to prove that they do not deserve the treatment that they are subjected to.
In the latter part of his talk, İsmail Hakkı Bey said that in case Europe decided to "execute" the Ottomans despite all the evidence suggesting this would be an unjust fact, they should not forget that the Ottomans did not surrender their faith. And even if they surrendered their weapons, their faith was their actual weapon.367
He finished his speech by calling the public to always cry against injustice, and assured them that victory would soon be theirs.368 His speech according to the report in İleri was met with tekbîr and tehlîls.369
It should be noted that in İkdâm's coverage, we see that İsmail Hakkı Bey's speech does not end there. There are about three more paragraphs that we see in the newspaper attributed to İsmail Hakkı. However, we see that those very same paragraphs are reported to belong to Milaslı İsmail Hakkı, who is also a speaker in the gathering that day, in the coverage of İleri. Although it is difficult to tell which newspaper confused the two İsmail Hakkıs, it is seen that Hadisât's short summary of Milaslı İsmail Hakkı reported sentences that suggest İkdâm was the newspaper that made the error. Hence, that part of the speech which İkdâm thought to belong to the
366 ''Dünkü Halk İctiması,'' Sabâh, Numero: 10612, 1 Ramazan 1337 / 31 May 1919. p. 1.
367 ''Ayasofya'daki Muazzam Miting,'' İleri, Numero: 506-121, 1 Ramazan 1337 / 31 May 1919. p. 2.
368 ''Dünkü Miting,'' Alemdâr, Numero: 159-1469, 1 Ramazan 1337 / 31 May 1919. p. 2.
369 ''Ayasofya'daki Muazzam Miting,'' İleri, Numero: 506-121, 1 Ramazan 1337 / 31 May 1919. p. 2.
157
first İsmail Hakkı of the day was omitted, and is analysed below, when we speak of the speech delivered by Milaslı İsmail Hakkı. In Kemal Arıburnu's work on the gatherings in İstanbul, he also shows the aforementioned part to be a part of Milaslı İsmail Hakkı Bey's speech.370
After İsmail Hakkı, most newspapers reported Şukûfe Nihal Hanım to be the next speaker of the day. The exception here is again İkdâm, which reported Rasim Efendi's speech before hers. Alemdâr and Sabâh only mentioned her by name without even giving a transcription of her address.
Hers is one of the longest speeches delivered at the gathering; and not once is the word ''İzmir'' uttered. Yet, we see that she focused entirely on İstanbul:
Oh, dear İstanbul… I do not know how many times I have felt the bitter pain that the fear of losing you has set to my soul! And in this great pain, I pray to God with my last and divine hope that this pain is the last suffering that I feel for you but the usher of our infinite sovereignty over you… Divine land, I know that when your most noble children are crying in such pain, the whole world has set their greedy and avaricious eyes on you, plotting to take you away from us, maybe for hundreds of years. I can never forget: After all the tears I shed, all the yearning that I felt, one day when I found myself in this most beautiful heaven of nature, I thought that I reached the most unattainable of world's joys.371
As it can be seen from the fragments of the speech, it is more of an account of the poet's declaration of her passion and love for İstanbul and a personal account of her ''relationship'' with the city rather than a political argument, which had usually been
370 Kemal Arıburnu. Milli Mücadelede İstanbul Mitingleri, (Ankara: Yeni Matbaa, 1951), pp. 53-54.
371 ''Ey sevgili İstanbul!.. Seni gaib etmek korkusunun ruhuma yaydığı derin zehirnâk acıyı bilmem bununla kaçıncı defa duyuyorum! Ve, bu pek feci ızdırâb içinde son ve ilâhî bir ümidle Allah'ıma yalvarıyorum ki bu elemler artık senin için duyduğum acıların en sonuncusu fakat sana ebedi mâlikimizin ilk müjdecisi olsun... Aziz toprak, biliyorum ki: senin en asil çocukların böyle hicrânınla ağlarken bütün âlem de sana haris, tama‘kâr gözlerini dikmiş, belki asırlardan beri seni bizden ayırmak içün uğraşıyorlar. Hiç unutamıyorum: senelerce dökdüğüm göz yaşlarından, duyduğum hicrânlardan sonra, birgün kendimi tabiatın bu en güzel cennetinde bulunca dünya saâdetlerinin en yetişilmezine nâil oldum zânn etdim.''
''Dünkü İkinci Sultanahmet Mitingi,'' Hadîsât, Numero: 150, 1 Ramazan 1337 / 31 May 1919. p. 1.
158
the case with the other speeches. Although it does not have much significance when examined at the level of individual sentences and paragraphs, the speech's importance manifests itself when it is taken as a whole. As mentioned before, we do not see the word İzmir once throughout the whole speech, and it is about İstanbul in its entirety. The shock of the occupation of İzmir was such a blow to the Ottoman public, received as such a preposterous and inconceivable act -against the laws of nature as İsmail Hakkı put it- the fact it simply happened opened the eyes of the public to whole new and shudder-inducing possibility; that İstanbul might very well be next in line.
After seeing that Greece successfully fulfilled its dream of taking over İzmir and began advancing in Western Anatolia, along with the permission and the support of the Allied Powers, it became obvious that the Greek claims could not simply be brushed off as the aspirations of a zealous but petty enemy. The fact that İstanbul started to take up more space in the speeches clearly show that the Ottoman public was not going make the same mistake of taking the Greek claims lightly. Before the occupation of İzmir, it is obvious from the first reactions to the events that it was believed the Allied Powers would not allow such a farcical claim made by Greece over İzmir and Western Anatolia to be taken seriously. However, seeing how things played out, the public became disillusioned with the idea of a just and civilised West. Surely, if Allied Powers were willing to be silent when a city like İzmir that is perceived to be fundamentally Turkish and Muslim could simply be snatched away, who could say that İstanbul would not share the same fate? Hence, it seems that slowly but surely the public started to realise that the only power that could prevent İstanbul, the heart of the crown, from being snatched from their hands, were themselves!
159
There is one particular speaker in the second Sultanahmet Protest that seems to have created a bit of a complication, namely Hoca Rasim Efendi. Sabâh does not mention him at all; and Alemdâr only lists him as one of the speakers of the day. If we look at Hadisât, we see that the only mention of him stated: ''Hoca Rasim Efendi, member of Darü'l-hikmetü'l-islâmiyye, has been precluded from speaking, as he wanted to say things that were beside the point.''372
However, we understand from İleri and İkdâm that he was not barred from speaking right away, but his speech was actually cut off in half. İleri only gave us a short paragraph of what he said, but we see that there is a much more elaborate version of Rasim Efendi's speech in İkdâm, and that the reporter for the newspaper talked to him afterwards, asking him what he would have said if he was allowed to continue.
In İleri's version of Rasim Efendi's speech, he basically said that the reason the Ottoman state is in this situation is because:
At a time when every state acquired civilisation and sovereignty, we did not rebel against injustice in these wicked times that history has recorded. We kept silent. We did not raise our voice against the greatest attacks and violations on our rights. If we had not kept silent, everything would have been different. If we had our right to vote and if he had a parliament that was born out of the bosom of this country, and a cabinet that was entrusted with it, we would not have seen these days.373
372 ''Darü'l-hikmetü'l-islâmiyye azasından Hoca Rasim Efendi saded harici söz söylemek istediğinden ahâlice men edilmiştir.''
Ibid.
373 "Biz bu belalara, felâketlere niçin giriftâr olduk biliyor musunuz? Bu asırda, her memleket iktisâb-ı medeniyet ve hâkimiyet ettiği bir asırda, tarihin kaydettiği bu kötü zamanlarda biz zulme karşı isyân etmedik, sükût ettik, en büyük haklarımıza vuku' bulan taarruz ve tecavüzlere karşı sesimizi çıkarmadık, eğer sükût etmeseydik bütün bütün başka türlü olacaktı. Eğer biz hakk-ı intihâbımıza olsaydık ve milletin sinesinden doğacak bir meclis-i milli ve bunun mazhar-ı itimadı olan bir kabinemiz olsaydı biz bu günleri görmezdik.''
"Ayasofya'daki Muazzam Miting,'' İleri, Numero: 506-121, 1 Ramazan 1337 / 31 May 1919. p. 2.
160
It can be easily understood why this kind of anti-Unionist rhetoric would not necessarily be a crowd winner at a rally that was organised to protest foreign invasion. Rasim Efendi turns out to be quite the democrat in his own right, claiming that the reason the country was in this situation was because the people did not demand their right to vote; and subsequently ''the leaders of the state'' made decisions that were neither approved by, nor were in the best interests of the people. Even though he might have a legitimate point, people generally do not want to hear about how it is their fault, when they are in an extremely dire situation. Hence, it is understandable why Hadisât deemed his words "besides the point."
İkdâm's version of the speech is much longer and slightly different from the one in İleri. When we look at the coverage of İkdâm, we see that Hoca Rasim Efendi clearly stated that the Ottoman Empire would not have participated in World War I if a government had been formed with the choice of its people because "a real parliament that was born from the nation's bosom would have carried the wholesome feelings of the nation."374
In İkdâm's version, we see that he does not stop there:
What are wholesome feelings of a nation? It is that the father's friend is a friend forever and that it is known that goodness should be repaid by goodness. If we had acted on these feelings, we would have never entered a war that was waged against the group of countries that our forefathers' friend France, and England that have done us many good deeds and rescued us from being extinct a few times.375
374 ''Sultanahmet Meydanında Yüzbine Karib Ehl-i Tehvidin İctiması,'' İkdâm, Numero: 8013, 1 Ramazan 1337 / 31 May 1919. p. 2.
375 "Bu milletin hissiyât-ı necibesi nedir? Baba dostunun ebediyen dost olması ve iyiliğe karşı iyiliği farz bilmesidir. Eğer biz bu hissiyât üzerine hareket etmiş olsa idik ecdâdımızın dostu olan Fransa'nın, bize pek büyük, pek çok iyilikleri sebk etmiş olan, bizi birkaç defa inkırâz tehlikesinden kurtaran İngiltere'nin bulunduğu bir zümre-i düveliyeye karşı açılmış olan bir harbe biz katiyyen iştirâk eylemezdik."
Ibid.
161
For future reference, it should be noted that proclaiming to a crowd of hundreds of thousands of people that the reason why one of their most important cities was run over by a foreign army after a four year total-war that devastated a whole nation leaving almost no one in the entire country unaffected is all their fault is not a very good idea. The argument that Rasim Efendi made is very similar to that of Alemdâr's general stance on the issue, which was shortly demonstrated on the chapter concerning the 16 and 17 May 1919 articles. He employed this naïve approach to world politics where former alliances based purely on interests are somehow supposed to be treated as benevolent acts that require eternal gratitude; and basically said that the Ottoman nation was paying the price of their ingratitude. This alone, could be considered enough reason for Rasim Efendi to be asked to come down the pulpit, but we see that there is more:
If at the time, we had a legitimate parliament, a legitimate cabinet that was born out of the bosom of the nation, the profiteering, the monopolies, the atrocities, the plunders and lootings, massacres and deportations that ruined the state and the nation, and turned it into a field that has been run by locust would not have happened.376
We are informed by İkdâm that Rasim Efendi was not allowed to continue his speech from this point onwards, for he openly blamed the Unionists and their war-time politics for all this. The profiteering and monopolies he mentioned that took place during World War I had been a problem that had devastating affects over the population, causing starvation amongst the population as the basic food substances were sold at ridiculous prices that the majority could not afford. Rasim Efendi not only put the blame of this horrendous outcome of the World War I on the nation
376 ''Eğer o zaman milletin sinesinden doğma meşru bir parlamentomuz, meşru bir kabinemiz bulunsa idi, o vatanı, milleti mahv eyleyen, memleketi çekirge vurmuş bir ekin tarlasına çeviren ihtikarlar, inhisarlar, zulümler, nehb ü garetler, taktiller, tehcirler katiyen yapılmaz idi.''
Ibid.
162
itself, but went on to say that the massacres, plunders and deportations that took place during that time were also their responsibility.
In his description, we see that he used the words "taktîller and tehcîrler" and since they are used in their plural form along with a list of other war time atrocities it might be taken to mean in broader sense of the term or even might be taken to refer to the Community of Union and Progress' radical re-location policy that effected many ethnicities. However, we should bear in mind that "tehcîr and taktîl" is the standard phrase used to describe the Armenian issue, it becomes even clearer why he was taken off stage. When talking about the Turkish nation, the portrait that the speakers draw show us an innocent, wronged nation which treated its minorities fairly but did not receive the same treatment in return. Here, Hoca Rasim Efendi goes completely against that kind of rhetoric, blaming the nation for the "massacres and deportations" and with the situation at hand.
One could play the devil's advocate and use the argument he meant that every nation is ruled as they deserve, and the Ottomans should acknowledge the result of their actions –or in this case inactions. Yet, given the devastating situation that the Ottomans have found themselves in after enduring one of the most horrifying wars of its history that left no member of society untouched in one way or another, Rasim Efendi's words could be considered crude, deconstructive, and at this stage, utterly pointless.
The unpopularity of Rasim Efendi's speech could be attributed not only to the fact that he put the blame of the horrors of World War I on the nation, but also to the fact that his rhetoric was in direct opposition to a trend that we have seen in this and former gatherings. Since the beginning, we have seen a tendency to describe the Turkish nation with words and phrases such as innocent, oppressed, a righteous and
163
just nation, which took the minorities it ruled under its wings and protected them when others slaughtered and expelled the ones under their rule. We have seen from the speeches that the self-perception of the Ottomans is one of an honourable victim: once glorious, but now broken and wronged. Never before did we have someone blatantly state that the Ottomans and their lack of will power to fight for their rights resulted in bloodshed and massacres. Even in this very gathering, the opening speaker İsmail Hakkı referred to Turks as ''the one who shows mercy to the helpless.''377 The closest that we got to a self-criticism in the speeches delivered in the gatherings was by Hâlide Edip during the Fatih Gathering, where she stated that even though the Ottoman state had sins, the things it had to endure was enough to wash away the sins of the entire world.378 However, it seems that Rasim Efendi's criticism was too much to swallow for the crowd.
Luckily, we see that İkdâm went to the trouble of providing us with the rest of the speech that could not be delivered at the gathering, and added a commentary by him over the incident. In this undelivered part, we see that he suggested that free elections should be held, which would make the civilised world quickly see that the Ottoman nation was capable of being governed correctly and being peaceful, adding that there was no civilised nation which would deny that the Turks had the majority in İzmir, and the politicians of the ''civilised Europe'' were considerate, sagacious men who would not want to risk peace by alienating a nation that they could win over to their sides by promising them freedom.379
377 ''Ayasofya'daki Muazzam Miting,'' İleri, Numero: 506-121, 1 Ramazan 1337 / 31 May 1919. p. 2.
378 ''Pay-i Tahttaki Tezâhürat-ı Milliye,'' İleri, Numero: 492-110, 20 Şaban 1337 / 20 May 1919. p. 1.
379 ''Bu millet hür, hakk-ı intihâbına sahib olarak bir intihâb yapsın da âlem-i medeniyet baksın. Ol zaman görecekler ki bu millet hüsn-i idâreye kadar ve anâsır-ı sulh ve müsâlemat olacak bir millettir. Biz şimdi o kadar dostlarımızın müzaheretine ve Amerika reisicumhurunun ulvi ve insani prensiplerine istinaden Türklerin ekseriyet teşkil etdikleri yerlerde, İzmir'le Adana da dahil olduğu halde ana vatanımız olan Anadolu ile İstanbulumuz da kendi mukadderatımıza hakim, hür ve müstakil
164
In his personal statement to İkdâm, Rasim Efendi said that he was going to declare the war to be fraudulent, and that there was no place for aggressive war in Islam, and that the Prophet upheld the principle of persuasion. He added that he had to leave the platform due to the protests from certain members of the organisation committee.380
We see that the remaining part of Rasim Efendi's speech would have continued in a similar tone where he criticised the Ottoman public for the passive stance they took towards the Unionist participation of the state in World War I. The rhetoric given at the speeches -which continues to this day- about the issue of the Ottoman Empire's entry to the World War I, has been one of deceit and fait accompli. Here, on the other hand, Rasim Efendi claimed that the Ottomans went against the religious decree, and engaged in an unlawful aggressive war, which entirely contradicts the "poor Ottomans were deceived" argument that we saw throughout the protests. That did not sit well with the organisers of the gathering.
The next speaker of the day according to three of the newspapers was Milaslı İsmail Hakkı Bey. We see that only three of the newspapers reported his speech. Alemdâr only mentioned him by name, and in İkdâm, we do not see any mention of him at all. Hadisât, on the other hand, had a summary version of Milaslı İsmail Hakkı Bey's speech, and not the full text.
bir millet, bir hükümet olarak yaşamak istiyoruz. Bu davamıza itiraz eyleyecek, bu hakkımızı inkar edecek hiçbir medeni milletin mevcudiyeti mutasavver değildir. Medeni Avrupa ricâl-i hükemâtı dûr-endiş, hakim adamlardır. Hürriyet ve hakimiyet vaad ederek kendi taraflarına celb eyleyecekleri akvam ve ümemi kendilerinden tenfir edib de bütün beşeriyetin bigayet teşne olduğu sulh ve müsalemeti geri bırakmak istemezler.''''Sultanahmet Meydanında Yüzbine Karib Ehl-i Tehvidin İctiması,'' İkdâm, Numero: 8013, 1 Ramazan 1337 / 31 May 1919. p. 2.
380 Ibid.
165
He began his speech with an ayet where it is stated that the believers are responsible for protecting their nefs from good and bad, and if they follow the right path, the ones who follow the wrong one will not be able to lead them astray.381
After assuring the crowd that the Almighty is greater than the greatest nations of the world,382 he went onto talk about the character of the European nations and the Christians:
We know Europe as scientific and enlightened, and not to be the kind of nation to consent to cruelty, because they have described and presented themselves to us to be schooled with the spirit of Christianity; that they have been refined with ethics; and that they were sincere, ameliorating, and auspicious nations. This is how we knew them. Still we do not believe that after the Armistice, they will violate their promise and consent to the slaughter of helpless, sinless villagers, children, elderly and women who surrendered their weapons.383
He continued his speech in a similar fashion where he went on to point out the praiseworthy characteristics of the Great Britain, France, Italy and the United States. He gave examples of great philosophers they have such as Henri Marion and Dante. He added that President Wilson who is known to be a great scholar of religion and law would feel the need to interfere if he saw that the Twelfth Article of his Fourteen Points was violated.384
381 ''Ayasofya'daki Muazzam Miting,'' İleri, Numero: 506-121, 1 Ramazan 1337 / 31 May 1919. p. 2.
382 ''Dünkü Halk İctiması,'' Sabâh, Numero: 10612, 1 Ramazan 1337 / 31 May 1919. p. 1.
383 ''Ondan sonra, biz ilmi, marifetle kudretli muazzam Avrupa milletlerini zulme razı olacak kavimlerden bilmiyoruz. Çünkü onlar bize kendilerini İseviyet ruhu ile perverşiyâb olmuş felsefe-i ahlâk ile tehzîb-i zât ve sıfat etmiş, nasih ve muslih, hayırkâr ve hayrhâh milletler olmak üzere tavsîf etmişler ve ol vechile takdîm etmişlerdir. Biz de kendilerini böyle biliyor idik. Hâlâ mütarekeden sonra sözün nakz edilerek silâh-ı muhâsamâtı terk etmiş, bî-çâre, bî-günah ve bî-müdâfaa köylüleri, çoluk çocukları ihtiyâr ve kadınları katliam ettirmek gibi bir hale razı olacaklarına hiç inanamıyoruz.''
İleri, Numero: 121, 30 Şaban 1337 / 31 May 1919.
384 ''Dünkü Halk İctiması,'' Sabâh, Numero: 10612, 1 Ramazan 1337 / 31 May 1919. p. 1.
166
He also mentioned the Christian character of the West. He added that the followers of religion are full of compassion; and it cannot be expected from them to allow such savagery.385
However, İsmail Hakkı pointed out that if they [Europeans] want to take away our rights out of respect for the Greek civilisation, they are wrong:
Because this is both against morality, and also the true civilisation is our civilisation. Even in this day and age, they do not let Muslims live; we Muslims have let Christians and Jews live even more prosperously than ourselves even at times when we had no reason to be afraid of anyone, or no nation could offer them protection.386
Milaslı İsmail Hakkı Bey's mention of the Greek civilisation is interesting and to the point. The nineteenth century neo-classicism surely revived interest and admiration in the Ancient Greek and Roman civilisations; and we have seen in the chapter concerning the Paris Conference and the events leading up to the occupation of İzmir that the deep-seated sympathy towards the Greek civilisation was one of the contributing factors in how things played out the way they did. On the other hand, he contests this idea of acting ''in respect to the Greek civilisation,'' and offers proof that they deserve no such treatment by claiming that the Greeks have not allowed Muslims to exist under their rule. Yet, the Ottomans have allowed Jews and Christians to prosper under theirs. This notion that the non-Muslim populations were treated fairly and respectfully, while this was not reciprocated by the Greek state is a recurring theme. Regardless of the fact that its validity might be up for discussion, it is evident that this is one of the reasons why the Ottomans feel seriously wronged
385 Ibid.
386 ''Eğer onlar Yunan medeniyetine hürmeten bizim hakkımızı zayi' etmek istiyorlarsa yanılıyorlar. Çünkü bu hem ahlâka muhâliftir hem de hakîki medeniyet bizim medeniyetimizdir. Onlar şu asırda bile içlerinde Müslüman yaşatmadıkları halde, biz Müslümanlar hiç kimseden korkmadığımız, hiç bir kuvvetin müdâfaasının imkânı olmadığı zamanlarda bile İsevi, Musevi cümlesini kendimizden daha müreffeh yaşatmışızdır.''
''Ayasofya'daki Muazzam Miting,'' İleri, Numero: 506-121, 1 Ramazan 1337 / 31 May 1919. p. 2.
167
and in a way ripped-off. Even when they have shown compassion to the non-Muslims in their state, they end up being called the uncivilised party, while Greece, whom they perceive as blood-thirsty cheats, get to be counted amongst the members of a high civilisation.
Milaslı İsmail Hakkı Bey continued his rather mild tone towards the end of his speech. When he informed the listeners about a conversation that allegedly took place between President Wilson and Venizelos, he said that:
It was seen in the newspapers that a conversation took place between Mister Wilson and Venizelos. Wilson asked Venizelos: 'How will you treat the Muslims?' and Venizelos answered: 'the same as before' insinuating that the usual cruelty will continue. (Sounds of, 'may he be damned!'). Mister Wilson might have ascribed this to good-intentions due to the good-will that they have. However, the events in İzmir clearly showed what Venizelos attributed it to.387
Milaslı İsmail Hakkı Bey continued to avoid any criticism towards the Allied Powers, and portrays Greece as the ultimate villain. This is in line with the rhetoric heavily used in the earlier gatherings, but the blatant cooperation with the Allied Powers led some of the speakers in previous gatherings to turn their criticism towards the Western states. Even though Milaslı İsmail Hakkı Bey could be considered rather mild, we see that towards the end of his speech, his tone gets a little more harsh and decisive as he stated; "The European nations are naturally proud of themselves having saved certain nations, which are far from civilisation. We approve of that."388 But, he did not specify which nations these are. He went on to
387 ''Gazetelerde görüldü ki Vilson cenabları ile Venizelos arasında bir muhâvere cereyân etmiş. Vilson Venizelos'a 'Müslümanlar hakkında ne muamele edeceksiniz' demiş. O da 'eskisi gibi' diyerek mâzideki mezâlime devam edeceğini imâ etmiş. (Kahrolsun! sedaları). Vilson cenâbları mütehallik oldukları hüsn-i zann sebebiyle bunu hüsn-i niyete haml etmiş olabilir. Fakat İzmir vak'ası Venizelos'un bu söz ile ne murad ettiğini gösterdi.''
''Dünkü Halk İctiması,'' Sabâh, Numero: 10612, 1 Ramazan 1337 / 31 May 1919. p. 1.
388 ''Sultanahmet Meydanında Yüzbine Karib Ehl-i Tehvidin İctiması,'' İkdâm, Numero: 8013, 1 Ramazan 1337 / 31 May 1919. p. 2.
168
add that he did not understand how their [European nations'] will to deny hundreds of millions of Muslims the right to govern themselves could be consolidated with their noble cause.389
He finalised his speech by pointing out three issues and suggesting patience:
First of all, God is the ultimate avenger. Against whatever power, He rights what is wrong. Let us be assured of God's assistance, and be firmly determined in protecting our rights. Secondly, whatever happens, we should not forget anything. We should pass it on our children, and not let it be forgotten, and fight in order to leave these incidents as inheritance to the whole world of Islam. Third of all, we should understand our weaknesses and shortcomings and do our best to improve them. Will you swear by these three items? (Sounds of: 'we will').390
We see that the last part of Milaslı İsmail Hakkı Bey's speech came with a short declaration of its own, where he laid out what he thinks should be done in order to fight back against the injustice the Ottoman Empire faced. His first point called for faith in God and his last point had a pragmatic approach to the problem at hand. We see that the second point hinted that the struggle might continue onto the next generations, and that the nation should be ready to instil in their children the will to fight back. This is similar to what we have seen in the speech delivered by Münevver Saime Hanım at the gathering in Kadıköy where she talked in length about how she would raise her son so that he would continue the fight for the Ottoman sovereignty. This shows that there is a wide-spread suspicion that the struggle might not end quickly, and they would pass the flag onto their children.
389 Ibid.
390 ''Birincisi, Cenab-ı Hakk azîz-i zü-intikamdır, ne kuvvet olsa ihkâk-ı hak eder ve nusret-i ilahiyeye mutmain olarak sabır ve metânetle müdâfaa-i hukûka azm edelim. İkincisi, her ne olub biterse hiç birisini unutmamak ve evlâdlarımıza intikâl etdirerek unutdurmamak ve bu vekayi’i bütün alem-i İslâma mevrûs bırakmak içün cihâd etmek. Üçüncüsü, acz ve noksanlarımızın sebebleri ne ise anlayıp izâlesi içün mukadderâtımızın yetdiği kadar çalışmakdır. İşte bu üç maddeye yemin eder misiniz? ('Ederiz!' sadaları).''
Ibid.
169
The last speaker of the day was reported to be Hamdullah Suphi Bey who began his speech by talking about the misfortunes that the country had to face:
After the great mother-land, where the Danubes, Euphrates and Tigrises flow, has been devastated, they do not want to leave us alone in our Anatolia. We want to live with our wounds, our pain, and our brothers. Anatolia has been the mother-land to many oppressed peoples. The poor Tatars who have been exiled from the Crimea and had their homes dismantled; the unfortunate Circassians who were exiled from the Caucasians; poor Turks, Albanians, Bosnians who had to become refugees, running from fire and sword.391
Similar to what has been said by Milaslı İsmail Hakkı, we see that Hamdullah Suphi Bey made the argument where the Muslims have been the victims of atrocities and had to flee their land, finally taking refuge in Anatolia. The monstrosities that various ethnicities had faced before and during World War I are constantly mentioned as if the speakers try to cry out what was done to them by the self-proclaimed ''civilised nations'' when they themselves had to endure being treated as blood-thirsty savages. We came across these manifestations of this feeling of victimhood time and again, and the vast difference between the self-perception of the Ottomans and the impression that the Allied Powers have of them are at the opposite ends of the spectrum. This reality just fuels up the frustration and the feeling of being ultimately wronged.
Furthermore, poet Hamdullah Suphi talked specifically about the Greek treatment of the Muslim populations, where he states:
Today, Greece is trampling on Anatolia, on İzmir, which has not seen another flag until this day. That Greece, she was born and grew with the help of others. That Greece, she is counted amongst the winners [of the war] by relying on others. We ask the triumphant nations: We know very well what
391 ''İçinde Tunalar akan, Dicleler, Fıratlar sesler veren büyük ana vatan hurdahâş oldukdan sonra bizi Anadolu'muzda rahat bırakmak istemiyorlar. Biz kendi yaralarımızla, kendi acılarımızla, kendi kardeşlerimizle yaşamak istiyoruz. Anadolu kaç mazlûm halka vatan olmuş bir toprakdır. Kırım'dan sürülen, yuvaları dağılan zavallı Tatarlar, Kafkasya'dan sürülen zavallı Çerkesler, Rumeli'nin her tarafından yangın önünde kılıç önünde muhâceret eden zavallı Türkler, Arnavudlar, Boşnaklar.''
''Dünkü İkinci Sultanahmet Mitingi,'' Hadîsât, Numero: 150, 1 Ramazan 1337 / 31 May 1919. p. 2.
170
Greek rule means. From the Morea, to Thessaly, from Thessaly to Trachia; Greek expansion means destruction. Greece in Anatolia means fire. Hence, we address the nations of Europe, will they let a nation such as Greeks destroy us, ruin us in our homeland?392
The same dismissive and belittling attitude towards Greece that we saw in the first gatherings can also be seen in Hamdullah Suphi's speech. The Greek state is scorned due to the help they received from foreign governments during their establishment and because they did not fight honourably in World War I, but were accepted amongst the winner states due to a technicality. Furthermore, there is not a shred of trust towards the Greeks to establish a just, even a reasonable rule in Western Anatolia due the atrocities that took place in areas populated by Muslims after they became a part of the Greek state.
The next part of his speech, however, shows us that there is more to the discomfort of the Greek presence in Anatolian soil than the occupation of İzmir and the hatred felt towards this state:
Do not be fooled. Be assured that after Greece settles in Aydın, the İstanbul problem will become a concern. Greece that set foot in Anatolia now began to turn her eyes over to İstanbul. We are going to go to exile. If we do that, Greece will expand their rule in Aydın, and will flow into İstanbul.393
392 ''Bugün Anadolu topraklarının, şimdiye kadar ma'sûn kalan İzmir'in, başka bir bayrak görülmeyen topraklarını Yunanistan çiğniyor. O Yunanistan ki başkalarının yardımı ile doğdu, büyüdü. O Yunanistan ki başkalarına istinâd ederek gâlibler arasında bulunuyor. Gâlib milletlere soruyoruz: Biz Yunanistan idâresinin ne olduğunu pek güzel biliyoruz. Mora'dan Teselya'ya, Teselya'dan Trakya'ya Yunanistan'ın inkişâfı imha demekdir. Anadolu'da Yunanistan demek yangın demekdir. Bunun için Avrupa'nın milletlerine hitâb ediyoruz, bırakacaklar mı ki Yunan gibi bir millet bizi öz vatanımızda kahr etsin, harâb etsin?''
''Sultanahmet Meydanında Yüzbine Karib Ehl-i Tehvidin İctiması,'' İkdâm, Numero: 8013, 1 Ramazan 1337 / 31 May 1919. p. 2.
393 ''Aldanmayınız. Emin olunuz ki Aydın'a Yunanistan yerleşdikden sonra bugün İstanbul mes'elesi mevzû‘-i bahs olacakdır. Anadolu'ya ayak basan Yunanistan şimdiden şimdiden İstanbul'a göz dikmişdir. Biz menfi bir muhâceret yapacağız. Biz Yunanista'nın işgâli önünde muhâceret edersek Yunanlılar Aydın'ı tekşîf edecek ve sonra bir kol ile İstanbul'a akacaklardır.''
''Dünkü Halk İctiması.'' Sabâh. Numero: 10612, 1 Ramazan 1337 / 31 May 1919. p. 1.
171
The fear that İstanbul might be next in line for occupation was addressed first at the gathering in Üsküdar by Sabahat Hüsamettin Hanım, as was discussed in the earlier chapters. We see that this fear resonated and became much more vocalised -even became the main concern- within ten days. Münevver Saime Hanım's long speech that focused solely on İstanbul was a clear sign, and again Hamdullah Suphi Bey expressed this concern once more in plain, simple language. According to him, if Greeks are allowed to settle in the Aydın province, they are not going to stop there. The only thing this will lead to will be the occupation of İstanbul; and that will mean the ultimate destruction of the Empire.
Hamdullah Suphi Bey continued his words by calling the public to unity: ''Let us get together. Whatever political convictions we might have, today, the fate of our İstanbul is at stake. Our worst enemy is not Russia. Our greatest enemy is Greece.''394
We had seen speakers in the former gathering who called for the unity of the nation, which is only natural in situations such as these. However, it is interesting to see that Hamdullah Suphi felt the need to point out that Russia was not to be considered the worst foe of the Ottomans. This could be taken to mean that he was talking about Tsarist Russia, which had been a very serious problem for the Ottomans for a very long time, but after the Bolshevik Revolution, it no longer can be considered as such. On the other hand, the fact that he claimed political persuasions should be put aside might be taken to mean that he is addressing factions that consider socialism or Unionists as a great threat to the Ottoman Empire. However, in either case, he underlines that Greece now is their ultimate enemy. He
394 ''Toplanalım. Hangi siyâsi itikâdda olursak olalım bugün bizim önümüzde İstanbul'umuzun mukadderâtı mevzû‘-i bahisdir. Bizim için en büyük düşman Rusya değildir. Bizim için en büyük düşman Yunanistan'dır.''
Ibid.
172
finished his speech by stating that they are ready to face any hardships or suffering as long as the Greeks are thrown out of İzmir and Aydın.395
If we look at the reports concerning the conclusion of the gathering, we see that Hamdullah Suphi delivered a two-item proclamation to the public. However, it should be noted that Hadisât reported that Kangırı Kadısı Mehmet Lütfi Efendi was the one who delivered the proclamation. But İkdâm, İleri and Sabâh reported the reader to be Hamdullah Suphi. Mehmet Lütfi Efendi was reported to say a prayer in İleri and Alemdâr. Hence this might explain the confusion. The proclamation of the gathering reads as follows:
1- Turks ask for the realisation of the Twelfth Article of the Fourteen Points, which concerns them.
2- When many enslaved nations are given their freedom back, subjugation of a nation that has been ruling freely over Anatolia for nine hundred and fifty years cannot be called justice. With determination, we are going to insist that we be given our rights. We protest in front of the world of civilisation, the violation that is carried out against the unity of the lands where a Turkish majority exists.396
İleri stated that after the proclamation, sounds of confirmation could be heard all over; and Hamdullah Suphi Bey asked the public to leave in peace.397 On the other hand, Alemdâr concluded its report on the event by describing that after a prayer was recited by Hoca Lütfi Efendi, he called for the public to slowly disperse; and that the public started to leave in silence.398
395 ''Ayasofya'daki Muazzam Miting,'' İleri, Numero: 506-121, 1 Ramazan 1337 / 31 May 1919. p. 3.
396 ''Sultanahmet Meydanında Yüzbine Karib Ehl-i Tehvidin İctiması,'' İkdâm, Numero: 8013, 1 Ramazan 1337 / 31 May 1919. p. 2.
397 ''Ayasofya'daki Muazzam Miting,'' İleri, Numero: 506-121, 1 Ramazan 1337 / 31 May 1919. p. 3.
398 "1- Türkler Wilson Prensiblerinin kendilerine aid olan on ikinci maddesinin tamamî-i tatbikini taleb ederler.
2- Bir çok esir milletlere yeniden istiklal verilirken dokuz yüz elli seneden beri Anadoluda saltanat ve istiklale malik olan bir milletin duçar-ı esaret edilmesi muvâfık-ı adâlet olamaz. Kemâl-i azim ile
173
This gathering was the second and last massive scale protest that was organised just after two weeks from the time of the occupation of İzmir. We see that the coverage in the newspapers were not as extensive as it was for the previous gatherings, especially where Alemdâr seems to return to its former position of short acknowledgement of the protests without going into much detail. Furthermore, the speeches are reported in a very non-synchronised manner; and the newspapers even seem to confuse Professor İsmail Hakkı Bey and Milaslı İsmail Hakkı Bey. However, the turnout for the gathering and the intensity of the speeches still mark this gathering as a crucial event in the resistance movement.
We see the familiar arguments where the illegitimacy of the occupation is refuted by stating that the Turkish nation is civilised, ancient and inseparable with the land which is now under Greek control. The belittling of the Greek civilisation also continues as we see from Hamdullah Suphi and Milaslı İsmail Hakkı's speeches where they are portrayed as cruel, uncivilised people who did not allow Muslims to exist under their rule. It is even suggested that they have used the naïveté of Western Powers – particularly President Wilson's- to get what they wanted.
It is also interesting to see that even though there are minor differences in how the speakers approach the situation, a major diversity is not tolerated. Hoca Rasim Efendi, who apparently upset the crowd and the gathering committee with his comments, got his speech cut off half way through. In these dire times, when unity is essential for survival, disparity is not something that could be afforded.
It could be argued that the general tone of the speeches have not been as harsh as some of the previous gatherings, yet the fact that the Ottomans were fully aware
hakkımızı talebde son dereceye kadar ısrar edeceğiz. Bir Türk ekseriyetini haiz olan memleketlerin birliğine karşu vakı‘ olan tecavüzü âlem-i medeniyet huzurunda protesto ediyoruz."
''Dünkü Miting,'' Alemdâr, Numero: 159-1469, 1 Ramazan 1337 / 31 May 1919. p. 2.
174
that this occupation is much more than what it seemed to be at first, and that the capital of the Ottoman Empire, İstanbul, is also under a huge threat, is of great importance. The rhetoric that we saw in the first few days after the occupation when the Greek army was deployed in İzmir as they had the Allied corps closest to the area now seems like it was uttered during another epoch. The realisation that the very existence of the Ottoman Empire was at stake even after all the suffering the nation had to go through during World War I would become the driving force of their National Struggle for Independence.
The Third Gathering in the Sultanahmet Square (15 October 1919)
The third gathering in Sultanahmet took place on 15 October 1919. By this time, we see that one of the newspapers, namely Hadisât is no longer in print, but the remaining four newspapers in the scope of this thesis have coverage of the protest. İkdâm and İleri devote multiple pages to the coverage, but we see that censorship started to become a real problem at this point. In addition, Sabâh, which started to be printed under the name Peyâm by this time, has a miniscule coverage of the event. We only see that there is a short paragraph describing the gathering on the first page under "Summary of Political Events;" and the proclamation is printed on the third page without any commentary. Alemdâr is not much of a help, either. As we saw in the earlier gatherings, it always had much less coverage compared to the other newspapers. This fact, combined with the absence of Hadisât, the editorial change of Sabâh to Peyâm, and much harsher censorship becomes problematic as we are not able to make a much more encompassing collage of the speeches delivered at the gathering. It should also be noted that Kemal Arıburnu's work on the İstanbul
175
gatherings moves from the second Sultanahmet gathering held on 30 May 1919 to the fourth one, held on 13 January 1920 without making any mention of this one.
If we are to look at Alemdâr's general description of the gathering, we learn that "a national and religious meeting" was held in Sultanahmet Mosque at one o'clock.399 We are informed that "thousands of fellow Muslims (din kardeşi)" attended the gathering.400 İleri's print of the coverage is rather patched. We see on the front page that the gathering was described with the title "Muslims of İstanbul cried for our beloved İzmir again in the Sultanahmet Mosque, and asked for their rights;"401 and we find no other information on the gathering. The actual report began on the eighth and last page of the newspaper, and continues onto the sixth page.
In the reports of former gatherings, we usually saw the description of the atmosphere of the gathering. However, here in İleri's report, we have almost no mention of these aspects, but rather a lament about the alleged atrocities that the Greeks committed in Western Anatolia. The language used during the commentary describing the speeches and the gathering in general addresses not the reader, but İzmir itself as if the newspaper converses with it.
If we look at the coverage in İkdâm, we see that it is more in line with its former style. It is mentioned that tens of thousands attended the Friday prayer.402 By the small description of the gathering atmosphere, we are informed that women, men and children started gathering under the dome of the Sultanahmet Mosque. Despite
399 "Dünkü Muazzam Miting," Alemdâr, Numero: 300-2600, 15 Muharrem 1338 / 11 Teşrînievvel 1919. p. 1.
400 Ibid.
401 "İstanbul Müslümanları Dün Sultanahmet Camii'inde Sevgili İzmir'imiz İçin Yine Feryad Etti, Hakkını İstedi." İleri, Numero: 630, 15 Muharrem 1338 / 11 Teşrînievvel 1919. p.1
402 "Sultanahmet Cami-i Şerîfinde," İkdâm, Numero: 1418, 15 Muharrem 1338 / 11 Teşrînievvel 1919. p. 1.
176
the rain, some who could not find a place inside the mosque stayed and waited outside.403
Peyâm in its report stated that selamlık-ı resmi took place in Hamîdiye Mosque in Yıldız, and that in the aforementioned mosque and in the Sultanahmet Mosque, Muslims gathered to protest the occupation of İzmir.404 None of the other newspapers mention Hamîdiye Mosque as part of the organisation, but we are going to see later that there are indications in the speeches delivered at the protest that despite the importance of the Sultanahmet Mosque as a gathering location, it was not the single centre for this occasion; and other mosques served as places of congregation, too.
The hatip of Fatih Mosque, Şevket Efendi was reported to deliver the first speech in all three of the newspapers. It was stated in Alemdâr that he gave a sermon in Arabic about the unity of the nation; how the government and the people are one as well as the atrocities of the Greeks.405 We see that İkdâm and İleri reported a short speech delivered by Şevket Efendi after the sermon in which he touched on the subjects mentioned in Alemdâr.406
All three newspapers reported Rıza Nur as the second speaker of the day. Alemdâr reported that he delivered his speech from the müezzin mahfili stating that "we should turn a blind eye to the feuds and factions amongst each other; and we
403 Ibid.
404 "Fezleke-i Siyâsiye," Peyâm, Numero: 310-68, 15 Muharrem 1338 / 11 Teşrînievvel 1919. p. 1.
405 "Dünkü Muazzam Miting," Alemdâr, Numero: 300-2600, 15 Muharrem 1338 / 11 Teşrînievvel 1919. p. 1.
406 "Sultanahmet Camii Dün İzmir İçin Bir Kez Daha Titredi," İleri, Numero: 630, 15 Muharrem 1338 / 11 Teşrînievvel 1919. p. 8.; "Sultanahmet Cami-i Şerîfinde," İkdâm, Numero: 1418, 15 Muharrem 1338 / 11 Teşrînievvel 1919. p. 1.
177
should be united and allied in these important moments."407 If we look at the coverage in İleri and İkdâm, we see that Rıza Nur began his speech by stating that "they have gathered for a sacred duty," and due to the "sensitivity" of the time, they were not able to do it in the open.408 He did not go into much detail about this matter. However, if we remember Peyâm's short report on the gathering where Hamidiye Mosque was also mentioned as a place of gathering, we can say that a full-on protest organisation had not been possible at the time. We should also bear in mind that in İkdâm, it was stated that people who could not get in the mosque had to stay outside. In the former Sultanahmet protests, the Sultanahmet Square was the gathering point where speeches were delivered on pulpits built outside, but here we see that Rıza Nur delivered his speech from inside the mosque. Hence, we can deduce that this time the atmosphere was not suitable for a mass protest out in the open, but that people were rather confined inside the mosque -or mosques, because according to Rıza Nur, times were "sensitive." The main topic of Rıza Nur's speech was a call for unity. He stated:
There are some rumours. Some malicious people are spreading lies. My biggest wish of you, my recommendation is for you to ignore those words and retain your calmness. Today, the nation's need is one. And that is the salvation of the motherland. Divisions between factions, personal disputes are shallow when compared to this holy cause. I recommend to you to isolate yourselves from these divisive ideas and quarrels completely.409
407 "Dünkü Muazzam Miting," Alemdâr, Numero: 300-2600, 15 Muharrem 1338 / 11 Teşrînievvel 1919. p. 1.
408 "Sultanahmet Camii Dün İzmir İçin Bir Kez Daha Titredi," İleri, Numero: 630, 15 Muharrem 1338 / 11 Teşrînievvel 1919. p.8.; "Sultanahmet Cami-i Şerîfinde," İkdâm, Numero: 1418, 15 Muharrem 1338 / 11 Teşrînievvel 1919. p. 1.
409 "Ortalıkta bazı şayiâlar dönüyor. Bir takım bedhahlar türlü işaât-ı kazîbe yayıyor. Size en büyük ricam, tavsiyem böyle sözlere kulak vermemek sükûnetinizi muhâfaza etmektir... Bugün milletin ihtiyâcı hep birdir. O da vatanın selametidir. Bu mukaddes gaye huzurunda fırka tefrikaları şahsi niza' ve davalar pek alçalır. Size tavsiye ediyorum. Bu fırka fikirlerinden, davalarından, nizalarından tamamiyle tecrid ediniz."
"Sultanahmet Camii Dün İzmir İçin Bir Kez Daha Titredi," İleri, Numero: 630, 15 Muharrem 1338 / 11 Teşrînievvel 1919. p. 8.
178
This topic of unity and the need to disbelieve in false rumours was brought up in former gatherings by speakers such as Hamdullah Suphi in the second Sultanahmet gathering, or Fahreddin Bey in the first Sultanahmet gathering. However, the speeches did not have any details on what these divisions and disputes were, just like in the case of Rıza Nur's speech. A call for unity at a time like this is nothing but natural. Yet, it is highly unlikely that this kind of a discourse was used in a per se manner but rather stemmed from actual rivalries and disputes. Although it would have been nice to get a glimpse of what Rıza Nur was referring to, he kept his speech pretty diplomatic without making any specific references.
According to Alemdâr and İkdâm, the third speaker of the day is reported to be Hamdullah Suphi Bey who had also delivered a speech in the second Sultanahmet gathering. Yet, we see that he was listed as the fourth speaker by İleri. We see that İkdâm began reporting on Hamdullah Suphi Bey's speech by stating that it was "listened to in tears." However, the newspaper was unable to print a single word of the speech. Alemdâr has a single-sentence summary of his speech: "He said that he witnessed the devastation that the Greeks brought upon İzmir; and that Greek occupation meant total destruction."410 The only comprehensive report we have on Hamdullah Suphi's speech belongs to İleri; and it can be seen that even there, they could not avoid censorship. Throughout the report, we see blank areas ranging from around one to five lines concentrating at the beginning of the speech, and for about ten consecutive lines towards the end of the speech. Luckily, the bulk of the speech seems to be intact; and the material at hand allows us to see his message clearly as the text İleri printed is about 700 words.
410 "Yunanılar'ın İzmir'de ika' ettiği fecai'den re'yü’l-ayn gördüklerini ve Yunan işgalinin bir memleket için mahv u harabî demek olduğunu söyledi."
"Dünkü Muazzam Miting," Alemdâr, Numero: 300-2600, 15 Muharrem 1338 / 11 Teşrînievvel 1919. p. 1.
179
Hamdullah Suphi Bey began his speech by reminding the crowd about the first days after the occupation stating: "We Turks had the brethren of sorrow that came together in agony, partners in destruction, we had stretched out our hands towards the doors of the West where we were hoping for justice. Five months have passed. Today, the looting is still destructive... (The end of the sentence is censored.)"411 The following paragraph is heavily censored in the report although the topic is clearly Greeks; and if we look at the following sentences, we see that the commentaries about them are less than flattering, to say the least:
On the day that Greek soldiers set foot in İzmir, they have immediately proven how they perceived the heavy responsibility that was put on their shoulders... (About five lines are censored)... after they see the first accomplishments of this rabid, bandit-army, they are going to prevent them from moving further, prevent them from bringing fire and death everywhere.412
He continued his speech in the same vein. We see that the next couple of sentences are also censored. Interestingly enough, at the beginning of İleri's report on the gathering, we see an independent paragraph which is printed right after the title of the article. It seems a bit out of context at first sight. However, as one moves below to the speeches, it can be seen that İleri managed to print this partially censored section of Hamdullah Suphi's speech in full at the beginning of the report. It reads:
Pay attention to the roads that stretch from İzmir to Aydın, from İzmir to Manisa and beyond. (One line censured.) You will immediately understand where the Greeks have been. Hundreds of burned villages, cities where its people have fled; and nothing other than black walls have been left, torched
411 "Biz Türkler yakıcı bir ızdırap içinde birleşen mâtem kardeşleri felâket ortakları, garbın adalet umduğumuz kapılarına ellerimizi uzatmıştık. Aradan beş ay geçti, hâlâ bugün yağmacı, yangıncı... (Cümle sonuna kadar sansür.)
"Sultanahmet Camii Dün İzmir İçin Bir Kez Daha Titredi," İleri, Numero: 630, 15 Muharrem 1338 / 11 Teşrînievvel 1919. p. 8.
412 "Yunan askerleri İzmir'e ayak bastıkları gün kendi omuzlarına mesuliyetlerine havale edilen ağır vazifeyi nasıl anladıklarını derhal isbat ettiler. (Yaklaşık 5 satırlık sansür) ...tutmuş kudurmuş bu şâki ordunun ik eserlerini gördükten sonra içerilere yayılmasına, her tarafa ateş ve ölüm götirmesine mani olacaktır."
Ibid.
180
harvests, fields that have been used as grazing for the Greek horses, all kinds of crops that are left to rot, worth millions. They will let you know that Greeks have been there.413
It is fortunate for us as it allows us to see what he exactly said, but it is also interesting that the very same sentences that were censored later managed to get printed at the beginning. It was discussed earlier that censorship of the newspapers had very little synchronisation, and what was censored in one newspaper could be found in full in another. This leads us to believe that there was no single authority responsible for censoring the newspapers. But the fact that the same newspaper had inconsistencies in censorship is rather curious, which either points to very sloppy work, or maybe whoever was responsible for censoring the speeches was reluctant to do so. On the other hand, we saw that İkdâm was not able to print a single word of Hamdullah Suphi Bey's speech, which only adds to the unpredictable and inconsistent character of the censorship.
If we are to look at Hamdullah Suphi's delivery, we no longer see the reluctance to talk about Greece or Greeks, which we had seen in the previous gatherings. As it was discussed earlier, the speeches delivered in the former gatherings very seldom referred to Greece or Greek by name; and resorted to a more "you-know-who" type of discourse. There were some instances where Greece and the Greek army were directly mentioned, but they were few in number; and speeches generally concentrated on pleas to the West, the sufferings Turks endured, and what they should do in this situation. However, here we see that Hamdullah Suphi talked in length, and directly pointed his finger at the Greek state. He listed the atrocities
413 "İzmir'den Aydın'a, İzmir'den Manisa'ya ve içerlere doğru uzayan yollara dikkat ediniz Yunanlılar nereden geçmiştir derhal anlarsınız. (Bir buçuk satırlık sansür) ...şehirler yakılmış yüzlerce köyler, halkı kaçmış kara duvarlarından başka bir şey kalmamış şehirler, ateşe verilmiş harmanlar, Yunan atlarına otlak edilmiş tarlalar, yerlerinde çürüyen milyonlarca kıymeti haiz her cins mahsul size haber verir ki buralara Yunanlılar girmiştir."
Ibid.
181
that they carried out in İzmir and the surrounding areas. Although he mentioned the Allied Powers stating that they "stretched out their hands" to them, we see that neither his, nor the former speaker Rıza Nur's speech had the Allied Powers or Wilson Principles as their main talking points.
The following part of his speech also contains an element that we had not seen in any of the previous gatherings. Hamdullah Suphi continued:
Greeks and the native Rums, minions of one another in slander and murder, these treacherous forces who complete one another in thievery, have turned this most prosperous and happy of vilâyets of Anatolia into ruins. This nation that crawls on the floor on their heads and belly, they are the masters of buffoonery and grovelling, and when you are strong, they bow and scrape in front of you as if they have no spine when you are strong. They are now victors on behalf of other people's blood; they are heroes thanks to the power of others.414
Here, Hamdullah Suphi continued to blatantly talk about Greeks in an insulting fashion which was not seen before, but another first is that he explicitly names the native Greeks as their accomplices. We saw very few instances where the word Rum was used in the context of the gatherings. Once we saw banners bearing the words ''We want justice. 350 million Muslims' rights cannot be sacrificed for 220 thousand Rum.''415 During the first Sultanahmet Gathering, Mehmed Emin utters the words "However, today, when Turkish and Muslim İzmir is given to the Greeks, and the rights of one and a half million Turks are sacrificed for two hundred thousand
414 "Yunanlılar ve yerli Rumlar birbirinin soygun yardakçıları yalanda katlde, hırsızlıkta el ele vermiş birbirini tamamlamış bu iki hain kuvvet Anadolu'nun en mamur ve mes'ud bir vilâyetini artık bir harâbeye çevirmiş bulunurlar. Siz kavi olduğunuz vakit karınları başları yerde sürüklenen, şaklabanlığın dalkavukluğun hocası olan ve bel kemikleri yokmuş gibi önünüzde kıvrım kıvrım bulunan bu halk bugün başkalarının kanıyla muzaffer ve başkalarının kuvvetiyle kahramandır."
"Sultanahmet Camii Dün İzmir İçin Bir Kez Daha Titredi," İleri, Numero: 630, 15 Muharrem 1338 / 11 Teşrînievvel 1919. pp. 6-8.
415 ''(300,000)e Karib Müslüman,'' Alemdâr, Numero: 152-1462, 24 Şaban 1337 / 24 May 1919. p. 1.
182
Greeks, our hopes shattered."416 But apart from that, there is no direct reference to the Ottoman Rum population within the context of the gatherings.
The word "Rum" is used to describe the Greek Orthodox population of the Ottoman Empire, but here we see that Hamdullah Suphi used the words "native Rums" to underline, and leave no doubt about the fact that he was talking about the local Greek inhabitants of the area, and blamed them for siding with the Greek State. He portrayed both the Greeks and the native Rums as sinister and sly enemies who prostrated to the Turks when they were strong. Hamdullah Suphi's last sentence was also parallel with the rhetoric used in the previous gatherings where it was pointed out time and again that the Greeks were not worthy of the position they were given. They were handed a victory on a silver platter without shedding any of their own blood.
As a side-note it should be mentioned here that Hamdullah Suphi's family was originally from Morea. His father Abdüllatif Suphi Paşa was only a child during the uprising. The family fell captive at the hands of the rebels but were eventually allowed to go to Egypt, and made their way back to Istanbul. Hamdullah Suphi's special mention of both Greeks and yerli Rum accompanied with a very vivid detailed description of what he thinks of them is another example of how personal histories effect the way in which people approach issues, such as in the cases of Refi Cevad and Hoca Rasim Efendi.
In the following part of his speech, he tried to point out that the destruction we see in İzmir was nothing but another chapter in the regular conduct of business of the Greeks by giving examples of the atrocities that took place in the Morea, Thessaly and Macedonia against the Turks. He added that "now what you see in
416 Ibid.
183
İzmir is nothing other than the continuation of this policy of murder and destruction."417 He also said that "the Greeks are killing in İzmir today, just like they did yesterday. The change of its command or the summoning of investigation committees from time to time puts no restraint on their blood-thirsty, money grabbing soul,"418 which informs us about some of the preventive and futile measures that tried to be taken against the Greek deeds in the region.
We see that after the aforementioned sentence, about ten-lines of his speech were censored; and it only resumes when he relatively softened his tone. Given the direct attack on Greece and the provocative language that he had used, it is fortunate that we are able to find this much in the reports. He summed up his speech:
We have not given up on the consensus of the states, the belated justice of the great, virtuous nations. We are waiting for the orders that would banish the thieving army from our lands for the sake of the thousands of our refugee brothers who would be totally devastated by the upcoming winter and for the sake of our overwhelming majority in the vilâyet of İzmir. But again, for the last time, we are going to apply for the justice of the democratic nations. If you agree with the demands that will be put forward a bit later, we are going to forward them to the representatives and wait for the decisions.419
Here, we see another first in Hamdullah Suphi's speech. It was pretty customary for a list of demands to be issued at the end of the gatherings to be presented to the representatives of the Allied Powers and the Sultan. However, here, in the penultimate sentence, we see that Hamdullah Suphi Bey used the words "for the last
417 "Sultanahmet Camii Dün İzmir İçin Bir Kez Daha Titredi," İleri, Numero: 630, 15 Muharrem 1338 / 11 Teşrînievvel 1919. p. 6.
418 "Yunanlı İzmir'imizde dün olduğu gibi bugün de öldürüyor. Kumandanlığının değişmesi tahkik komisyonlarının yer yer toplanması onun kana susamış, paraya aç olan ruhuna hiç bir kayd ilave etmiyor."
Ibid.
419 "Biz demokrat devletlerin, büyük fâzıl milletlerin geciken adâletinden hâlâ ümidimizi kesmedik. Yaklaşan kışın büsbütün harâb edeceği yüz binlerce muhâcir kardeşimiz için İzmir vilayetinde hâiz olduğumuz kâhir ekseriyetinin hakkı için şaki ordunun toprağımızdan def' olmasını temin edecek emirleri bekliyoruz... Biraz sonra teklif edilecek kararlara iştirâk ederseniz, onları mümessillere takdîm eder ve alınacak kararı bekleriz."
"Sultanahmet Camii Dün İzmir İçin Bir Kez Daha Titredi," İleri, Numero: 630, 15 Muharrem 1338 / 11 Teşrînievvel 1919. p. 6.
184
time." If we are to remember the former gatherings, the tone speakers used when talking about the Allied Powers varied from trust in their capacity to stop the atrocities and faith in their good-will420 to their condemnation as the perpetrators of the destruction of İzmir.421 However, this is the first time that we see a clear ultimatum where it was stated that the Turks would no longer appeal to the aforementioned parties as players in this situation, and basically write them off if the demands were not taken seriously. If we are to look at Hamdullah Suphi Bey's speech in its totality, this is quite fitting. He began by talking about how nothing had changed within the past five months, and mentioned the first Sultanahmet gathering. He said here they were again in the same place, talking about the same issues with no progress for five months. He then talked about the atrocities of the Greeks, and tried to establish that they have a policy of eradication against the Turks, which underlined that the events of İzmir were not an anomaly or a misconduct but the very character and systematic approach of the Greeks after they conquer new lands. He also added that the Greek command had been changed; and investigations were made, but they were futile, and did nothing to stop the deeds of the Greek army. As he laid this "outline" of events, his statement about appealing to the justice of the democratic nations for "one last time", which is just another way of saying "we are not going to do that again", was the only sensible next step. The harsh tone against the Allied Powers and the Greeks even though they were not openly mentioned like they are here is not a novelty. There were instances where some speakers took that approach
420 ''Biz hâlâ düvel-i muazzamanın hakkımızda bir hükm-i adâlet vereceğinden ümidimizi kesmek istemiyoruz.''
''Dünkü Tezâhürat-ı Milliye – Dünkü Büyük Miting,'' İleri, Numero: 493-111, 21 Şaban 1337 / 21 May 1919, p. 1.
421 ''İlk padişahımız Osman Gazi kendi tahtını kendi eliyle kurdu. Biz tahtı kirli mülevves ellere yıkdırmayız. Bize adâlet va‘ad eden ağızlar bize yalan söyledi.''
''İzmir Hadisesi Milletin Kalbine Kök Saldı,'' İkdâm, Numero: 8003, 20 Şaban 1337 / 21 May 1919, p. 1.
185
in their speeches. However, it can be seen that the five-month time period between the two Sultanahmet gatherings allowed the ideas about the course of action that needed to be taken in this situation to mature and simmer. In addition, any kind of hope that the Western nations would right their wrong was erased.
The next speaker of the day was the Karesi delegate of the Kuvva-yı Milliye, but we see that the newspapers contradict one another in their reports of his name. Alemdâr and İleri report him as "Vâsıf Bey," but we see that in İkdâm, his name is printed as "Asıf". We have not been able to find a list of speakers of the third Sultanahmet gathering in secondary literature. However, further investigation encourages us to believe that İkdâm misprinted Vâsıf Bey's name, and the speaker in question is probably Hüseyin Vâsıf (Çınar) as he was also involved in Kuvva-yı Milliye, and was one of the attendees of the Balıkesir Congress, which took place in July 1919. It should be pointed out that in İleri, he is listed to speak before Hamdullah Suphi Bey.
Alemdâr introduced him as the "Kuvva-yı Milliye Karesi Representative Vasıf Bey from İzmir."422 Only one sentence is reported from his speech, which proclaimed that "the cruelty that the Greeks imposed in İzmir is terrifying, and that the nation and the government is united in Anatolia, and will stand up against it all."423
Luckily, we see that İleri and İkdâm have a more extensive coverage of Vâsıf Bey's speech, and when the two coverages are compared, the differences are only minor. The biggest difference is that İkdâm was more heavily censored than İleri, but
422 "Dünkü Muazzam Miting," Alemdâr, Numero: 300-2600, 15 Muharrem 1338 / 11 Teşrînievvel 1919. p. 1.
423 Ibid.
186
luckily we get to read some -although not all- of the missing parts of the speech from the latter newspaper.
Vâsıf Bey began by talking about the destruction that the Greek army brought upon İzmir and the surrounding areas. He said that "our ears that have always listened to the victories and the heroic deeds of our fathers now hear the ensured catastrophe of our wounded land."424 He continued that "the Turk will not die. He will not bow down before injustice, cruelty and murder, and will stand against the treacherous forces that try to crush him."425
We see in İkdâm that there is a rather large section that has been censored, but
İleri was able to print it. These findings are always interesting as they let us peer into the mind of the censoring authority in relation to what makes them tick and help us make a little sense of this rather inconsistent process. Vâsıf Bey's following words were taken out in the report of İkdâm:
Upon the shattered chastity of our innocent sisters, the Greeks have shouted decrees of civilisation. They have put poisonous arrows through the white hair of our mothers' that were smeared with innocent orphan blood. Gentlemen, I have seen these bloody disasters with my own eyes. I bear witness in front of the whole world civilisation. There is a terrible example of brutality that the British and French delegates have witnessed in the Hopa hospital:426
Unfortunately, at this point, we run out of luck; and we do not get to learn what this event was, but at least we know that he described a brutal event that was seen by the delegates of the Allied Powers. The atrocities that took place in İzmir were always a
424 "Sultanahmet Camii Dün İzmir İçin Bir Kez Daha Titredi," İleri, Numero: 630, 15 Muharrem 1338 / 11 Teşrînievvel 1919. p. 6.
425 "Sultanahmet Cami-i Şerîfinde," İkdâm, Numero: 1418, 15 Muharrem 1338 / 11 Teşrînievvel 1919. p. 1.
426 "Mâsum hemşirelerimizin inkâz-ı 'ismeti üzerinde vahşi Yunanlılar medeniyet sadâları yükselttiler. Ak saçları masûm yetim kanlarıyla boyanan validelerimizin kalblerine zehirli oklar soktular. Efendiler bu hûnîn felaketleri gözlerimle gördüm. Bütün cihân medeniyetine karşı şehâdet ediyorum. Hopa hastahânesinde İngilitere ve Fransa mümessillerinin gördükleri feci' bir misal-i vahşet var."
"Sultanahmet Camii Dün İzmir İçin Bir Kez Daha Titredi," İleri, Numero: 630, 15 Muharrem 1338 / 11 Teşrînievvel 1919. p. 8.
187
part of the speeches whether the Greeks were openly named as perpetrators or not, but most of the time, they had a more abstract nature than testimonies of what took place there. We heard a lot of descriptions that included words like "blood" and "fire" that the Greeks brought to the area, but this time, we have an actual speaker from İzmir and a member of the Kuvva-yı Milliye talking extensively about his experiences. In addition, he talked about a particular event that he claimed was witnessed by representatives from the Allied Powers. A speech based on personal observation is bound to have more impact than the speeches that read more like literary pieces filled with descriptions of disaster; and this was probably the exact reason why this section of Vâsıf Bey's speech was totally censored in İkdâm, and why İleri was only able to print a part of it.
In the conclusion of his speech, Vâsıf Bey said that the Ottoman history saw great forces that arose during times of distress, giving the Köprülü family as an example. He added that the rising force today was a much greater one.427 He finishes his speech:
But gentlemen, our İstanbul, the most precious queen of the Turks, should not hurt this holiest of deeds of our Anatolia with quarrels and disputes. With my humble words, I am trying to be the messenger of our heroes who shed blood in Anatolia in the name of honour and life. Calmly become one in a most unbreakable unity and with the precious unity of the honourable İstanbulites, the whole world should have no doubt that the Anatolian movement is enough to save the whole nation.428
In the former gatherings, in Rıza Nur's speech above, we saw calls for unity during the speeches and mentions of certain "fractions" that tried to divide the country apart.
427"Sultanahmet Cami-i Şerîfinde," İkdâm, Numero: 1418, 15 Muharrem 1338 / 11 Teşrînievvel 1919. p. 1.
428 "Yalnız efendiler Anadolu'muzun bu mukaddes hareketini Türk'ün en kıymetli bir melikesi olan İstanbul'umuz dâhilî tefrikalarla, nifak ile ihlâl etmesin. Anadolu'da namus ve hayât uğrunda kan döken kahramanların bu sedâ-yı temenniyâtına nâçiz lisânımla tercümân oluyorum. En sarsılmaz bir ittihâda sükûn ile birleşiniz ve muhterem İstanbul'luların da kıymetli ittihâdı ile bütün cihân-ı medeniyet kâni' olsun ki Anadolu hareketi bütün bir milletin halâsına kâfildir."
"Sultanahmet Camii Dün İzmir İçin Bir Kez Daha Titredi," İleri, Numero: 630, 15 Muharrem 1338 / 11 Teşrînievvel 1919. p. 8.
188
However, the language was always vague. Despite the fact that it was obvious there was more to it, the texts were mostly worded as if this call for unity was a general wish. But, here for the first time, we see that Vâsıf Bey mentioned at least one of the reasons for the "fractions," which cause a rift between İstanbul and Anatolia. He clearly called for İstanbulites "not to hurt the Anatolian Movement." He stated not only that "the heroes" in Anatolia put their lives on the line to save the nation, but that they were strong enough to save the whole nation.
If we look at the timeline of the Turkish War of Independence, we see that by this time, 15 October 1919, the Amasya Circular had already been issued; Erzurum and Sivas Congresses had already been assembled; and the Heyet-i Temsiliye, which was to transform and become the Grand National Assembly of Turkey, had already been formed. It is basic knowledge that this organised opposition to the occupation of Anatolia was met with a huge backlash from the Allied Powers; and negative propaganda circulated about the Anatolian movement. Hence, Vâsıf Bey's speech is of great importance to communicate the stance of the resistance in Anatolia to the public in İstanbul. Furthermore, he tells the crowd that the Anatolian Movement is strong enough to save the whole nation. If we take into consideration the words "caliph" or "sultan" have also been curiously absent from the speeches, Vâsıf Bey's words become more meaningful. During the coverage of the former gatherings, there were constant references to the Sultan and the Caliph, but during this protest meeting, he is so absent from the whole ordeal that the lack of his presence is what makes one notice it.
The next speaker of the day is Mehmet Emin Bey who also took part in the first gathering in Sultanahmet. İkdâm's only report on him states that he read a part
189
from his poetry book "Dua"429 while Alemdâr states that "the national poet Mehmet Emin Bey read the poem Dua.430 On the other hand, we see that İleri was able to publish the whole poem. As the name suggests, the poem is directed to God, but rather than wishes, it consists of cries and questions towards God. It should be noted that the book where the poem was published in 1918 was titled İsyan ve Dua, which clearly states the nature of the poem. In his poem, he cites the glorious days of the past, and the wretched state of the present:
Have you forgotten? Who is the great empress of the East
The noble forehead that has a crown of Sun like the mountains
The sacred women that bore prophets, kings
Once upon a time her voice filled the skies
Her children raised golden cities for You
But now she is so broken as if she has malaise
Her face is pale like eclipsed moons
...
Here so many brides are fallen ill from crying
Their eyes are filled with the colour of dark graves
Their homes are barren with hunger and sickness
Its black-clad virgins tore their veils.431
Here, we see a female protagonist who had given God so much, but since she has fallen into despair. The mother/wife figure is pretty much expected as it also
429 "Sultanahmet Cami-i Şerîfinde," İkdâm, Numero: 1418, 15 Muharrem 1338 / 11 Teşrînievvel 1919. p. 2.
430 "Dünkü Muazzam Miting," Alemdâr, Numero: 300-2600, 15 Muharrem 1338 / 11 Teşrînievvel 1919. p. 1.
431 Unuttun mu? Bu kimdir şarkın büyük melikesi
Tûr'lar gibi Güneşten tacı olan asil alın
Peygamberler, hakanlar yetiştiren azîz kadın
Bir zamanlar gökleri doldurmuştu onun sesi
Sana altûn şehirler yükseltmişti çocukları
Bezemişti binlerce ma’bedlerle ufukları
Fakat şimdi o kadar düşkündür ki sanki hasta
Çehresinde tutulmuş aylar gibi solgunluk var
...
Burada birçok gelinler ağlamaktan alîl olmuş
Bu gözlere karanlık mezarların rengi dolmuş
Issız kalmış açlıkla hastalıkla ocakları
Duvakları yırtılmış kara giyen bakirleri
"Sultanahmet Camii Dün İzmir İçin Bir Kez Daha Titredi," İleri, Numero: 630, 15 Muharrem 1338 / 11 Teşrînievvel 1919. p. 6.
190
represents the motherland. Afterwards, we see that he finished his poem with verses filled a clear outcry and the feeling of abandonment and being unjustly treated:
I don't know why you would not hear this beggar
Why your skies are seven walls of stone to this
Why they are black, iron doors, locked shut.
Is there any other God that this vagrant's cry may go
Aren't you the avenger God of all
Is there no place at your door for this broken voice?432
In the former gatherings, we had seen the invocation of God in speeches delivered by the speakers; and the tone was more of a reassuring one coupled with the medeniyet dediğin tek dişi kalmış canavar rhetoric, where the West with its superior machinery was still no match to the soul and imân of the Ottomans, and that He would surely deliver the Ottomans from the perils they were facing. Parallel to the abandonment of the Sultan from the speeches, Mehmet Emin not only abandoned the rhetoric that we should put our faith in God in these hard times, but he used reproachful language filled with disappointment directed at God in his poem asking for an explanation. As the situation not only in İzmir but throughout the empire was getting worse, none of the so-called saviours -the civilised West, or "our father" the sultan- were doing anything to improve the situation, and God also had his share of criticism from him.
We get a different type of information about the last speaker of the day from the newspapers. According to Alemdâr and İkdâm, he is Fahrettin Bey, who according to İkdâm delivered a speech that "the Turks in Anatolia are united unshakably for one cause with full alliance to their holy caliph and trust in their
432 Bilmiyorum niçin sen bu sefîli duymuyorsun
Niçin buna göklerin yedi kalın taş duvarıdır
Kilitleri açılmaz, siyah, demir kapılardır
Başka Allah var mı ki âhı gitsin bu mazlumun
Öc Tanrısı değil misin sen herkesin
Yeri yok mu kapında kanatları kırık sesin
Ibid.
191
government."433 Alemdâr, on the other hand, only lists him as delivering the proclamation of the gathering. İleri, which since the beginning has the most detailed report on the speakers, does not mention his name. Unfortunately, we do not get a lot of details about what he said, but we see that he mentioned a feeling of trust not only in the caliph, but also in the government from the report in Alemdâr which is interesting, because even though the sultan was never criticised, there were instances where the government became under scrutiny such as during the protest gathering in Fatih where Hâlide Edip in her speech asked the sultan to deploy a government that would save the future of the country.434
According to İleri, the last speaker of the gathering was Aşiyan High School's principal Cevdet Bey, who is reported to have recited a prayer. That is all the information we get on his involvement in the gathering. However, it should be noted that we see two rather out of context sentences after Mehmet Emin Bey's poem, and before the report of Cevdet Bey's speech, which read as "Precious and honourable İzmir, the İzmir Müdâfaa-yı Hukûk Cemiyeti is also working very hard for you. They had many contributions for this gathering."435 It should be noted that unlike İkdâm and Alemdâr, İleri made no mention of the fact that Vasıf Bey was a representative of the Müdâfaa-yı Hukûk Cemiyeti. Presumably, this was a way of mentioning the part of the organisation played in the gathering, but the reason why it was mentioned here, and not during the part of the report where Vâsıf Bey's speech was reported is unclear.
433 "Sultanahmet Cami-i Şerîfinde," İkdâm, Numero: 1418, 15 Muharrem 1338 / 11 Teşrînievvel 1919. p. 2.
434 ''Sevgili İzmir İçin İstanbul Müslümanlarının Dünkü Tezâhüratı,'' İkdâm, Numero: 8002, 19 Şaban 1337 / 20 May 1919, p. 2.
435 "Pek kıymetli ve muhterem İzmir senin için İzmir Müdâfaa-yı Hukûk Cemiyeti de çok çalışıyor. Bu ictimâmızda onların çok emekleri sebkât etti."
"Sultanahmet Camii Dün İzmir İçin Bir Kez Daha Titredi," İleri, Numero: 630, 15 Muharrem 1338 / 11 Teşrînievvel 1919. p. 6.
192
Lastly, we see that all four newspapers, including Peyâm, prints the proclamation of the gathering. However, we see that in İkdâm, the first article was censored. The proclamation was as follows:
1 - Taking into consideration that the Greek occupation forces deployed in
İzmir and Ayvalık to maintain order in relation to the seventh article of the armistice are acting completely contrary to their duty, and engage in crimes
such as dishonouring, killing, plunder and arson; and turned all the areas that fell under their control into ruin, and forced thousands of families to flee due to the danger of death and fire; the removal of this force which has treacherously abused the duty that it promised to carry out from the area of occupation is necessary.
2- Swiftly ending the siege in order to prevent the total destruction of thousands of families due to the upcoming winter who had to leave their lands as a result of the Greek invasion system that aims to destroy the Turkish race and seize its assets which had been implemented in the Morea, Thessaly, Crete and Macedonia and the Twelve Islands previously, and has also been immediately carried out in İzmir and the surrounding areas.
3- As the fact that the occupation took place with the decision of the Paris Peace conference gives the idea that it cannot totally be of an invasive nature, the tragic loss inflicted upon innocent people who had no intention of resistance, and who have obeyed the government's order to stand down should be compensated impartially, and by the people of the Allied Forces. The people of İstanbul trust that the democratic nations will support them, and trust that they will help in order to ensure justice is swiftly served.436
Again, we see in this gathering's proclamation that the mention of the Greek state is done with no reserve, unlike the former gatherings namely Fatih, the first and second Sultanahmet gatherings where the proclamations made absolutely no mention of the
436 "1- Mütarekenin yedinci maddesine istinaden nefs-i İzmir ve Ayvalık'da te'sis-i asâyişe memûr edilmiş olan Yunan işgâl kuvvetlerinin, kendilerine tahmîl edilen vazifenin tamamiyle zıddına olarak hetk-i ırz, katl ve yağma ve yangın gibi cinâyetlerle, işgâl altına düşmüş bütün sahaları harâbeye çevirdiğini ve binlerce ailenin ölüm ve yangın önünde muhâceretine sebebiyet verdiğini nazar-ı dikkate alarak, taahhüd ettiği vazîfeyi hainane bir sûrette sû-i isti'mal etmiş olan bu kuvvetin bütün işgâl sahasından çıkarılmasını.
2-Mora'da, Teselya'da Girit ve Makedonya'da ve adalarda Türk anâsırını imhâ ve emvâlini gasb etmek suretiyle takib edilen Yunan istilâ usûlünün İzmir ve havâlisinde de derhal tatbik edilmesi neticesi yurtlarını terk eden binlerce ailenin yaklaşan kış mevsiminde büsbütün helâk olmalarına mani' olmak için işgâlin kaldırılmasında iltizâm-ı sürat olunması.
3- İşgâlin Paris Sulh Konferansı kararıyla vukû' bulmuş olması, onun bir mâhiyet-i tecavüzkârâne olamayacağına kanaat verdiği için hiçbir mukâvemet fikrinde bulunmayan ve hükûmetin sükûn emr eden tebligâtına itaat eden mâsum halkın uğradığı müthiş ziyanların bîtaraf ve itilaf devletleri teba'asına yapıldığı vecihle tazmîn ettirilmesi İstanbul ahâlisi, demokrat milletlerin kendisini teyid etmelerine ve seri' bir sûrette adâletin tezâhürü için yardımlarına itimâd etmektedirler."
"İzmir Fecâi'ine Karşı Dünkü İctima'nın Mukarreratı," Peyâm, Numero: 310-68, 15 Muharrem 1338 / 11 Teşrînievvel 1919. p. 3.
193
Greek state. Here, we see that Greece is directly pointed out as the main culprit whose actions are not the result of a mishap, but the outcome of a malicious plan that had been carried out numerous times before. On top of that, none of the proclamations that were read out in the aforementioned gatherings explicitly call out for the end of the occupation. The closest we come is during the first Sultanahmet gathering where it is stated that "we pray that the emergency council that will meet with the Sultan will make the best decisions for the motherland and its people;"437 or the second Sultanahmet gathering asking for the realisation of the 12th Article of the Wilson Principles.438 Given this direct request for the termination of the occupation coupled with the inflammatory language used to describe the Greek forces might be the reason behind the censorship that İkdâm was subjected to. Above all, it is asked that the Allied Powers pay reparations for the losses that the Turkish side endured which is a very different route than the mostly wishy-washy language formerly used in the proclamations in previous gatherings.
In the conclusion of the reports about the gathering, we learn from İkdâm that the proclamation was read in the other mosques of İstanbul; and it was to be presented to the representatives of the Allied Powers by Hâlide Edip, Doktor Rıza Nur and Kemal Mithad Bey. A prayer was read before the crowds dispersed.439 İleri finishes its report: "Be assured, beautiful İzmir, be brave, dear refugee! You are going to go back to your home, your peaceful land. Everybody promised to save you and to get back with you."440
437 ''Dünkü Muazzam Miting,'' Sabâh, Numero: 10605, 23 Şaban 1337 / 24 May 1919. p. 2.
438 ''Sultanahmet Meydanında Yüzbine Karib Ehl-i Tehvidin İctiması,'' İkdâm, Numero: 8013, 1 Ramazan 1337 / 31 May 1919. p. 2.
439 "Sultanahmet Cami-i Şerîfinde," İkdâm, Numero: 1418, 15 Muharrem 1338 / 11 Teşrînievvel 1919. p. 2.
194
To sum up, we can see that the rhetoric used in the former gatherings that took place during the two weeks after the occupation of İzmir greatly shifted. Unlike the former gatherings where the word "Greece" was seldom uttered, we now see that there are no reservations about clearly pointing the finger not only at the Greek state and army, but also at the local Rum population who collaborated with the invaders along with the atrocities they committed, not only by using generic words, but also getting eye-witness accounts even though we unfortunately were not allowed to access through the papers due to censorship. This is understandable as in the five-month period, we see not only a lack of improvement, but a further deterioration of the situation. This allowed the Ottomans to fully appreciate the situation they were in. We see that the more naïve, diplomatic and pleading voices almost completely died down; and we even see that somewhat threatening language is used such as "this would be the last time we appeal to the Allied Powers. This obviously indicates that if they are not to do something about the situation, the people are going to take the matters onto their own hands.
It is also interesting to see that the general language of the speeches shifted from a tone that pleaded with a saviour, whether it was the Allied Powers who would surely see their mistake and correct it, or the sultan who should act like a father to us, as Hâlide Edip put it during her speech in Fatih. Or it could even be God who would surely deliver the Ottomans from evil since His name was synonymous with "right."441 It is as if with the passing months, none of the parties seen as a potential saviour followed through; and as this became clear to the speakers, they started to disappear in their speeches.
However, despite all the potential saviours mentioned above were abandoned,
440 "Sultanahmet Camii Dün İzmir İçin Bir Kez Daha Titredi," İleri, Numero: 630, 15 Muharrem 1338 / 11 Teşrînievvel 1919. p. 6.
441 "Pay-i Tahttaki Tezâhürat-ı Milliye,'' İleri, Numero: 492-110, 20 Şaban 1337 / 20 May 1919, p. 2.
195
we see a new player that came into play, namely Anatolia. As we already mentioned, the Anatolian Liberation movement was already under way, but how much of that was known by the population of İstanbul, and the reliability of the information they had about the movement is uncertain at this point. In this gathering, a representative of the Kuvva-yı Milliye was present, and shared the things he had seen with the crowd. He also called the population of İstanbul "not to hurt the Anatolian Movement;" and the only reasons for that would be that either there was damage being inflicted on the movement, or maybe the İstanbulites suspected it at best. We also saw in İleri that they felt a separate mention was necessary about the involvement of the movement in Anatolia; and their work towards ending the occupation were reported with flattering words. The movement in Anatolia would of course prove to be the solution to the problems that the country was facing. However, the speeches in the gathering indicate that -at least as far as the general population of İstanbul was concerned- this was not a full-hearted welcome on their part, but an introduction to the movement, which was to become their actual saviours.
The Fourth Gathering in the Sultanahmet Square (13 January 1920)
The fourth and final Sultanahmet gathering took place on 13 January 1920. We can see that there is an extensive coverage about the gathering in the four newspapers within the scope of this thesis which were still in print by that date. Even Alemdâr, which normally just gave a very brief summary of the speeches delivered during the gatherings, devotes a considerable part of its front page to this event.
196
As usual, the newspapers began their coverage with describing the general atmosphere of the gathering. The fourth gathering in Sultanahmet seems to have attracted more people than the last. Alemdâr and İkdâm reported that 150,000 people attended the gathering,442 while İleri mentioned that “hundreds of thousands of Muslims” gathered in Sultanahmet.443 Alemdâr informs us that people started walking towards the gathering area from around 10 o’clock onwards; and Alemdâr Yolu, Divan Yolu and Sultanahmet Yolu were completely packed with people who were trying to get to the square.444 It is further stated that around 12 o’clock, the square was packed; and the pulpit reserved for the speakers placed between the Ayasofya and the Sultanahmet Mosques were decorated with Ottoman flags, "which are moulded with Turkish blood"445 as the newspaper put it. We also learn that students from various faculties such as Dâr’ül-hilâfet’ül-aliyye, Dârü'l-fünûn, Dâr’ül-muallem’ât were present at the gathering.446 The descriptions of Alemdâr –and the other newspapers- give us the impression that this has been a very emotionally intense gathering:
The holy and great sanctuaries of Ayasofya and Sultanahmet Mosques proved to friends and foes that the Turks are forever bound to İstanbul; and their heavenly, elegant, inspiring minarets from where the tehlîl and tekbirs resonated became the interpreters of the conscience of the innocent and sinless people who gathered in tens of thousands for their religious and national existence. Tears were running from hopeless hearts; old grandmothers, white-bearded bright-faced old men were heaving as a result of this divine reciting of tehlîl and tevhîds, and the tekbîrs that arose from the
442 "Dünkü Muazzam Miting – İstanbul Türk Kalacaktır."Alemdâr, Numero: 394-2694, 22 Rebiyyülâhir 1338 / 14 Kanunisâni 1920. p. 1.; "Dünkü Muazzam İctimâ': İzmir Türkiye'nin; İstanbul Türklerindir." İkdâm, Numero: 8234, 22 Rebiyyülâhir 1338 / 14 Kanun-i Sâni 1920. p. 1.
443 "Yüz Binlerce Müslüman Dün Sultanahmet'de Toplandı." İleri, Numero: 820, 22 Rebiyyülâhir 1338 / 14 Kanunisâni 1920. p. 8.
444 "Dünkü Muazzam Miting – İstanbul Türk Kalacaktır."Alemdâr, Numero: 394-2694, 22 Rebiyyülâhir 1338 / 14 Kanunisâni 1920. p. 1.
445 Ibid.
446 Ibid.
197
minarets were joining with the pure and sincere prayers of the people, rising to the heaven.447
If we look at the coverage in İleri, we see that before going on to the physical descriptions of the event, it began by describing the reasons why people gathered and stated that "various but official words from various countries" had reached the ears of the people concerning the decision of the faith of Turkey, and "especially its crown İstanbul."448 The newspaper went on to give a detailed report about the general atmosphere of the day. It was stated that it was known by the public that a gathering would take place to protest the "horrible decision that was about to be made at the peace conference,"449 and on the day of the gathering, "there was a huge excitement amongst the people, mostly amongst the Turks and Muslims"450 from the morning onwards. It was added that shops started to close towards noon; and people were making their way towards the Sultanahmet Square.451
Peyâm-ı Sabâh's short description of the atmosphere of the gathering stated that thousands of men, women, children -young and old- started gathering in Sultanahmet Square before noon to console their bleeding hearts.452 It was added that
447 "Ayasofya ile Sultanahmet Câmi-i Şeriflerinin, Türklerin, bu muazzez ma’bedlerin İstanbul ile ebedi alâkaları olduğunu yâr ü ağyâra da isbât eden bu kudsî mâbedlerin, semâkarîn, zarîf, hayâlnevâz minârelerinden etrafa aks-endâz olan avâze-i tehlîl ve tevhide, dini ve millî varlığı için ictimâ' eden onyüz binlerce mâsum ve bî-günâh halkın tercümân-u vicdânı oluyor, mey’ûs kalblerden yaşlar dökülüyor, ihtiyar nineler, beyaz sakallı, pak çehreli ihtiyarlar, bu lahûti avaz-ı tehlîl ve tevhîd karşısında derin derin göğüs geçiriyor ve minârelerden tertil edilen avâz-ı tekbîre halkın da saf ve samimi duaları karışarak ta atebe-i kübrâya yükseliyordu."
Ibid.
448 "Yüz Binlerce Müslüman Dün Sultanahmet'de Toplandı." İleri, Numero: 820, 22 Rebiyyülâhir 1338 / 14 Kanunisâni 1920. p. 8.
449 Ibid.
450 Ibid.
451 Ibid.
452 "Dünkü Muazzam İctimâ.'" Peyâm-ı Sabâh, Numero: 10825, 22 Rebiyyülâhir 1338 / 14 Kanunissâni 1920. p. 1.
198
after prayers and tekbîrs, the gathering began around one o’clock as Rıza Nur appeared on stage to deliver his speech.
İkdâm's report of the gathering began by stating the reason behind the event was to protest plans to separate İstanbul from the Turkish rule, and to proclaim and explain the Turkish opinion and action to the world about İstanbul, which was the throne of the caliph.453 It is interesting to see that there is no mention of İzmir amongst the reasons for the organisation of this gathering, which shows the shift of focus from the earlier gatherings.
It was also pointed out in İkdâm that people from all walks of life, both men and women started to make their way to the Sultanahmet Square even as early as two hours before the event. The newspaper added that many schools, educational institutions along with national and political associations such as İzmir Müdâfaa-i Hukûk Cemiyeti were present454 underlining the feeling of unity and camaraderie within the crowd.
We also learn from İkdâm that the police forces arrived at the square at 10:30; and the designated members of Dârü'l-fünûn started taking the necessary precautions. We have a much comprehensive list of attending schools and institutions that included Dar'üş-şafaka, Bezm-i Âlem, Mekteb-i Sultâni, Sanâyi-i Nefîse, and Ticaret Mekteb-i Aliyyesi in addition to the ones mentioned above. We saw that the coverage of former gatherings specifically emphasised the participation of the Ottoman youth in these events, which was underlined with phrases such as "the youth is aware of their duty." In a similar vein, we see that the newspapers
453 "Dünkü Muazzam İctimâ': İzmir Türkiye'nin; İstanbul Türklerindir." İkdâm, Numero: 8234, 22
Rebiyyülâhir 1338 / 14 Kanunisâni 1920. p. 1.
454 Ibid.
199
specifically mentioned the schools that participated in the gathering, highlighting the Turkish youth's engagement in the national struggle.
We see the number of attendees is put at 150 thousand by İkdâm. It is also stated that the Protector of İstanbul, Seyyid Paşa and a Nurettin Bey were present at the gathering along with many foreign officers.455 One and a half lines are missing right before the afore-mentioned "Nurettin Bey," so we do not know whom exactly the newspaper refers to. Unfortunately, none of the other newspapers mentioned his name.
If we look at the speakers of the day, we see that their number decreased considerably compared to the former Sultanahmet gatherings as there are only three speakers reported to have given speeches. The first speaker of the gathering is reported to be the Member of Parliament from Sinop, Rıza Nur. Afterwards, Nâkiye Hanım, a teacher at the Feyziye Mektebi took the stage; and she is reported to have delivered a very emotionally moving speech.456 İkdâm wrote:
The words of the aforementioned who acted as the representative of the world of women and especially communicated the feelings of women; deeply affected the men and encouraged them to be even more resolved and brave.457
The last speaker of the day is reported to be Hamdullah Suphi, whom we also have seen during the second Sultanahmet Gathering delivering a passionate speech. He even pointed out in his speech delivered on 31 May that if Aydın province is left to
455 Ibid.
456 "Dünkü Muazzam Miting – İstanbul Türk Kalacaktır."Alemdâr, Numero: 394-2694, 22 Rebiyyülâhir 1338 / 14 Kanunisâni 1920. p. 1.
457 "Bu ictimâ'da bilhassa kadınların da hissiyâtına tercümân olan ve kadınlık âleminin mümessili sıfatıyla idâre-i kelâm eden mumâileyhânın sözleri, erkekler arasında pek derin bir tesir hâsıl eyleyip onların azim ve cesaretini daha ziyâde takviye eyledi."
"Dünkü Muazzam İctimâ': İzmir Türkiye'nin; İstanbul Türklerindir." İkdâm, Numero: 8234, 22 Rebiyyülâhir 1338 / 14 Kanunisâni 1920. p. 1.
200
the Greeks, they will make claims on İstanbul. Seven months later, he was in Sultanahmet Square again, but this time losing İstanbul was not just a rhetorical risk.
All four newspapers report that the first speaker of the day is Rıza Nur Bey. We learn from Peyâm-ı Sabâh that the Sinop deputy was invited to the pulpit by Fazıl Tahsin Bey, a student of the Dâr'ül-fünûn. In the beginning of his speech, Rıza Nur stated the vitality of the gathering held on that day as he stated that the Ottoman people were "faced with a national disaster" where "the committee of nations held in Paris was busy deciding the fate of Turkey."458 It should be noted that the meetings of the Paris Peace Conference that began in January 1919 were coming to an end by January 1920. During this month, the decisions concerning the Ottoman Empire were being finalised. Hence, Rıza Nur Bey and later the other speakers of the gathering drew attention to the importance of this gathering, and how dire the situation had become.
Rıza Nur continued his speech by talking about how the Turkish nation had been in a very difficult situation for a very long time fighting her enemies for years, adding that the biggest of its enemies had been within.459 He added that these enemies -who are undisclosed in his speech- propagated against the Turks in Europe for centuries saying that the Turks were incapable of civilisation and destructive to humanity.460 He stated that even though the Europeans knew the truth, they believed this propaganda.461 According to Rıza Nur, nothing was yet finalized in the peace conference, but he added that the aforementioned enemies did not stop; and they
458 "Dünkü Muazzam Miting – İstanbul Türk Kalacaktır."Alemdâr, Numero: 394-2694, 22 Rebiyyülâhir 1338 / 14 Kanunisâni 1920. p. 1.
459 "Dünkü Muazzam İctimâ': İzmir Türkiye'nin; İstanbul Türklerindir." İkdâm, Numero: 8234, 22 Rebiyyülâhir 1338 / 14 Kanunisâni 1920. p. 2.
460 Ibid.
461 Ibid.
201
demanded that Turkey be removed from the face of the earth.462 He said that when one looks at the current state of the European civilisation, one could not hope that they would do such a thing; and the modern era of civilisation would not allow such an injustice to take place,463 adding that he used the word "injustice" because forcing Turks out of İstanbul would mean leaving the Turks without a head. And as a headless body cannot live, that would mean the end of for them.464
He continued by pointing out that many nations were either victorious or defeated at times, but defeat could not mean annihilation.465 He went on to refute the claims that he mentioned earlier which stated that Turks were uncivilised people. He gave many examples to disprove these claims stating that Turks had a great past. He said if one looks at Central Asia, Turks formed a civilisation there before the East and the West. He added that the monuments found there, were the proof of this claim.466
Rıza Nur also added other examples such as how the Turks created a system of writing at a time when many civilisations did not know writing;467 that the biggest dictionary of Arabic was written by a Turk; and that Turks contributed to civilisation
462 "Dünkü Muazzam İctimâ.'" Peyâm-ı Sabâh, Numero: 10825, 22 Rebiyyülâhir 1338 / 14 Kanunisâni 1920. p. 1.
463 "Dünkü Muazzam İctimâ.'" Peyâm-ı Sabâh, Numero: 10825, 22 Rebiyyülâhir 1338 / 14 Kanunisâni 1920. p. 1.
464 "Dünkü Muazzam İctimâ': İzmir Türkiye'nin; İstanbul Türklerindir." İkdâm, Numero: 8234, 22 Rebiyyülâhir 1338 / 14 Kanun-i Sâni 1920. p. 2.
465 "Dünkü Muazzam İctimâ.'" Peyâm-ı Sabâh, Numero: 10825, 22 Rebiyyülâhir 1338 / 14 Kanunisâni 1920. p. 1.
466 Ibid.
467 "Yüz Binlerce Müslüman Dün Sultanahmet'de Toplandı." İleri, Numero: 820, 22 Rebiyyülâhir 1338 / 14 Kanunisâni 1920. p. 8.
202
with İbn-i Sinas.468 He explains that even though masters like him wrote their work in Arabic, the spirit of the civilisation that they lived in was Turkish.469
He challenged anyone who wanted to deny that the Turkish people were civilised; and he stated that the Ottoman civilisation was present with all its glory 300 years ago. He added that if one tried to deny it, they should go and see the museums in Vienna.470 He also said that Turks had many virtues; and one of them was conquest. He said that he did not want to praise the Turkish people for their conquest, but his point was that it was impossible to make a conquest unless one established a civilisation.471 To enforce his point, he pointed to the Sultanahmet Mosque, and stated "here is the proof for the civilisation of the Turks" while adding that the monuments in İstanbul were not the only evidence one could find for the civilised nature of the Turkish people, but one could look at Egypt, and the monuments created there by the Turks that ruled the land.472
Up until this point, we see that Rıza Nur used the ordinary arguments that we are accustomed to see throughout the gatherings where we see the "belief" in the European civilisation's sense of justice that would not allow for injustice here. It is generally followed by the explanation as to why the Turkish nation does not deserve such a treatment as they are amongst the civilised nations. This statement is usually followed by proof offered by the speaker that includes architectural monuments,
468 Ibid.
469 Ibid.
470 "Dünkü Muazzam Miting – İstanbul Türk Kalacaktır." Alemdâr, Numero: 394-2694, 22 Rebiyyülâhir 1338 / 14 Kanunisâni 1920. p. 1.
471 "Yüz Binlerce Müslüman Dün Sultanahmet'de Toplandı." İleri, Numero: 820, 22 Rebiyyülâhir 1338 / 14 Kanunisâni 1920. p. 8.
472 "Dünkü Muazzam İctima': İzmir Türkiye'nin; İstanbul Türklerindir." İkdâm, Numero: 8234, 22 Rebiyyülâhir 1338 / 14 Kanunisâni 1920. p. 2.
203
literary works etc. That is the formula Rıza Nur followed up to this part of his speech.
If we look at the next part of Rıza Nur's address, we see that two of the newspapers İleri and Peyâm-ı Sabâh report a sentence that seem to be missing from the other two newspapers where Rıza Nur stated that "removing the caliph from here (İstanbul) will have a deep effect on the world of Islam. If this effect cannot be seen today, it will of course prove to be devastating in the future."473 This is one of those rare instances where we see "the caliph card" being played by the speakers. There were only a few occurrences where potential repercussions of the Allied Powers' actions towards the Turks regarding the Islamic world were mentioned, which is understandable given that the rest of the Islamic world either proved to be working with the enemies of the caliph or was simply too weak or far away to do anything to help. Nevertheless, we see that this argument is still not completely discarded from the discourse although the actual backlash that the Allied Powers would face is up for discussion.
Now, after the long list of reasons as to why "it would be unfair to tear away İstanbul from the Turks", Rıza Nur continued his speech by referring to the promises made by the Allied Powers. "After all, we are civilised, too" rhetoric was followed by a mild threat, which included a warning about the reaction that might come from the world of Islam against the Allied Powers if anything detrimental was to happen to the caliph. He reminded Lloyd George's statement during the war "Turkey, İstanbul and Anatolia were the cradle of Turks," and added that similar statements were made. According to Rıza Nur, these words constituted a promise. He then went
473 "Yüz Binlerce Müslüman Dün Sultanahmet'de Toplandı." İleri, Numero: 820, 22 Rebiyyülâhir 1338 / 14 Kanunisâni 1920. p. 8.; "Dünkü Muazzam İctimâ.'" Peyâm-ı Sabâh, Numero: 10825, 22 Rebiyyülâhir 1338 / 14 Kanunisâni 1920. p. 2.
204
on to say that words and promises were inseparable from a man's honour (namus), and according to him, this promise was not only tied to Lloyd George's personal honour, but also to the honour of the Great Britain as they were uttered officially.474 Rıza Nur then quoted the French, the British and the Italians who before the war said that "they were fighting for justice and humanity; to save the oppressed from the oppressors" and according to Rıza Nur, the countries which had this kind of a motive could naturally not want the destruction of Turkey.475
Frankly, at this point, it is really difficult to say if statements such as these are either meant to be lip service to soften the possible backlash from the occupying forces, who have been in İstanbul for more than a year at the time of the Fourth Sultanahmet gathering, a public-speaking manoeuvre to keep the crowd's spirits high, or just plain self-delusion. Given that the past eight months since the occupation of İzmir had just been a progress from worse to catastrophic as far as the way the Allied Powers handled the matter was concerned, the speakers did have enough time to figure out that the game had not been about "honour" or "justice and humanity" for a long time, even if we assume that it was so in the beginning.
However, it should also be noted that in the next paragraph of his speech, Rıza Nur stated that "the French show greatness and tell the truth. They state that İstanbul is needed, and indispensable for the Turks. Hence, the words of the Rum and the Armenians will never be accepted."476 It could be argued that the French support for the Turkish claim might be a reason as to why Rıza Nur was still using an optimistic argument concerning the Allied Powers. However, after all the downhill
474 "Dünkü Muazzam İctimâ': İzmir Türkiye'nin; İstanbul Türklerindir." İkdâm, Numero: 8234, 22 Rebiyyülâhir 1338 / 14 Kanunisâni 1920. p. 2.
475 Ibid.
476 "Dünkü Muazzam Miting – İstanbul Türk Kalacaktır."Alemdâr, Numero: 394-2694, 22 Rebiyyülâhir 1338 / 14 Kanunisâni 1920. p. 2.
205
progress of events throughout the past months, it feels more like grasping at straws. The hopelessness of the situation is further confirmed when Rıza Nur talked about "the honour" of Lloyd George, and by extension that of the Great Britain. Even if we bear in mind that these virtues still meant something, and it would be unfair to expect an automatically cynical and disillusioned reaction from a man of his time, the evidence that mounted for months and months makes this argument about honour seem naïve, if not deplorable.
If we look at the conclusion of Rıza Nur's speech, we see that he underlined the importance of unity and said:
At one time when the Byzantium was crumbling, the statesmen were busy with their rat race in this sanctuary (showing Ayasofya). On the other hand, we united against this danger in front of this holy mosque… Let whole Europe hear this. We do not have any designs. However, we do want the land of our mothers. Now, the conference should stop busying themselves with lies, and should consider justice and decide that Turks should stay in the land that they live in, leaving İstanbul to Turks.477
Here, Rıza Nur compared the times of turmoil in the Byzantium Empire and the Ottoman Empire stating the Turks were united as one whereas the Byzantines were busy going at each other which not only underlines the "moral superiority" of the Turks against Byzantines but also indirectly degrades the Greeks whose claim to the city of İstanbul was based on the assertion that they were the successors of Byzantium.
The second speaker of the day is Nâkiye Hanım, who as we mentioned earlier, is reported to have delivered a rather short but a very emotional speech that
477 "Efendiler biz haricde meselenin kendi lehimize halli için bir taraftan içeride yine kendi aramızda ittifak etmeliyiz. Bir vakitler Bizans saltanatı yıkılırken bu ma’bed (Ayasofya Câmi’ini göstererek) içinde ricâl, post kavgası ile meşgûldüler. Halbuki biz bu mübârek cami’ önünde böyle bir tehlike karşısında, işte birleştik... Bunu bütün Avrupa işitsin. Hiçbir yerde gözümüz yok. Ancak analarımızın yurdunu istiyoruz. Konferans şunun bunun türlü tezvirâtına bakmayıp hakkı göz önüne almalı ve Türklerin oturduğu topraklarda yaşamalarına karar vermeli, İstanbul’u yine Türke bırakmalıdır."
"Yüz Binlerce Müslüman Dün Sultanahmet'de Toplandı." İleri, Numero: 820, 22 Rebiyyülâhir 1338 / 14 Kanunisâni 1920. p. 8.
206
moved the crowd deeply. She began her speech by addressing the crowd that she came to the gathering as a "member of the Turkish womanhood filled with resolve and imân against the great national disaster"478 and continued:
Our patience is belittled, our solemnity is belittled. It is thought that our most natural rights can be taken away from us. It is important to communicate that Turks do not trespass the rights of others but allows no one to trespass their rights either. We have been waiting for 14 months. Even though we give our thanks to the nations whose public opinion was favourable to us during this long wait, we did not imagine that some nations would treat us in such a condemning way; wounding us at our heart of hearts.479
The feeling of discontent with the process after the Mudros Armistice can be felt through and through in Nâkiye Hanım's words. By this time, the Turks had been stuck in a political purgatory for more than a year with no clear answer as to what the decision about their very existence would be. Meanwhile, the situation on the ground just kept getting worse. It has been discussed in previous parts of this thesis that the main reason for this prolongation was that the Allied Powers were so caught up in their own internal conflicts that even when they could agree on what they wanted to do, the how proved to be very difficult to decide.
While the Allies were busy trying to increase their profits, and bamboozling one another after the war, their indifference to the Turkish people was interpreted as belittling by Nâkiye Hanım. However, she added that the public opinion in some nations was favourable to the Turks. Although there is no specification as to which country she is talking about, Rıza Nur's complimentary mention of France in his
478 "Dünkü Muazzam İctimâ.'" Peyâm-ı Sabâh, Numero: 10825, 22 Rebiyyülâhir 1338 / 14 Kanunisâni 1920. p. 2.
479 "Kardeşler sabrımız istihfâf ediliyor, vakârımız istihfâf olunuyor, en sarîh hakkımız alınabilir zannediliyor. Türklerin hakka tecavüz etmez fakat hakkına da tecavüz ettirmez bir millet olduğunu anlatmak lazımdır. 14 aydır bekliyoruz. Bu uzun intizâr anında efkâr-ı umumiyelerinde lehimize cereyan hâsıl olan milletlere deyn-i şükr’anı ifâ etmekle beraber sair milletlerin hakkımızda bu kadar kâhirane davranacaklarını, ta can evimizden vuracaklarını zannetmiyorduk."
"Dünkü Muazzam İctimâ': İzmir Türkiye'nin; İstanbul Türklerindir." İkdâm, Numero: 8234, 22 Rebiyyülâhir 1338 / 14 Kanunisâni 1920. p. 2.
207
speech, and the "French Lady" that we are going to be discussing later might indicate that Nâkiye Hanım was talking about France.
Nâkiye Hanım continued her speech by stating that giving away İzmir and İstanbul was neither politically nor administratively possible. She added that İstanbul could not be given away because "İstanbul is ours. That is why it is not possible. It is also not possible because we love it very much. The world of women has proven her love by creating trenches with the chests of their sons at the gates of İstanbul and during the Gallipoli War."480
Here we see an approach that was pretty standard with the female speakers at the gatherings where they underline the sacrifices that women had to make during the war; maybe not as soldiers at the frontlines, but as mothers and sisters and wives who lost their loved ones. We have argued that this was a way to legitimise their already well-deserved place in the gatherings, and let their voices be heard and communicate what they had to give up for the motherland. In addition, we see that Nâkiye Hanım also played to the machismo of the crowd and stated:
Gentlemen! I address you as a woman of this country. Is there a single man that would leave behind the graves of Fatih, Selim and Süleyman or the graves that are the timeless monuments of his ancestors? I cannot imagine that there is. You will not leave, you will not go and we are always going to be with you. We are not going to leave your side, your front. You would, of course, believe that your women would sacrifice their lives for İstanbul whom they love with all their heart, because they already have sacrificed their sons whom they love more than life itself.481
480 Ibid.
481 "Efendiler! Size memleketimin bir kadını sıfatıyla hitâb ediyorum. Fatih’in, Selîm’in, Süleyman’ın mezarını ecdâdının ebedî âbideleri olan câmileri, türbeleri, bırakıp çıkacak içinizde bir erkek var mıdır? Ben tasavvur etmiyorum. Çıkmayacaksınız, bırakmayacaksınız biz de daimâ sizinle beraber olacağız. Yanınızdan önünüzden ayrılmayacağız. Hayatından ziyâde sevdiği evlâdını vatan sevgisine feda eden kadınlarınızın can ile sevdiği İstanbul için canını feda edeceğine elbette inanırsınız."
"Dünkü Muazzam İctimâ': İzmir Türkiye'nin; İstanbul Türklerindir." İkdâm, Numero: 8234, 22 Rebiyyülâhir 1338 / 14 Kanunisâni 1920. p. 2.
208
As mentioned above, İkdâm underlined that her speech was one that especially affected men, and this paragraph makes it obvious as to why. She addressed the men in the crowd "as a woman of this country" asking if there could be "a single man" that could leave behind the graves of their sultans or their ancestors. Her approach is in no way subtle, but the aim was probably to be effective rather than astute. She directly played to the feelings of virility and honour of the crowd; and this kind of discourse coming from a woman speaking on behalf of her kind would be more effective against this crowd. Nâkiye Hanım made use of this "egg on" approach to encourage the men -or at least made sure that anyone who waivered would feel too embarrassed to act on it. Also, in line with the former female speakers of the gatherings she underlined that women would be standing beside their men and giving them their support till the end.
Nâkiye Hanım continued her speech by pointing out that the Ottoman caliphate had protected the world of Islam for five hundred years, and stated that "just as there is no other force than the Ottoman caliphate that the Muslim world would submit to, there can be no other centre for the caliphate other than İstanbul."482 She stated that there were two clear paths in front of them which were "continuing our history with all our glory or closing our history along with our eyes and taking it to eternity with us."483
Towards the end of her speech, Nâkiye Hanım talked about the nature of the Turkish nation:
We are not an imperialist nation. We are a democrat, fully democratic nation who only wants the right to exist. We do not transgress. In reality, we are at
482 "Dünkü Muazzam Miting – İstanbul Türk Kalacaktır." Alemdâr, Numero: 394-2694, 22 Rebiyyülâhir 1338 / 14 Kanunisâni 1920. p. 2.
483 "Dünkü Muazzam İctimâ.'" Peyâm-ı Sabâh, Numero: 10825, 22 Rebiyyülâhir 1338 / 14 Kanunisâni 1920. p. 2.
209
war for the past three hundred years. However, we do this fight in order to protect ourselves. The only thing we want is to live in our land without seeing transgression from anyone.484
Here, we see that Nâkiye Hanım is not any different from many speakers who participated in the gatherings. The notion that there is an inherent righteousness to the Turkish nation, and the stark contrast between the perception of the Turks and the historical facts about the Ottoman State had already been discussed in the former parts of this thesis. On the other hand, the following part of Nâkiye Hanım's speech took a very different turn:
In reality, due to the mistakes of some, this country's forces have been exterminated in places such as Iraq and Yemen. At a time when Anatolia was in ruins, Wilcox was sent to Iraq to thrive the land... Sirs, as of today, we have seen that a king rose in Hijaz. I am ashamed to say this between these mosques. I say this too that there is no relation between the two nations, and with this we have erased all from our minds except for Turkishness.485
Right after the paragraph where Nâkiye Hanım stated that Turks are not an imperialistic nation, she brought up the Ottoman dealings in Iraq and Yemen. If, say, Iraq and Yemen were perceived as integral parts of the Ottoman Empire, despite what the locals might or might not think, she would not have been complaining about the troops that were sent there, or the resources spent for the area. However, if she does not see these lands as truly Ottoman, it is difficult to understand how she fails to see the irony of claiming that "Turks are not an imperialistic nation," while
484 "Biz emperyalist bir millet değiliz. Demokrat tamamen demokrat ve yalnız hakk-ı hayâtını ister bir milletiz. Biz kimseye tecâvüz etmeyiz. Vakı'â üç yüz senedir her gün harb içindeyiz. Ancak bu harbi müdâfaa-i nefs olarak yapıyoruz. Biz yalnız kendi yurdumuzda kimsenin tecâvüzünü görmemek üzere yaşamak istiyoruz."
"Dünkü Muazzam İctima': İzmir Türkiye'nin; İstanbul Türklerindir." İkdâm, Numero: 8234, 22 Rebiyyülâhir 1338 / 14 Kanunisâni 1920. p. 2.
485 "Vakı'â vakitle bazılarının hataları olarak bu devlet Irak, Yemen gibi yerlerde kuvve-i zindesi imhâ edildi. Anadolu harâb bir halde iken Irak'ı ma'mur etmek için (Vilkoks) gönderildi... Halbuki efendiler, sizlere diyorum ki bugün Hicâz'da bir kral yetiştiğini gördük. Bu sözü bu cami'lerin arasında söylemekten hicâb ediyorum. Bu sözü de söylüyorum ki iki millet arasında bir münâsebet kalmamıştır ve bununla da Türklük haricini bütün zihnimizden silmiş bulunuyoruz."
Ibid.
210
criticising the former Turkish administration for doing exactly what imperialistic nations do in foreign lands.
In general, it was always interesting to see if and how the speakers reconciled the sincere but romanticised image of their nation and their country with their history. One of the commonly used ways to do this, at least for the rather unpleasant parts of World War I, was to blame the Committee of Union and Progress, which is exactly what Nâkiye Hanım did: Turks as a nation are not transgressors but there have been mistakes by certain people and if we look at the wording she used, even then the ones who had the most to lose were the Turks. The second interesting part of this paragraph is the way in which she clearly stated the Arab rebellion against the Ottoman Empire. According to Nâkiye Hanım, Arabs and Turks were not only completely separated, but also Turkishness was the only identity left to be assumed. Naturally, the speakers have referred to the nation's people as Turks in their speeches, and talked about Turkishness, and what they believe it stood for, but never before had one stated that it would be the only identity that was left to be assumed while effectively rejecting any other ethnic or political classifications for the nation's peoples.
The last official speaker of the day was Hamdullah Suphi Bey; and of the three speeches delivered during the Fourth Gathering, this is the one most heavily censored, but luckily, we can put together a pretty complete picture of what he said during the gathering with only a few sentences that were censored in all of the newspapers.
211
He began by stating the urgency of the times and the importance of "communicating our last words concerning ourselves before others give their final verdicts about us."486 He continued:
If the conditions that will be extended to us begin with an execution verdict, from Thrace487 to Erzurum, millions will say in misery and despair: We do not want to die. We are not going to stab ourselves in the chest and kill ourselves with the execution knife that they will present to us as peace. We will not, cannot die. If they wish, they can commit another one of the vast slaughters of history to try and kill us, give us, a nation who trusted their sense of justice and who abandoned their weapons, the knife with their own hands. Way before Wilson, the French Revolution that caused revolutions in Europe, toppled kings and gave life to nations that were taught to be finished or lost gave nations the right to rule themselves with an infinite force towards humanity. It declared that no government could enslave another nation through force and violence.488
We see that similar to Rıza Nur's speech, Hamdullah Suphi also had a praising approach when he was talking about the French Revolution, stating that the right to self-determination was given to the nations long before Wilson was around, effectively complimenting the former and belittling the latter at the same time. We are used to seeing compliments for the Allied Powers especially in the earlier gatherings where they were acclaimed for their civilisation, belief in justice,
486 "Yüz Binlerce Müslüman Dün Sultanahmet'de Toplandı." İleri, Numero: 820, 22 Rebiyyülâhir 1338 / 14 Kanunisâni 1920. p. 6.
487 This part of the sentence was censured in all the newspapers that printed this paragraph, however it could be found Kemal Arıburnu's work.
Kemal Arıburnu. Milli Mücadelede İstanbul Mitingleri, (Ankara: Yeni Matbaa, 1951).
488 "Bize uzatılacak hükümler on dört aydan beri beklediğimiz sulhu (bir idâm kararıyla başlatmak isterse Trakya'dan) Erzurum sınırlarına kadar milyonlarca göğüsten ızdırâp ile yeis ile bir söz çıkacak: Biz ölmek istemiyoruz. Bize sulh diye uzatacaklar idâm bıçağını kendi elimizle kendi göğsümüze saplayacak ve biz kendi elimizle intihâr etmeyeceğiz, biz ölmeyiz ölemeyiz isterlerse tarihin en mutantan cinâyetlerinden daha birini irtikâb ederek bizi öldürmeye kalksınlar, bıçağı bize silahlarını terketmiş kendi adâletlerine güvenmiş bir millete kendi elleriyle havâle etsinler, Vilson'dan çok daha evvel büyük Fransız İhtilali Avrupa'yı yer yer inkılaplara uğratan tahtlar deviren, ölmüş, kaybolmuş zannolunan milletlere yeniden hareket ve can veren Fransız İhtilali insaniyete karşı müebbed kalacak bir kuvvetle milletlerin kendi kendilerini idâre etmek hakkını tanıyor. Hiçbir hükûmet cebr ve kahr ile bir diğer milleti esir ve mahkûm edemeyeceğini ilân ediyordu."
"Dünkü Muazzam İctimâ': İzmir Türkiye'nin; İstanbul Türklerindir." İkdâm, Numero: 8234, 22 Rebiyyülâhir 1338 / 14 Kanunisâni 1920. p. 2.
212
contributions to science and so on. However, it was either done in a more collective way where these countries were approached as a monolithic group, or every one of the Allied Powers was commended one by one. On the other hand, in this gathering, we see a specific focus on France; and two out of three speakers used an openly sympathetic tone while talking about this nation. We are going to discuss this a little further down in more detail, but it should be noted that the "surprise" address given by a French woman after Hamdullah Suphi's speech could probably be connected to this approach.
In the continuing part of his speech, Hamdullah Suphi talked about Thrace, stating that it was inseparably Turkish. He added that even historical records showed Turkish soldiers were settled there to protect migrating Turks and Byzantine castles from attacks coming from the West.489 He criticised the outcome of the Balkan Wars with very harsh words stating that "they separated the Turkish land and people into three parts as if they were cutting down a tree, or as if they were partitioning farm animals. And since then, Turkey is miserable and wronged. A part was given to Bulgaria. A part was given to Greece to be burned, strangled and stripped. (The rest of the paragraph is censored.)"490 We see that Greece is condemned with such harsh language as could be expected. On the other hand, Bulgarians are only mentioned in a matter-of-factly manner which might be related to the fact that twist of fate brought the two nations together, fighting side by side during World War I.
Afterwards, we see Hamdullah Suphi Bey talked about the demographics of Thrace saying that Turks were the majority in the region; and the Trakya Cemiyeti
489 "Dünkü Muazzam Miting – İstanbul Türk Kalacaktır."Alemdâr, Numero: 394-2694, 22 Rebiyyülâhir 1338 / 14 Kanunisâni 1920. p. 2.
490 Ibid.
213
"who were given the power of attorney by the Turks of Turkey"491 tried very hard to communicate their wishes to the representatives at the Paris Conference. It can be seen that he continued this part of his speech for a few more lines. However, this is one of the unfortunate instances where none of the newspapers were able to print what he had said.
Hamdullah Suphi continued his speech:
I would also like to attract your attention to a land that is in Southern Anatolia. In that Turkish land which would burn under the noon sun like a vast sea, one can now see the rivers of Seyhan and Ceyhan glistening under thunders. This land that has been Turkish with all its shrines, all its glory and history since the Selçûkis and Ramazanoğulları is in great agony today. It is wronged. It is miserable. We open our broken hearts and address the French nation. The French nation that carried the sorrow of Alsace-Lorraine for 50 years in their hearts is obliged to recognise our legitimate and sacred interest in Adana. There... (censored for the next three lines.)"492
We had talked about how the focus of the gatherings started to shift slowly from İzmir towards İstanbul. However, in Hamdullah Suphi Bey's speech, we see that he did not focus on one or two cities of the country, but touched upon other areas that were under enemy control. In former speeches this almost always happened in the manner where the speakers ran down a list of areas under siege as examples to underline the extent of the graveness of the existing situation. In this gathering, we see that Hamdullah Suphi Bey went into detail about Adana, and on top of that, he compared the situation in the area to that of Alsace-Lorraine. Hamdullah Suphi Bey also said that he was specifically addressing the French nation, which is another case
491 Ibid.
492 "Bir de Anadolu’nun daha cenûbunda bulunan bir kıta’ üstüne dikkatinizi çekmek isterim... Öğle güneşleri altında muazzam bir deniz gibi yanan bu eski Türk vatanının üzerinde şimdi şimşek kırıntılarıyla Seyhan ve Ceyhan nehirlerinin parladığı görülür. İşte bu topraklar Selçukîlerden, Ramazanoğullarından beri mabedleriyle her cins mefâhiriyle, hatıratıyla Türk olan bu toprak bugün ezâ içindedir. Mazlûmdur. Bedbahttır. Fransız milletine acıklı kalplerimizi açarak hitâb ediyoruz. Kendi kalbinin üstünde elli sene müddet Alsas-Loren'in matemini taşıyan Fransız milleti bizim Adana'ya gösterdiğimiz alâkayı meşru ve mukaddes tanımaya mecburdur. Orada..."
"Dünkü Muazzam İctimâ': İzmir Türkiye'nin; İstanbul Türklerindir." İkdâm, Numero: 8234, 22 Rebiyyülâhir 1338 / 14 Kanunisâni 1920. p. 2.
214
of the sudden focus on France that we saw in this gathering. We have seen many examples of pleading with the Allied Powers to bring justice, keep their promises, end the injustice in İzmir and so on, but this situation is slightly different as we see a speaker addressing the nation of a state that has Adana under its control. On top of that, he drew parallels with Alsace-Lorraine, which undoubtedly was meant to enhance the effect on the target audience.
In the last part of his speech, he addressed the "European Allied Powers" stating that they should not make proposals that would not befit the Turkish land, its history and past, its honour and right to unity. He added that Thrace, İstanbul and Anatolia's Turkish unity could be divided.493 After he finished his speech, Hamdullah Suphi Bey informed the audience that they would read a telegraph from Edirne which was sent regarding the gathering followed by the announcement of the gathering proclamation.494
The audience at the fourth gathering at Sultanahmet witnessed an unprecedented event take place, which is the surprise speech of "the French Lady" that we mentioned earlier. The newspapers differ in their reports about exactly when she took the stage. In İleri, we see that she is reported before the telegraph and the meeting proclamation and in Peyâm-ı Sabâh and İkdâm, we see that she is mentioned after the telegraph from Edirne. Alemdâr, on the other hand, had reported her during the introductory part of their article.
The accounts of the event are not exact as far as details are concerned, and the reports of the lady's words differ vastly from one report to another although the bulk of the story and the general idea and feeling of her words are the same. In
493 "Dünkü Muazzam Miting – İstanbul Türk Kalacaktır."Alemdâr, Numero: 394-2694, 22 Rebiyyülâhir 1338 / 14 Kanunisâni 1920. p. 2.
494 "Yüz Binlerce Müslüman Dün Sultanahmet'de Toplandı." İleri, Numero: 820, 22 Rebiyyülâhir 1338 / 14 Kanunisâni 1920. p. 6.
215
Alemdâr, we are informed that "during Hamdullah Suphi's speech, a French lady shouted 'Vive la Turquie' twice, and cried with the crowd that was moved by the speeches."495 In İleri's report, it is stated that while Hamdullah Suphi Bey was talking about the French Revolution, "a French woman that stood below the pulpit and seemed to come from an upper class family said in Turkish: “The French will never abandon Turks."496 Peyâm-ı Sabâh and İkdâm make no mention of an interruption, and in fact, İkdâm's report only consists of a few lines giving a short summary of her speech, which we learn was translated for the crowd by Hamdullah Suphi Bey.497 We see in Peyâm-ı Sabâh's report it is stated that:
The crowd that realised the gathering was over started to disperse when a thin and resounding voice was heard. A woman, yes, a French lady who has been in our country for a while, who knew the state of mind of the Turks, who knew Turkish people, said a few words in French.498
The report continued to state that the crowd was restless to understand what she said, and requested Hamdullah Suphi Bey to put her on stage. But the lady did not accept that. From where she was standing, she talked about how Turks were a noble people, and the French people who knew Turks thought very highly of them.499 Rather than giving a general summary, İleri and Alemdâr reported "transcripts" of the French lady's speech. When the two texts are put side by side, they are very different, although the general idea that the aforementioned lady tried to convey remains the
495 "Dünkü Muazzam Miting – İstanbul Türk Kalacaktır."Alemdâr, Numero: 394-2694, 22 Rebiyyülâhir 1338 / 14 Kanunisâni 1920. p. 2.
496 "Yüz Binlerce Müslüman Dün Sultanahmet'de Toplandı." İleri, Numero: 820, 22 Rebiyyülâhir 1338 / 14 Kanunisâni 1920. p. 6.
497 "Dünkü Muazzam İctimâ': İzmir Türkiye'nin; İstanbul Türklerindir." İkdâm, Numero: 8234, 22 Rebiyyülâhir 1338 / 14 Kanunisâni 1920. p. 2.
498 "Dünkü Muazzam İctimâ.'" Peyâm-ı Sabâh, Numero: 10825, 22 Rebiyyülâhir 1338 / 14 Kanunisâni 1920. p. 1.
499 Ibid.
216
same. Essentially, the French lady's address to the crowd stated that foreigners who spend a few months in Turkey understand that they are a most noble race of the East, and if there are French people who do not like Turkey, they are the ones who do not know them.500 She assured the crowd that French people who come to Turkey with a negative attitude change their stance after a month understanding what an honest, honourable people Turks are, adding that France should never abandon Turkey.501
As we have mentioned before, we have seen that the speakers in the fourth gathering in Sultanahmet made specific references to and directly addressed France and the French public. At times, their tone sounded sympathetic and friendly when mentioning France; and it was not just the regular "we trust that the civilised West will do the right thing" kind of cliché remarks, either. On top of that, towards the end of the gathering, we see a French lady appearing out of nowhere, whom we are told was unable to control her excitement, addressed the crowd with words of praise and reassurance. It all seems a bit out of place or at least irregular when compared to the former gatherings within the scope of this thesis. We even see Peyâm-ı Sabâh reported that voices were raised from the crowd which stated the noble nature of France and our ancient friendship;502 and it just seems a little too forced and staged.
In order to understand this anomaly, an article by Edhem Eldem, which was published in Toplumsal Tarih in August 2011, can be of help to us.503 In his article, L'illustration'dan Seçmeler, Edhem Eldem talked about the weekly French
500 "Dünkü Muazzam Miting – İstanbul Türk Kalacaktır."Alemdâr, Numero: 394-2694, 22 Rebiyyülâhir 1338 / 14 Kanunisâni 1920. p. 2.; "Yüz Binlerce Müslüman Dün Sultanahmet'de Toplandı." İleri, Numero: 820, 22 Rebiyyülâhir 1338 / 14 Kanunisâni 1920. p. 6.
501 Ibid.
502 "Dünkü Muazzam İctimâ.'" Peyâm-ı Sabâh, Numero: 10825, 22 Rebiyyülâhir 1338 / 14 Kanunisâni 1920. p. 1.
503 Eldem, Edhem. "7 Şubat 1920 – Sultanahmet Mitingleri." Toplumsal Tarih, Ağustos 12, 2011. pp. 4-5.
217
newspapers L'illustration's 7 February 1920 issue where we learn a full page news article was devoted to the Sultanahmet Gathering which took place on 13 January 1920.504 Here, Edhem Eldem stated that the French lady in question was the wife of Yusuf Razi (Bel) who was formerly named Marie but changed it to İsmet.505 We also learn from the article that Yusuf Razi Bey had studied in Paris; and he had written several articles for L'illustration between the years 1908-1913.506 In his analysis of the article, Edhem Eldem stated that the tone of the article in L'illustration clearly showed that the anonymous writer was a strong sympathiser to the Turkish cause who believed that the support of France would be crucial in order to make sure that these goals were obtained.507 Edhem Eldem also pointed out that the article in L'illustration read as a political manifesto which aimed to win the heart of the French public, and "the Ottomanophile French lady who could not control her excitement" pointed to a certain "set up".508
We had already talked about the unusual rhetoric used by the speakers during the fourth Sultanahmet gathering concerning France. Both Rıza Nur and Hamdullah Suphi's language when talking about this country gave one the feeling as if they were addressing a French audience alongside the crowd that gathered on 13 January. Rıza Nur was praising France "for showing magnanimity and telling the truth" while Hamdullah Suphi Bey was talking about Adana –a city under French control, and one that had never been on the agenda of the gatherings- and clearly stated that he was addressing the French public regarding this city. Both speakers used a flattering
504 Ibid., p. 4
505 Ibid.
506 Ibid.
507 Ibid., p. 5.
508Ibid.
218
tone when talking about France, but the unprecedented aspect here was not that such language was used. It is the frequency in which France was mentioned and the intensity and exclusiveness of the praises that were used during this rather short gathering with only three speakers. In addition to all, we also saw an Ottomanophile French lady coming out of nowhere who felt for the Turks so much that she could not control her emotions and wanted to address the crowd.
Having foreign press or foreign observers in the gatherings is something to be expected even if they are not always openly mentioned by the articles of the newspapers that are within the scope of this thesis. However, bearing in mind the article of Edhem Eldem about the feature in L'illustration, where his analysis states that it was a pro-Turkish piece written probably by the husband of our famous "French lady"; it could very well be argued that the speakers were fully aware beforehand about the article that would be published in the French newspaper, and they deliberately played to the crowd that was not in the Sultanahmet Square, but the crowd that would be reading L'illustration in order to try and win over the French public opinion at the eleventh hour of the Paris Peace Conference.
If we come to the conclusion of the gathering, we see Hamdullah Suphi Bey's announcement of a telegraph sent from Edirne read by Tahsin Fazıl Bey, who we are informed, was a student at the Dâr'ül-fünûn.509 We can find the transcript of the telegraph in İkdâm and İleri, but we see that Peyâm-ı Sabâh and Alemdâr chose not to print the whole text. The telegraph is addressed to the organisation committee of the Sultanahmet gathering and signed by Şükrü Bey, the Trakya Paşaeli Müdafaa-yı
509 "Yüz Binlerce Müslüman Dün Sultanahmet'de Toplandı." İleri, Numero: 820, 22 Rebiyyülâhir 1338 / 14 Kanunisâni 1920. p. 6.; "Dünkü Muazzam İctimâ.'" Peyâm-ı Sabâh, Numero: 10825, 22 Rebi'ül-Ahir 1338 / 14 Kanunisâni 1920. p. 2.
219
Hukûk Cemiyeti Heyet-i Merkeziyye Reisi.510 The texts in both newspapers are identical with the exception that İleri's version has a "mösyö" at the very beginning of the telegraph followed by a single blank line which suggests it was censored. Unfortunately, none of the other newspapers or Kemal Arıburnu's transcription has this word at the beginning of the telegraph, so it is impossible to deduce from our material who this "mösyö" was, or even if it is a printing error or not. We see that the telegraph conveyed the message to İstanbulites that people of Edirne were in unison with them in their struggle; and Peyâm-ı Sabâh informed us that it was received with excitement by the crowd.511
After the telegraph from Edirne was read, the gathering proclamations were announced to the crowd by Hamdullah Suphi Bey for vote, and was accepted by the audience.512
1- Eternalising of İstanbul, which is not only the centre of the caliphate of Islâm, but is also the unmatched monument of the Turkish history and the single life centre of the Turkish nation; as the capitol city of the Sultanate of Ottomans.
2- The preservation of the status of Edirne and its surroundings -which are the centre of the caliphate and the sultanate and the last line of defence- as a part of the Ottoman State.
3- The rescue of İzmir which has been an absolute Turkish land for a thousand years, and the sole centre of commerce for Western Anatolia, and its return to the motherland.
4- Prevention of the Turkish national and political unity from destruction by ensuring the integrity of Eastern and Western Anatolian lands with a Turkish and Muslim majority to be perpetually placed under the Sultanate of Ottomans.
5- Mutual and equal acceptance and implementation of preventive measures which would ensure that the full protection of the rights and rightful benefits of the Christian minorities who are within the Ottoman State, and Turkish and Muslim minorities who are in other countries.
510 "Dünkü Muazzam İctimâ': İzmir Türkiye'nin; İstanbul Türklerindir." İkdâm, Numero: 8234, 22 Rebiyyülâhir 1338 / 14 Kanunisâni 1920. p. 2.
511 "Dünkü Muazzam İctimâ.'" Peyâm-ı Sabâh, Numero: 10825, 22 Rebiyyülâhir 1338 / 14 Kanun-i Sâni 1920. p. 1.
512 "Dünkü Muazzam İctimâ': İzmir Türkiye'nin; İstanbul Türklerindir." İkdâm, Numero: 8234, 22 Rebiyyülâhir 1338 / 14 Kanunisâni 1920. p. 2.
220
6- Turks, who are at the meeting point of Asia and Europe understand the importance, seriousness and what benefits humanity regarding their duty of protection of the balance in Asia, and the realm of mutual peace from destruction, which is brought upon them by their geographic location. Even though the Turkish nation has been refraining from war for three hundred years, it has not been able to get rid of successive conflicts, because it had to ensure its survival against various enemies. It has to achieve serious and sincere help and guidance in order to carry out this honourable duty completely and continuously with peace of mind and consciousness, and the full trust of the other civilised nations.513
As this is the fourth and the final Sultanahmet gathering, analysing this proclamation not only on its own merit, but in contrast with the proclamations of the former gatherings might give us a broader perspective about the issue.
The proclamation of the first Sultanahmet gathering read more like a list of statements and wishes. It declared the decisiveness of the Turkish nation to resist the occupation regardless of the cost, the refusal to believe in "the policy of deceit," and the hope that the Sultan and the emergency committee would make the best decisions for the nations. We see that there aren't any political demands made in the first gathering which is different from all the gatherings that came afterwards.
513 "1- Yalnız hilafet-i İslâmiyye'nin makarrı değil tahsîsen Türk tarihinin âbide-i yegânesi, Türk milletinin münferid merkez-i hayâtı olan İstanbul'un kemâkân saltanat-ı Osmaniye'ye pây-i taht olarak ibkâsı.
2- Makarr-ı hilâfet ve saltanatın son hatt-ı müdâfa'ası olan Edirne ve tevabi'inin mülk-i Osmanîye muhafaza-i merbûtiyeti.
3- Bütün garbi Anadolu'nun yegâne mahrec-i ticâreti ve bin seneden beri en hâlis Türk memleketi olan İzmir'le mülhakatının yabancı ellerden kurtarılarak ana ocağına iadesi.
4- Anadolu'nun şark ve cenûb cihetlerinde ahâlisi ekseriyetle Türk ve Müslüman olan vilâyetlerimizin saltanat-ı Osmanîye'ye ibkâ-yı merbûtiyeti sûretiyle Türk vahdet-i milliye ve siyâsiyesinin halelden vikâyesi.
5- Gerek memâlik-i Osmanî'de bulunan Hıristiyan, gerek memâlik-i sairede kalan Türk ve Müslüman ekalliyetlerin hukuk ve menâfi-i meşrûa'sını masûniyet-i kâmile hâlinde tutacak tedâbîr-i teminiyenin seyyânen ve mütekabilen ittihaz ve tatbiki.
6- Avrupa ile Asya'nın nokta-i temâsında bulunan Türkler Asya muvâzenesinin müsâlemet-i âlemin âtiyen halelden vikâyesi hususunda hasbe’l-mevki uhdelerine terettüb eden vazifenin ehemmiyet ve ciddiyetini ve insaniyetin menâfi-i âliyesine derece-i nisbetini bihakkın müdrik olduklarından üç asırdan beri taarruzî muharebelerden tevakki ettiği halde türlü türlü düşmanlara karşı idame-i hayât mecbûriyetiyle mücâdelât-ı mütevâliyeden kurtulamayan Türk milletinin huzur-ı fikir ve vicdana ve diğer milel-i mütemeddinenin emniyet-i kâmilesine nâil olarak bu vazife-i fâhireyi tamamen ve müstemirren ifâ edilebilmesi için ciddi ve samimi muâvenet ve irşâdata mazhariyeti."
"Yüz Binlerce Müslüman Dün Sultanahmet'de Toplandı." İleri, Numero: 820, 22 Rebiyyülâhir 1338 / 14 Kanunisâni 1920. p. 6.
221
The second gathering had only two articles in its proclamation; first the demand for the Twelfth Article of the Fourteen Points to be properly carried out, and the second one being a statement communicating the refusal to accept the present state of affairs. Despite being excessively general, we see that political demands started to be made by the second gathering.
The third gathering was when we see that the issues at hand are specifically addressed, and the demands of the Turkish public were clearly stated. There were three articles in the proclamation: The removal of the Greek forces from the occupied areas, ending of the siege and even compensation for the afflicted parties were the demands of the third gathering.
The proclamation of the fourth gathering is different from the former gatherings in a few areas. First of all, in none of the former gatherings was there a need to ask for a guarantee for İstanbul to stay as the capital city. Even though the speeches started talking about the danger to İstanbul for quite some time, we see that no article about İstanbul was added before the last gathering. It could be argued that the reason for this could be that the danger was not thought to be so imminent, but given the extensive emphasis of the speakers on this topic, this explanation seems unlikely. Looking at the proclamation as a whole might help us understand this a little bit better. We see in the former gatherings the demands concentrated on İzmir and the surrounding areas. In the last gathering, we not only see İstanbul and İzmir, but also Edirne along with Eastern and Western Anatolian lands. They are demanded to be left to the Ottoman state. Bearing in mind that this was the eleventh hour of the Paris Peace conference, it could be argued that the organising committee wanted to cover all its bases as they might not have the chance to have another gathering,
222
which in retrospect is exactly what happened. Hence, this may be the reason why we see a much more geographically encompassing list of demands at this gathering.
It is also interesting that the minority issue was brought up in this proclamation where a mutual understanding and assurance was demanded. The situation of the Turkish, Muslim and Christian minorities have been touched upon during gatherings, but almost exclusively within the context of "they butcher our people even though we treat them so nicely." However, here we see that a political demand is made addressing a serious and real problem, which is a whole other can of worms all on its own. It is difficult to comment on why this topic seems to appear on the agenda, but again it might be connected to the fact that the Peace Conference which was dragged on within an inch of its life for the past fourteen months was actually finally coming to an end; and the re-drawn borders would mean the status of religious minorities would have to be officialised on both sides.
If we look at the reports concerning the finale of the gathering, we are informed that at around three o'clock, it was announced to have ended by Hamdullah Suphi Bey.514 İleri informs us that the hafız efendi recited a very moving prayer. As the delegates that were leaving to take the gathering proclamations to the sultan and the representatives of the Allied Powers, the crowd was in tears, but "despite the excitement in their hearts, they made their way in a dignified manner."515 İleri also added that crown prince Abdullah Efendi was present at the gathering, which was reported to have left a very deep and sincere effect on the hundreds and thousands of Turks and Muslims. This was interpreted as the proof of the fact that the dynasty was
514 "Dünkü Muazzam İctimâ.'" Peyâm-ı Sabâh, Numero: 10825, 22 Rebiyyülâhir 1338 / 14 Kanunisâni 1920. p. 1.
515 "Yüz Binlerce Müslüman Dün Sultanahmet'de Toplandı." İleri, Numero: 820, 22 Rebiyyülâhir 1338 / 14 Kanunisâni 1920. p. 6.
223
sharing the nation's pain.516 It should be noted that in none of the other newspapers do we see the mention of the crown prince being in the gathering.
The newspapers stated that members of the organisation committee and Tahsin Fazıl, Osman, Selahaddin, Hakkı and Cevad Beys of the Dârü'l-fünûn went to the Yıldız Palace with an automobile to present the gathering proclamation to the sultan.517 However, since he was ill, the proclamation was presented to the sultan's assignees.518 The same committee is reported to have given a copy of the gathering proclamation to the Meclis-i Âyân and Meclis-i Mebûsan.519
We are also informed that the committee presented one of the copies of the proclamation to the sadrâzam Ali Rıza Paşa, and Tahsin Fazıl Bey communicated to him that Turks and Muslims united for the benefit of the nation, and the national reaction towards the injustices that were going to occur in areas of Turkish majority."520 It was reported that sadrâzam paşa thanked the committee and appreciated the patriotic struggle of the youth, adding that the national unity that lived to ensure the protection and safekeeping of the Ottoman law would usher in the salvation of our land.521 İleri reported that the committee went to deliver the
516 Ibid.
517 "Dünkü Muazzam Miting – İstanbul Türk Kalacaktır."Alemdâr, Numero: 394-2694, 22 Rebiyyülâhir 1338 / 14 Kanun-i Sâni 1920. p. 2.
518 Ibid.
519 "Dünkü Muazzam İctimâ': İzmir Türkiye'nin; İstanbul Türklerindir." İkdâm, Numero: 8234, 22 Rebiyyülâhir 1338 / 14 Kanunisâni 1920. p. 2.
520 "Dünkü Muazzam Miting – İstanbul Türk Kalacaktır."Alemdâr, Numero: 394-2694, 22 Rebiyyülâhir 1338 / 14 Kanunisâni 1920. p. 2.
521 "Türk ve Müslümanların menafi’-i âliye-i milliye etrafında ittifak ettiğini, Türk ekseriyetiyle
meskûn memleketlerimizin mukadderatı hakkında vaki’ olacak haksızlıklara karşı olan milli galeyânları arz ve izah etmiştir. Sadrazam paşa heyete beyan-ı teşekkür ederek gençliğin, vatanperverane mücahedatını takdir ile hukuk-ı Osmaniyyeyi müdafaa ve sıyanet uğrunda yaşayan milli vahdetin memleketimizin selametini mübeşşir olacağını beyan buyurmuşlardır."
Ibid.
224
gathering proclamations to the representatives of the Allied Powers after five o'clock, and asked that the great nations be informed about the proclamations and that they are communicated to the peace conference.
In conclusion, the final Sultanahmet gathering despite the small number of speakers drew a huge crowd of İstanbulites who wanted to make their presence known, and let their voices be heard before their fate was sealed by people who up until that point had been deaf to their pleas. The general rhetoric and the proclamation of the gathering showed a more enveloping approach to the current state of affairs in the country. Instead of just focusing on the need to save İzmir from the occupation or possible disaster scenarios about İstanbul, we see that specific references were made to Anatolia and Thrace along with demands which were communicated to the Allied Powers.
Perhaps the most interesting feature of this gathering was the French angle which we tried to analyse to the best of our ability. Rıza Nur's speech, and to a lesser extent, Hamdullah Suphi's, were strangely friendly towards the French state. In addition to that, we saw the French Lady's "contribution" to the gathering, a publicity stunt which aimed to get the French public opinion to be more sympathetic towards the Turkish cause. France was the logical choice as the Italians had become –and pretty much have always been- completely irrelevant, and the Great Britain had been the country that started the whole mess in the first place. We might remember that President Wilson and his Fourteen Principles had been a ray of hope, and was constantly referred to by the speakers in the former gatherings, but by January 1920, it seems that it was very well understood how detached the Americans were from the issue as far as the situation of the Ottoman Empire was concerned. Hamdullah Suphi
225
in his speech even belittled the Fourteen Points, while praising the principles of the French Revolution.
Despite her very emotional and pretty manipulative speech, Nâkiye Hanım had a very spot-on analysis when she stated the Turks were snubbed. Turks were not able to send a representative to the very conference that would decide their very existence; ridiculous claims were accepted at face value; and their lands were occupied. A need was felt to put a declaration demand asking for a guarantee that the city which had been their capitol for hundreds of years would continue to stay that way. Looking at it from this angle, the Turkish public and intelligentsia should have gotten the "hint" about how much of a help the Allied Powers could have been a long time ago. We cannot deny that there is a transformation of rhetoric since the first protest gathering after the occupation of İzmir. Even though the wide-eyed belief in the eternal justice of the West dwindled as time progressed, we see that even at the last Sultanahmet gathering, appeals were still made to the ears that had been deaf to all they had to say for fourteen months.
Luckily, the speed of transformation of the rhetoric in the speeches did not translate into real life. During that time, the Anatolian movement was picking up speed, and by the time of the last gathering, the Amasya Circular had been issued. Congresses had taken place in Erzurum and Sivas; and in three months, an alternative parliament would be created in the heart of Anatolia. Also, they would replace all the false prophets to become the real saviours of the Turkish nation.
226
CHAPTER IV
OVERALL ANALYSIS
The decision to deploy the Greek army in İzmir and the surrounding areas was carried out by the Allied Powers on 15 May 1919 which marked the beginning of a catastrophic and momentous chapter of Turkish history. This act was done in accordance with the 7th Article of the Mudros Armistice where it was stated that "when faced with a situation that threatens the security of the Allies, Allied Forces reserve the right to invade any strategic points." This particular article of the treaty was only about having the legitimisation ready for the Allied Powers to invade any location at a whim. However, the decision to allow specifically the Greek army to carry out this mission was the result of a process that took months in the making.
If we are to shortly summarise the events after the armistice was signed that led to the decision of İzmir's annexation, we see that the Greek Prime Minister Eleftherios Venizelos went to London and stayed there for two months to propagate the Greek claims over Western Anatolia after the signing of the armistice. Venizelos had a Cretan background and had had played an important role in the uprisings there to ensure its unification with Greece and he was a passionate advocate of the Megali Idea, and tried to realise the formation of a "Greater Greece" which would include the Western Anatolia.
He also attended the Paris Peace Conference, where the smaller allies of the Axis Powers were given the opportunity to present their cases. He faced the Council of Ten on 3 and 4 February 1919 and presented his 27-page document to try and persuade the Entente to ensure the incorporation of Western Anatolia and Constantinople claiming that the Greeks had demographic majority. It should be
227
added that even though the Ottoman lands were the topic of discussion, they were not allowed to attend the conference to present their side of the story.
In addition to this advantage, the memoirs of the attendants of the conference show that Venizelos was very well-liked and had a charming personality which was bound to create sympathy to his wishes in contrast to the faceless, voiceless Ottomans. His biggest advantage however was that he had all the support Great Britain had to offer. Western Anatolia had been offered to Greece in exchange for their alliance during World War I as early as 1915. In addition to this, the prime minister of Great Britain of the time, Lloyd George, had a personal friendship with Venizelos and had a huge admiration for Greece and the Greek culture, in addition to having a distaste towards Turks.
Despite all these advantages, Venizelos still had to convince the remaining members of the Entente, and their position concerning the situation was ranging from indecisive to uninterested. French Prime Minister Clemenceau did not share Lloyd George's sympathy towards Greece, however his main objective was to keep Germany under control and to protect the interests of France in the Near East. Hence, he was not a huge opposition either.
As usual, the Americans were pretty clueless about what to do in the region. The Fourteen Points of President Wilson gave nations the right to self-determination but was proving to be too idealistic to be implemented in practice. The document had ensured that the Turkish portion of the Ottoman Empire would be given "secure sovereignty." However, this resulted in a vicious "demographics war" between the Turks and Greeks where both parties tried to prove their majority in disputed areas. Hence, the Americans were reluctant to support or oppose Venizelos as they would
228
be contradicting themselves either way as there was no way of decisively determining who was using correct demographical data.
The biggest opposition to Venizelos came from Italy as they had been promised a huge part of Western Anatolia by the St. Jean de Maurienne Agreement. They were naturally disturbed by the Greek claims over the area and the dispute between the two countries concerning the Albanian coast did not help to improve the relations either.
The situation with the Italians became worse by mid-Spring as the delegates were constantly trying to put a spanner in the works by delaying meetings and threatening to leave the conference. On 24 April 1919 they did indeed leave the conference due to a disagreement over the fate of the Adriatic.
The big four were not in a very comfortable position either. Italy had seven ships in İzmir and it was feared that they might try a fait accompli concerning Western Anatolia. On 6 May 1919, the situation of İzmir was being discussed without the presence of the Italian delegates as they were protesting to show their disapproval. Lloyd George's argument was that Mr. Venizelos should be told to send troops to İzmir in case of a threat or massacre. President Wilson said "Why not tell them to land as of now? Have you any objections to that?"522 The French President had none and the fate of Western Anatolia was sealed in such a nonchalant and casual manner.
The Greek forces were scheduled to arrive in İzmir on 14 May 1919. The Allied Forces would take over the Turkish bastions thirty-six hours before their arrival. Damat Ferit Paşa was informed about this situation by Assistant High Commissioner Admiral Webb, and the governor of İzmir, İzzet Bey, was informed
522 Margaret MacMillan. Paris 1919: The Six Months that Changed the World. (New York: Random House Trade Paperbacks. 2003), p. 543.
229
by Admiral Calthorpe that the Greek army would be deployed in the city according to the Seventh Article of the Mudros Armistice. When the news spread in İzmir, several thousand Turks gathered near the Jewish cemetery for a protest.
The Greek army started landing in İzmir around 9:30 on 15 May 1919. As the first group of troops were making their way into the city a shot was fired near the Government House (Hükûmet Konağı) where the Turkish barracks were. The Greek troops returned fire and when the dust settled down 300 to 400 Turks and 100 Greeks lost their lives in the incidents that occurred around the city.
As it can be seen, the employment of the Greek army in İzmir was a debacle from the get go and a huge humiliation to the Allied Forces since their claim in employing the Greeks in İzmir was to make the area safer, yet their incompetence left hundreds of people dead on the very first day of their arrival. These events were just a prequel to the bloodshed that would follow where both the Greeks and the Turks would blame one another of committing atrocities against the local population. The situation got so out of hand that the Allied Powers set up a commission to investigate the events that occurred in the vilâyet of Aydın.
If we are to turn our attention to the reaction in İstanbul regarding the events, we see that on 16 May 1919, the news of the occupation of İzmir hit the newsstands in the capital. On the other hand, there was not much information about the matter since it took time for the details of the event to reach İstanbul. What could be obtained from the newspapers that day was the official proclamation of the occupation of İzmir by the Greek army. It was stated that the communication between Admiral Webb, and Sadrazam Ferid Paşa took place on 15 May 1919, explaining that the citadel of İzmir was going to be occupied by the Allied Forces in accordance with the decisions taken at the Paris Peace Conference. We were also
230
informed by the newspapers that Admiral Calthrope, the Commander of the British Naval Force, submitted a memorandum stating that İzmir and its surrounding areas would be occupied by the Allied Forces. A second memorandum was issued declaring that the Greek Army would carry the order out in the name of the Allied Forces.
İleri was the only newspaper that had commentary about the issue on 16 May 1919 and it was one of disbelief and wishful thinking. The newspapers thought of the Greek presence in İzmir as being "rumours." According to the newspaper, this was deemed absurd because the Turkish majority in the area would ensure the Turkish rule in line with the Fourteen Points of President Wilson. Since an official proclamation existed, İleri was not able to completely refute the news and thus stated that the situation was misinterpreted. It was claimed that the Greek Army was only deployed as an agency of the Allied Forces and this did not mean that they were being handed over the region.
We see that the newspapers offer a little more comment and detail about the event on their 17 May 1919 articles. Except for Sabâh, all the newspapers had commentaries on the issues even if they approached the situation differently from one another. İleri dropped their previous day's ultra-optimistic approach and deemed the events totally incomprehensible. Hadisât stated that this act meant the execution of Turkish national existence, and both newspapers called for the reaffirmation of the Fourteen Points. They published demographic statistics and charts which showed that the Turks were the majority in the area. Both newspapers also expressed hope that this mistake would be corrected and the principles of President Wilson would be upheld. It is sad to see that the only authority they appealed to for justice was the one and the same that defied it in the first place.
231
İkdâm was less optimistic about the matter than the aforementioned newspapers. Although it also pointed out the blatant contradiction between the Fourteen Points and the occupation of İzmir by the Greek forces, its article stated that this decision was taken to satisfy the aspiration and desires of the Greeks. Furthermore, the article drew attention to an interesting fact stating that during the occupation of Bulgaria, the Allied Forces were careful not to use Serbian or Greek soldiers and expressed their wish that the same consideration could have been shown for İzmir.
Alemdâr's stance on the matter is rather unique. The commentary on the issue was written by Refi' Cevad (Ulunay) whom stated that there was no such thing as a "take-over" by the Greeks. The situation was interpreted by Refi' Cevad as nothing more than an Allied Power sending its troops to the area in accordance with the armistice that was signed. He claimed in his article that the Ottoman state should have sided with the British Empire during the war and the situation in İzmir was only the repercussions of the ungratefulness that was shown to Great Britain. It should be noted that Refi' Cevad had been sent to exile between 1913-1918 due to his criticism towards the policies of the Committee of Union and Progress. Hence, the "you reap what you saw" attitude towards the event can be based on his personal prejudices.
We should also note that the newspapers allowed us to see the reactions from the Ottoman public by publishing some of the telegraphs protesting the annexation of İzmir. Although the newspapers note that they could only publish a limited number of the telegraphs that they received, we can see that telegraphs were sent from vilâyets all over the Ottoman Empire.
If we turn our attention to the gatherings that were held in protest of the occupation of İzmir, we see that the first one recorded by the newspapers was the
232
meeting in Dârü'l-fünûn held on 18 May 1919. According to the information we gather from the newspapers, this was a gathering with a high level of participation from both students and faculty members. Akil Muhtar (Özden) of the Medical School, Müslihiddin Adil Bey from the Faculty of Law, Rıza Tevfik (Bölükbaşı) were amongst the speakers that day. In general, the speeches that day urged the students not to fall into despair, and emphasised the “Turkishness” of the area and how unjust the whole situation was. In his speech, Rıza Tevfik urged the students to stay calm and warned them not to endanger their rights in İstanbul with unnecessary over-reactions. This warning could be due to the fact that Istanbul had already been occupied by the Allied Forces and Rıza Nur did not want the situation to get worse, or as early as May 1919 fear that İstanbul might be targeted was existent.
The Fatih gathering was held the day after, on 19 May 1919, in front of the Municipality Building (Şehremâneti) at three o'clock. The speakers included Hâlide Edip (Adıvar), Salâhaddin Âli, Doctor Sabit Bey, Hüseyin Râgıp (Baydur), Müslihiddin 'Adil (Taylan) and followed by Tahsin Fazıl Bey and Meliha Hanım who had been students from the Dârü'l-fünûn Philosophy Department. We are informed that tens of thousands of people attended the gathering and there was a huge enthusiasm from the general public about the event. We also learn from the newspaper coverage that the students from Dârü'l-fünûn attended the gathering. The female presence was especially underlined and praised by the newspapers and we see two female speakers at the event.
If we are to look at the general tone of the speeches we see that Hâlide Edip and Salâhaddin Âli's were more level-headed and diplomatic compared to the rest. Hâlide Edip assured the crowd that better days would come and they had their God by their side and their iman. It should be noted that her speech at this gathering was
233
especially spiritual with many references to God, faith, âlem-i İslâm etc. The sultan himself was also referenced in her speech, where she expressed her wish that the sultan would act like a father to the nation.
Salâhaddin Bey talked about the inadmissibility of the decision to deploy the Greek Army in İzmir and that the only reason the Ottomans agreed to an armistice was the guarantee that they had under the Fourteen Points. He added that trying to destroy the Turkish nation would be absurd at a time when former nations were reviving, giving Poland as an example.
The remaining speakers of the day had harsher words concerning the matter stating that the Turkish nation was not afraid to die and that they would not refrain from shedding blood for the cause. Hüseyin Râgıp's speech was especially provocative where he stated that he refused to "stoop" to benefit from Wilson Principles, or try and prove the “Turkishness” of İzmir, which he deemed ridiculous since it was so obvious. He also used rather gory language stating that the youth would paint the waters of İzmir red, and whoever wanted to swallow the Ottoman Empire would have their throat ripped.
The gathering proclamation had two proposed articles which were announced to the crowd for their approval. It was decided that a committee should be formed to appeal to the sultan about the formation of a more competent parliament and the communication of the gathering proclamations to the representatives of the Allied Powers and especially the United States as they were thought to be more impartial.
The gathering in Fatih was the first of its kind that attracted a huge number of people from the general public who wanted to show their distaste concerning the situation in İzmir. It is also remarkable that just after three days the news about İzmir was made public, such an organisation with keynote speakers and a huge turn-out
234
could be made possible given the relative limitations in communication and transportation.
The third gathering in İstanbul protesting the occupation was held one day after the Fatih Gathering, on 20 May 1919 in Doğancılar Park in Üsküdar. The speakers of the day included Poet Talât Bey, Doctor Ferruh Niyazi, Necati Kemal, Muzaffer Hamdi Bey, Naciye Hanım and Sabahat Hanım. We are also informed that both male and female students of various university departments attended the gathering. It should be noted that the newspapers almost exclusively underlined the attendance from women and the youth in their coverage and praised it but given the many repetitions, it gave the reader the feeling that this was not something expected and the fact that women and students threw their weight behind this cause came as a surprise.
According to the newspapers, the gathering was attended by thirty thousand people and the front of the Mutasarraflık Dâiresi and the cemetery in front of the park were decorated with black flags.
Although Talat Bey and Ferruh Niyazi Bey's speeches had a rather mild tone, the gathering in Üsküdar had harsher addresses by its speakers compared to the one held in Fatih. Talat Bey's speech had heavy religious overtones and he chose to underline the Muslim nature of İzmir rather than its Turkish nature, which according to him contradicted the Allied decision to deploy Greece in the area. Ferruh Niyazi Bey had a moderate attitude in the beginning of his speech where he expressed he did not want to let go of the hope that the Great Powers would correct their mistake. He also added that at a time where old states were reviving, this act by the Entente would mean the end of the Turkish nation and would be nonsensical. This was in parallel to the point made by Hüseyin Râgıp Bey about Poland during his speech in
235
Fatih. Although Ferruh Niyazi Bey had a diplomatic tone in the beginning, he did not refrain from pointing out that if they did not get what they wanted, they were ready to die, which goes to show that his approach to the issue was not all that naïve.
Sabahat Hüsamettin Hanım, whom newspapers report was a member of the Asri Kadınlar Cemiyeti and Naciye Hanım, a student from Dârü'l-fünûn both pointed out that the worst part of this tragedy was the fact that the people who had to sacrifice so much during World War I, were now facing the fact that it was for nothing and after four catastrophic years, the Allied Powers were subjecting them to yet another disaster. Sabahat Hüsamettin Hanım even warned the gatherers that things might not end with İzmir and other cities of the Ottoman Empire might be under risk in the future.
An interesting speech delivered at the Üsküdar Gathering belonged to Hamdi Bey, another student at Dârü'l-fünûn, where he presented himself as a "village child" and assured the crowd that İstanbul was not the only place that was in upheaval, adding that his old father from the village was preparing to sacrifice everything for his country. We have discussed how women and students were praised by the newspapers for their participation in the protests against the occupation of İzmir, as if this was unexpected in the first place. Hamdi Bey's speech also indicates that support from the provinces was not necessarily something that was expected by the İstanbul public, which would explain the need to underline his background and express to the crowd that they were not the only ones who cared about what was happening in İzmir.
The Üsküdar Gathering could be interpreted as the Anatolian-side counterpart of the one held in Fatih the day before since the gathering committee decided that they would not have a proclamation, but would reaffirm the ones that were
236
announced in Fatih. We also see a rather large attendance and female presence in this gathering. Despite some moderate comments, the general tone of this gathering is harsher compared to the one held in Fatih.
The gathering in Kadıköy was held on 22 May 1919. It should be noted that the analysis of the speeches in this gathering was more challenging compared to the ones before. This time there was very little synchronisation between the newspapers both concerning who the speakers were and the transcripts of the speeches. It is to be expected that not all the reports and transcripts are uniform in the newspapers but the inconsistency between the newspapers for the Kadıköy Gathering is rather substantial and unfortunately, there is no clue to help us figure out why this occurred at this particular gathering.
The speakers of this gathering included Fahri Bey (or Fahreddin in some newspapers), a journalist from the newspaper Memleket, Halide Edip (Adıvar), Hayriye Melek (Hunç), Münevver Saime Hanım, Kemal Bey, a student of Dârü'l-fünûn and Ahmet Kemal Bey. The reports about the number of attendants vary but it is estimated to be around twenty to twenty-five thousand people gathered in front of the Kadıköy Municipality despite the heavy rain.
The speakers in this gathering used heavy religious language. Fahreddin Bey, Hayriye Melek Hanım, Halide Edip Adıvar, Münevver Saime Hanım and Ahmet Kemal Bey all invoked God in their speeches ensuring the crowd that He will hear their pleas. There were also references to the greater Muslim world, where the first three of the aforementioned speakers said that 300 million Muslims would not be silent to the injustice that the Ottomans were facing. It is important to note that given the uprising and eventual independence of the Arab lands which they managed to achieve through their alliance with the enemies of the Ottoman Empire during World
237
War I, was completely ignored and the irony of their statement seemed to be lost on the speakers. The exception to this is Halide Edip Hanım, where she excused the behaviour of the Muslims who fought against the Ottomans stating that they were fooled into thinking that they were fighting for justice and humanity by the Allied Powers.
In addition to the religious overtones, Münevver Saime Hanım's speech was heavily nationalistic where she talked in length about how she would raise her son, teaching him the great deeds of the Turkish nation and how the seeds she planted in him would grow to be the flowers of freedom. This could be taken as an indication that the possibility of a generation-long struggle was considered as one of the possibilities that the Ottomans would be facing concerning the aftermath of the events in İzmir.
We also see that Münevver Saime Hanım did not share the confidence of some of the former speakers in the Allied Powers' sense of justice. She underlined that there was no one to hear their cries and that they were alone in their struggle. When juxtaposed with the former speakers, this also might mean that she did not share the trust in the greater Muslim world that the former speakers had either.
This gathering also showed the beginnings of the focus shift from İzmir itself towards greater Anatolia and Istanbul as potential targets. There were instances where İstanbul was mentioned before, but Kemal Bey's speech clearly stated that the enemy was lusting over the capital of the sultan and the caliph. We are going to see that this trend will pick up momentum and the focus of the speeches will move from İzmir to the whole of Anatolia and especially Istanbul with each gathering that passes.
238
The Kadıköy Gathering is also the first time that a speaker, Halide Edip Hanım, directly names whom she believed to be responsible for the situation in İzmir. During the former gatherings more ambiguous language was used when addressing the parties responsible for the occupation of İzmir such as "the West", "Allied Powers", and a rather demeaning "that country" when talking about Greece. In her speech Halide Edip named Clemenceau, Lloyd George and Venizelos as the culprits of the situation and added that the just nations that they represent would not stand for what they had done in İzmir. Hence rather than putting her faith in the leaders of the Allied Powers, she suggested that French and British nations would not be silent against the injustice carried out in İzmir.
The biggest and the most well-known Sultanahmet Gathering was held on 23 May 1919. The newspapers dated 22 May hinted that this was going to be a vastly attended organisation because unlike the former protests, the Sultanahmet Gathering was announced by the publications one day before and the Ottoman public was urged to attend. And they did so, in staggering numbers. 300.000 people are reported to have attended the gathering and the newspapers informed us that huge crowds were making their way towards the Sultanahmet Square to attend the protest which was held after the Friday prayer between two thirty and four o'clock. It was noted that the square was so crowded that some people had to climb up trees and the railings of the Sultanahmet Mosque. We learn that the Minister of War, İstanbul Muhâfızı, and the Police Chief had been among the attendees. The reports also noted that despite the huge crowd, no unrest took place.
The first speaker of the day, Şair Mehmet Emin (Yurdakul) delivered a dramatic speech, perhaps a bit too much for the censors' liking that none of the newspapers were able to print some sentences. Normally, even if a speech was
239
censored in part, we were able to find the missing parts by comparing the transcript at another newspaper or at least get a sense of what was said in general. However, in his case when he started talking about "pan-Hellenistic desires," all newspapers were censored at almost the same word. It was curious to see that the word "pan-Hellenistic" triggered such a red flag that the censorship which is normally pretty irregular became uniform.
During his speech, Mehmet Emin Bey argued the “Turkishness” of İzmir and stated that they knew how to kill for a cause just as well as they knew how to die for it. He also gave the popular example of Poland, because according to him even after it was dismantled and its lands divided between other countries it re-emerged as it was never possible to kill a true nation with iron and fire. In addition to these familiar arguments, we also see that he named Europe and America as the responsible parties for the situation in İzmir and blamed them for deceiving the Ottomans into agreeing to an armistice.
We see that other speakers Halide Edip and Doctor Sabit Bey also continued the deceit rhetoric and blamed the Allied Powers for the situation in İzmir. For instance, Halide Edip stated that the invasion policy of Europe had been continuing slyly for centuries and said that they were promoting justice but their deeds were only about plunder. This is different than her former speeches where she was, comparatively speaking, more diplomatic. Here we see that she did not just accuse the European powers with causing the situation in İzmir, but suggested that they have been after Turkish lands all along. However, it should be noted that in line with what she said in Üsküdar, she made a distinction between the governments and the people they represented, stating that the European people would be the first to judge their
240
leaders and to ensure their support the only thing that the Ottomans had to do was to communicate their just cause to these nations.
Selim Sırrı Bey had the mildest tone in this gathering and in his short speech he expressed his hope that Europe and America would show mercy to a nation which had sacrificed so much during World War I, which as we can see, was an argument that was slowly being abandoned by the speakers.
The gathering proclamation of the first gathering in Sultanahmet was composed of five articles. The first three articles emphasised that the nation was united and ready to sacrifice their lives until the occupied areas were liberated and the political ambitions that divided the country died out. In addition it was stated that the public no longer believed the "policy of deceit" that was used against them, adding that they would not be appeased. One of the articles expressed the wish that the sultan would make the best decisions concerning the motherland during the emergency council that was to meet. The last article stated that the gathering proclamation was going to be communicated to the public and foreign observers via the press.
The first Sultanahmet Gathering was one of the most crucial and significant public gatherings in Turkish history. The speeches delivered during the gathering and the proclamation shows us that the pleading, mild tone of the earlier protests were almost exclusively abandoned and this new approach was to be communicated both to the Ottoman and the international community. In addition, the staggering number of attendees showed just how strongly the İstanbul public was feeling about the situation and that they would not go down without a fight.
The second gathering in Sultanahmet was held on 30 May 1919. The newspaper coverage for the first gathering had been extensive and highly detailed.
241
We also saw consistency between the newspapers. However, this was not the case for the second gathering. For instance, we see that Alemdâr had a much shorter report on the event compared to the former gathering and the order of the speakers differed from one newspaper to the other. In addition, some speakers reported in one newspaper were not mentioned in others.
We learn that around one hundred and fifty thousand people gathered in the square after the Friday prayer and the event was organised by Türkiye Müdâfaa-ı Hukûk Cemiyeti. It was reported that Police Chief Halil Bey and third precinct chief Hafız Mehmed Ali Bey were present at the event along with police officers and soldiers to ensure public peace.
The first speaker of the day, İsmail Hakkı Bey focused on the character of the Turks in his speech, saying that they are a civilised, merciful and ancient people. Thus, he argued, it would be against the laws of nature to destroy such a civilisation. The "character of the Turks" was one of the arguments used extensively to argue against the occupation of İzmir by the Greek forces and we are going to be talking about this topic in more detail.
Şukûfe Nihal Hanım delivered one of the longest speeches amongst the speakers across all the gatherings. The content of her speech was not very significant as it consisted of a poetic declaration of her love and passion for İstanbul in the fashion of a young woman's letter to a lover. The interesting thing about her speech was rather what she does not say: Not once in her speech does she talk about İzmir or the Greek occupation in the vilâyet of Aydın.
As we have discussed before, the potential threat to İstanbul had been mentioned in the former gatherings. On the other hand, with the second Sultanahmet Gathering we can clearly start to see that the focus of the speeches start to shift from
242
İzmir to İstanbul. This only goes to show how dire the situation actually had to be given that the occupation of İzmir had happened only two weeks before the second Sultanahmet Gathering. This becomes even clearer with the speech of Hamdullah Suphi Bey who openly warned the crowd that after Greece was settled in Aydın, İstanbul would be their next target.
Milaslı İsmail Hakkı Bey was almost like the "designated diplomatic speaker" of the second Sultanahmet Gathering. He talked about the Christian character of Europe which according to him meant that they were refined with ethics, and added that he did not want to believe that they would violate their promises after the armistice. In both Sultanahmet Gatherings, there was a speaker who still had hopeful and praising things to say about the Allied Powers in contrast with the rest of the speakers that it almost seems like they spoke that way to keep up appearances and not seemed completely hostile towards the forces that occupied the very city where the protest gathering was taking place.
Despite his mild tone, we see that Milaslı İsmail Hakkı Bey urged the crowd not to forget what happened and pass it onto their children. We have seen a similar argument made by Münevver Saime Hanım at the Kadıköy Gathering which indicated that the possibility of a struggle that might stretch through generations was considered.
This gathering also had a very controversial character, Hoca Rasim Efendi. His speech was cut off and this was the only time that someone was not allowed to finish their words. Although Hadisât decided to exclude what he had to say completely by stating that "he wanted to say things that were beside the point" most of the newspapers did publish his speech and it becomes very clear why he was not allowed to speak till the end. The reason that he got such a harsh reaction was
243
because he basically blamed the Ottoman public for the situation at hand. He expressed the opinion that if the Ottoman people had the right to vote and had a parliament that was truly representative of their country, all these could have been avoided. In addition, he said that the Ottomans never should have entered the war against France and England, who had been friends of the Ottomans saving them from extinction a number of times. On top of all this, he mentioned the moral corruption during the war and said that profiteering, monopolies massacres, deportations had ruined the state.
It is very understandable that his speech wanted to be cut off at a rally organised to motivate people during grim times as they were facing the potential annihilation of their state. On the other hand Hoca Rasim Efendi's speech is very important and distinctive because it defies the "honourable victim" characterisation of the Turks that was popularly used by the speakers.
It should be noted that his "what goes around comes around" interpretation of the events is very similar to the writings of Refi' Cevad of the newspaper Alemdâr. Both men had been imprisoned by the Committee of Union and Progress during their life time and it could be argued that the distaste towards the Unionists -and maybe in extension the public who did nothing to stop them-stemmed from this personal grudge. Of course, it should also be pointed out that whether the public had the necessary tools to fight back against the Committee of Union and Progress or not does not really seem to be taken into consideration.
Self-criticism is something that we see very seldom throughout the gatherings and it is to be expected as keeping up the morale of the attending public was one of their main function. However, as there were many more who were hurt by the
244
policies of the Committee of Union and Progress and it is curious to ponder upon the question of how general his sentiments could have been.
The proclamation of the second gathering consisted of only two articles and were interlinked where the realisation of the Twelfth Article of the Fourteen Points was demanded and the current policy concerning lands with a Turkish majority was strictly opposed.
The second gathering in Sultanahmet was another monumental stage where the Ottomans found a platform to voice their wishes and demands concerning the future of their country. With the exception of Hoca Rasim Efendi's speech, we did not see a huge contrast between the second and the first gatherings but we can definitely see a shift of focus in the speeches of the speakers from İzmir towards İstanbul.
On 15 October 1919, after more than four months, we see the organisation of another gathering in Sultanahmet. It should be noted that censorship became a much serious problem at this time. Most of the time we had been able to reconstruct the censored parts of the speeches by putting together the transcripts of different newspapers but this proved impossible for some of the speeches delivered at the third gathering in Sultanahmet as censorship had started to be implemented much more heavily.
We see that the gathering area for this protest was the Sultanahmet Mosque, not the square itself which is curious given that the former two had both been held at the square. Secondly, we find reports in the newspapers stating that people gathered in the Hamîdiye Mosque for protest. In addition to these, at the end of the gathering in Sultanahmet it was announced that the proclamation would also be read in other mosques of İstanbul. On top of that, Rıza Nur in his speech during the gathering
245
talked about how they gathered for a sacred duty, but could not carry it out in the open due to the sensitivity of the times. When we bring all these factors together, it is safe to assume that this was a small-scale gathering when compared to the former gatherings in Sultanahmet, because it had to be dispersed throughout the city's different mosques in order not to attract too much attention. The fact that a need was felt to act in such a manner just goes to show how dire things had gotten within the past four-and-a-half months.
The gathering began with a small address by Şevket Efendi, who was the hatip of Fâtih Mosque where he called for unity and stated that the government and the people were one. The same call for unity was the main topic of Rıza Nur's speech, which naturally meant that there was a considerable rift between the government and the public. Unfortunately we are not given any details about the reasons for this call for unity.
On the other hand, Kuvva-yı Milliye Karesi representative Vasıf Bey's speech might shed light to some extent to this rift which manifested itself as calls for unity. He addressed İstanbulites and called them to unity, just like the former speakers. He presented himself "the messenger of our heroes who shed blood in Anatolia in the name of honour and life." He added that İstanbul should not hurt what the Anatolian movement was trying to do with quarrels and disputes.
When we bear in mind that by 15 October 1919 when this gathering was being held, the Amasya Circular had been issued; Erzurum and Sivas Congresses were already held and the Heyet-i Temsiliye had already been formed. Thus, it is safe to say that the reason behind these calls for unity was definitely the conflict between the Capital and the Independence Movement in Anatolia that was way past its budding stage.
246
Also, Vasıf Bey, who was from İzmir, gave first-hand accounts of the horrible things that he had witnessed but unfortunately the censorship got in the way of us knowing the specifics of his accounts. The atrocities of Greeks were usually mentioned in speeches but they would be generic descriptions, or examples of the atrocities that took place during the Balkan Wars etc. Nevertheless, this was the first time we have had someone from the "disaster area" to share his experiences.
Hamdullah Suphi talked about how the Ottomans had turned towards the West for justice in the beginning. He then went on to express his frustration with the fact that after almost five months nothing had changed. His speech was mostly concerned with the Greeks and the destruction they caused. In addition, we also see that he mentioned the Rum population of the Ottoman Empire where he uses the term "native Rum" to leave no doubt as to whom he referred. This was the first time that a direct reference had been made to the local Greek population of the Ottoman Empire as accomplices in the events in İzmir.
Another interesting part of Hamdullah Suphi's speech was that although he appealed to the "virtuous nations" to banish the Greeks from the Ottoman lands, he expressed that this would be the last time they do so. The appeal to the Allied Powers to retract their decision to deploy the Greek army in İzmir was nothing new and we have talked about how we saw this argument less and less with each passing gathering. This comment uttered at a "sensitive time" when the political atmosphere would not allow for a gathering to be held in the Sultanahmet Square as before, really goes to show that the Ottomans were at the end of their rope.
The poem read by Mehmet Emin Bey seems to support this feeling of weariness. His poem "Dua" was about a woman representing the motherland, who had given so much to God, but had fallen into despair after receiving nothing in
247
return for so long. The poem was not directly political but was a cry out to and a questioning of God. During the former gatherings, we had seen invocations to God and the underlining of the importance of iman, which was perceived as a force that would overcome "iron". We had also seen that the speakers assured the public that God was by their side and justice would be delivered. However, this is the first time that we have a questioning of and a cry out towards God and when juxtaposed with Hamdullah Suphi's speech, it seems like the trust towards the Allied Powers was not the only thing that was waning.
The proclamation of the third gathering in Sultanahmet was composed of three articles that requested the removal of the Greek army from İzmir, Ayvalık and their surroundings and asked for the siege to end. The former gatherings had a more indirect language such as wishing that the Twelfth Article of the Fourteen Points was properly implemented etc. Here however, we see a direct demand from the Allied Powers. The third article demanded compensation to be provided by the Allied Powers for the innocent people who were hurt due to the occupation that was sanctioned by the Paris Conference. It is safe to say that the progress during the time that passed since the occupation of İzmir helped the Ottomans to leave behind their naïve and rather meek attitude towards the situation and to start making clear demands.
Given the progressive worsening of the situation for five months, we see that the "potential saviours" of the former gatherings were being abandoned. Even God had his share of criticism for his inaction. On the other hand, this gathering ushers the news of another saviour of the people, this time emerging from Anatolia. The third Sultanahmet Gathering is the first time that we start to see that the Anatolian movement started to make an impact through the representatives they had amongst
248
the speakers and through the rhetoric of unity which was used over and over again during the gathering, which we believe indicated that it was strong enough to disturb the powers-that-be in the capital.
The last Sultanahmet Gathering was held on 13 January 1920. After the comparatively low-key gathering of 15 October which was held inside the Sultanahmet Mosque, this time we see that the last gathering matched the former ones in glory. We are informed that around 150.000 people attended, making their way to the square from around 10 o'clock onwards.
We are informed that the reason behind the organisation of the event was to protest the plans, to put an end to Turkish rule in İstanbul and express the Turkish opinion to the world. It should be noted that by the time we reach the fourth gathering in Sultanahmet, the whole focus has shifted to İstanbul.
Compared to the other gatherings in general, we see that the last Sultanahmet Gathering had only three speakers; namely Sinop Deputy Rıza Nur, Nâkiye Hanım from Feyziye Mektebi and Hamdullah Suphi.
The speakers' speeches reflect the feeling of frustration with the whole situation and the process following the occupation of İzmir. Nâkiye Hanım expressed this discontent by stating that the actions of the Allied Powers were a sign that they were belittling the patience and solemnity of the Turkish nation while taking away their most natural rights. Given that the Ottoman Empire was not allowed to represent herself in the Paris Conference, throughout the 14-month long political limbo things only had gotten progressively worse. Eight months after the occupation of İzmir, the people of İstanbul had to gather yet another time in Sultanahmet hoping to prevent their capital from being taken away, and their national existence extinguished which was frustrating to say the least.
249
From the urgency in the tone of Rıza Nur's speech, we understand that the ambiguity that prevailed during the past months concerning the fate of the Ottoman Empire was about to come to an end. He assured the crowd that things had not yet been finalised, but warned that the "enemies" were continuing to work against the Ottomans. He expressed his hope that the Europeans would not allow such an injustice to take place and leave Turks without İstanbul.
Although it is rather ordinary to see praising words about the Allied Powers, we see that in this gathering there was a specific focus on France. In his speech, Rıza Nur specifically stated that the French were showing greatness and telling the truth about İstanbul by stating that it was inseparable from the Turks. Hamdullah Suphi praised France by complimenting them for the French Revolution that gave life to nations and added that they did this hundreds of years before Wilson, thus effectively praising the former and belittling the latter who did not live up to his promises. Furthermore, while talking about the South Eastern provinces of the Ottoman Empire Hamdullah Suphi directly stated that "they opened their broken hearts" and addressed the French nation. When we put all these together we suspect that this gathering was a last-minute effort to turn the French public opinion in favour of the Ottomans and maybe effect the outcome of the conference.
The "French Lady" who unexpectedly appears in the middle of the gathering supports our theory. We are told by the newspapers that a French lady among the audience whom we are told could not contain her emotions no longer, went on stage and asked to address the crowd. She was reported to be from an upper class family and lived in Turkey for a while. She gave a short speech which was translated by Hamdullah Suphi. In summary, she told the crowd that France would never abandon Turks assuring them that French people, even the ones who came to Turkey with a
250
negative attitude, saw how honest and honourable people they were after spending some time with them.
Edhem Eldem's article about this particular event sheds more light on what actually happened. We are informed that the unnamed French lady was the wife of Yusuf Razı (Bel) and this specific event was published in L'illustration in an article by an anonymous writer.523 In his article, Edhem Eldem stated that this anonymous writer was probably Yusuf Razı (Bel) who had worked at the newspaper before during his time as a student in Paris. The tone of the writer is noted to be highly sympathetic to the Turkish cause which aimed to win over the French public and according to him the whole "excited French lady" event was staged.
We know that all these protest gatherings were organised not only to motivate the local population but also to find some way of communication with the Allied Powers to let them know what the Ottoman public felt about the situation. This gathering stood out in this sense and parts of Rıza Nur's and Hamdullah Suphi Bey's speeches read as if they were specifically written with a foreign audience in mind, which is something that we had not seen in the former gatherings.
If we look at the proclamation of the gathering we see six articles which were accepted by the attending crowd after a vote ask for the eternalising of İstanbul as the capital of the Turkish nation; the preservation of the status of Edirne and its surroundings; the rescue of İzmir; the prevention of Turkish national unity including the Turkish-majority areas in Eastern and Western provinces; the insurance of mutual rights of Christian minorities living under the Ottoman rule and Muslims living in other countries.
523 Eldem, Edhem. "7 Şubat 1920 – Sultanahmet Mitingleri." Toplumsal Tarih, Ağustos 12, 2011. pp. 4-5.
251
We can see that this is the most comprehensive gathering proclamation to date taking not only İzmir or İstanbul into consideration but also making demands about the future of the lands in Eastern Anatolia and Thrace. Since it was known that the Paris Peace Conference was coming to an end, and this was probably the last chance to communicate demands to the Allied Powers, it is understandable that the wishes are of a more encompassing nature.
The fourth gathering in Sultanahmet was the last hope of a nation to let their voices be heard by the ears who have been deaf to them throughout the whole ordeal. Unlike the former gatherings which focused on İzmir or İstanbul alone, we saw that this time the speeches were more inclusive taking into consideration the fate of the Western and Eastern areas of the state. Another distinguishing quality of this gathering was the desperate attempt by the speakers to gain sympathy from the French public and the international community in general. The speeches in this gathering and the short speech by the aforementioned French lady all indicate that they were written with this goal in mind.
Female Participation
In addition to the summaries of the gatherings, it would be beneficial to talk about certain concepts that repeatedly appeared at the gatherings which we believe would give us a deeper understanding of the speeches.
The place of women within this national struggle has been a significant topic not only in the speeches delivered at the gatherings but also in the newspaper coverage about the protests. In all of the gatherings we see a female speaker and they
252
all have something to say about what it means to be a woman especially at the time when the nation is in great peril.
The image of the Turkish women that we get from the speeches at the gatherings is rather confusing and embodies many antithetical characteristics all at once. The unnamed female student at the Dârü'l-fünûn was talking about a woman who would be more affected and saddened by the incident in İzmir because she said that women were more emotional than men. Meliha Hanım who was a speaker at the Fatih Gathering was talking about a different kind of woman who would face death without any hesitations. On the other hand we see that a couple of lines below, the same Meliha Hanım went on to say that when the state comes crumbling down, women would also be crushed under the rubble, adding that their fragile and sensitive bodies might be affected more. We believe the best example to this had come from Halide Edip's speech during the Fatih Gathering as reported in İkdâm where she stated that ''the women are not armed and they are weak. They are weak but very strong."
Hence, in the speeches we see this peculiar creature who can embody antonymous traits simultaneously; a "fragile lioness" who is delicate but is not afraid of facing death. The references to the frailness of women seem to stem from a need to underline that war -which is primarily seen as a "male thing"- had affected the women too and the emphasis of the weakness of women seem to be a way to express that they too have been hurt by the war, rather simply reaffirming a stereotype.
In addition to this we had seen constant references about the sacrifices that women had to make during the war; maybe not as soldiers at the frontlines, but as mothers and sisters and wives who lost their loved ones. Again we would argue that listing all the things they had to give up was a way for them to legitimise their
253
already well-deserved presence in the national struggle. Only through this participation they could voice their opinions and have some way of influencing the salvation process that would determine their fate but somehow it seems as if they felt the need to prove their worthiness, to be allowed to do this first. Thus in order to make a place for themselves in this struggle they emphasised how much they had been affected as they were "weak," or how much they had to sacrifice during the war.
The speeches and the female participation at the gatherings show us that women wanted to be a part of this process and frankly after the astounding number of men who died during the war, women were needed to be a part of this process. Yet, as this was all very new, it must have been pretty difficult to determine a role for the women and we can see this in the language that they used.
Hâlide Edip Hanım during her speech in Kadıköy stated that men would see the Turkish women right behind them in this struggle. Sabahat Hüsamettin Hanım at the Üsküdar gathering stated that women would be at the forefronts of this struggle and Nâkiye Hanım said that women would be side by side with their men. As we were going through the speeches of female speakers separately for analysis, the choice of their words really made an impression as it was as if they literally did not know where women were supposed to be. However, it should be noted that in almost all instances when the woman's place was determined, the starting point was where their men were.
We cannot say for sure where the women were supposed to be in this struggle, however one typo of the newspaper İleri showed us that wherever they had to be, they had a long way to get there. During Halide Edip's speech at the gathering in Kadıköy there seems to be an inconsistency between the newspapers. In İleri's version we see the words "the Turkish woman seen here is not a woman. She has a
254
strong (metîn) Turkish heart."524 Although the comparison with other newspapers indicate that this was misheard or misprinted and the original sentence should read "Whoever walks away [from this] is not a Turkish woman."525 It is not surprising that typos or a mishearing might occur but it is very interesting that whoever wrote, typed, edited or proofread this sentence in İleri saw no problem with the fact that the only way to be metîn was to denounce one's womanhood.
Greeks versus the Rum
The portrayal and perception of Greece and the Greek state naturally constituted an important part of the speeches. We had talked a little about the portrayal the newspapers had to offer about Greece during our discussion of the 16-17 May articles and saw that she was constantly scorned for being an opportunistic coward who entered the war at the last minute and then tried to benefit from it without making any sacrifices.
If we look at the speeches delivered at the gatherings we see that the Greek and the Greek state was constantly referred to as being an uncivilised force which only brought destruction and fire to wherever it went. Greece was seen as a country that owed its very existence to the help of other nations. In line with the rhetoric of the newspapers, the speakers pointed out that Greece had no right to invade İzmir, not only because İzmir was a Turkish city through and through, but also because they
524 ''Burada görünen Türk kadını, kadın değildir. Onda metîn bir Türk yüreği vardır.''
'Pay-i Tahttaki Tezâhürat-ı Milliye,'' İleri, Numero: 492-110, 20 Şaban 1337 / 20 May 1919, p. 1.
525 ''Sevgili İzmir İçin İstanbul Müslümanlarının Dünkü Tezâhüratı,'' İkdâm, Numero: 8002, 19 Şaban 1337 / 20 May 1919, p. 2.
255
did not fight in World War I. Hence, they were not at the same level with the Allied Forces who won the war and were considered craven and sneaky.
Although Greece was a major actor in the whole ordeal, it was surprising to see how seldom the words "Greece" or "Greek" were used directly, especially in the earlier speeches. Usually words like "that country" were used at most. We assumed that this could have been a way to belittle them even further, in the sense that even the name was too vile or unworthy to be uttered. Yet, it should be noted that as we were going over the gatherings, the absence of these words made their presence felt.
Memduh Necdet Bey's speech delivered during the Üsküdar Gathering on 20 May 1919 gave us further insight to the reason why the speakers uttered the words Greece and Greek very little. During the gathering he told the crowd ''they are unjustly giving the vilâyet of İzmir where the seven hundred year old Turkish Empire ruled, to another nation; a nation that is inferior to us in [population] density, civilisation and science.''526 and from Hadisât's coverage we learn that the crowd responded to this by shouting ''say its name!''527
This information led us to believe that the reason to refrain from uttering the words Greek or Greece might not have been to scorn them but might be due to the fear of attracting the wrath of the Allied Powers. As we have discussed before, some of the gathering coverage informed us that there were Allied representatives in the crowd so it is very natural to assume that these public gatherings were under surveillance to one extent or the other. A direct criticism to the Greek state might
526 ''İslâmlar, Türkler; yedi asırlık Türk imparatorluğunun saltanat sürdüğü İzmir vilâyetini bugün haksız olarak başka bir millete, kesâfet, medeniyet, ilm itibâriyle bizden dûn olan bir millete veriyorlar.''
''Dünkü Tezâhürat-ı Milliye – Dünkü Büyük Miting,'' İleri, Numero: 493-111, 21 Şaban 1337 / 21 May 1919, p. 2.
527 ''Dün Üsküdar'da Büyük Bir İctimâ' Akd Edildi,'' Hadîsât, Numero: 141, 21 Şaban 1337 / 21 May 1919, p. 1.
256
have been deemed too risky. It should be noted that we see the words Greece/Greek/Venizelos start to be much more frequently used in the gatherings as time passes, especially after the first gathering in Sultanahmet, but we should also note that when a direct reference was made to Greece/Venizelos, we almost always saw that the rest of the sentence became censored.
“İzmir Türktür, Türk Kalacak...”
Naturally, "Turkishness" was another very popular theme in the speeches. The way in which Turks were portrayed in these speeches are pretty much like the bizzaro version of the Greeks. Continuously, we see that Turks are referred to as being merciful and civilised people with "a dignity and calmness that is only reserved for the Turks."528 The fact that no violence occurred during the gatherings are constantly emphasised to show the civilised nature of Turks. In addition, poor, unfortunate, sorrowful and wronged were amongst the words that were frequently used to describe the Turks, Ottomans or Muslims -as these words were used interchangeably.
We also saw constant references to the Turkish contributions to civilisation listed in the gathering speeches; the mosques and monuments that were built, Turkish scholars and scientists were mentioned. For instance Rıza Nur during his speech at the gathering in Dârü'l-fünûn, which was the very first public protest against the occupation of İzmir, addressed the students and said that when the Turks took İstanbul from the Palaeologus, there was nothing except for the Sarâyburnu and the area around Fener. Here, we feel the need to make a small note of how he did not refer to the Byzantines, but to the royal dynasty itself which we believe was a way to
528 ''Dünkü Tezâhürat-ı Milliye – Dünkü Büyük Miting,'' İleri, Numero: 493-111, 21 Şaban 1337 / 21 May 1919, p. 1.
257
distance İstanbul from the Greeks who were claiming to be the cultural and historical successors of the Byzantines.
In addition, during his speech at the last gathering in Sultanahmet, we see that he addressed the crowd in a similar vein and talked about how the Turks had their system of writing when many civilisations were not even aware of its existence and talked about how the biggest dictionary of Arabic was written by a Turk; and how Turks contributed to civilisation with İbn-i Sinas.
We saw many examples throughout the gatherings which were in similar nature. Although at first sight they seem to be self-praising and uttered with the aim of raising the spirits of the crowd, we had discussed that the reason behind this rhetoric was to put forward proof that the Turks did not deserve such a treatment from the Allied Powers because they were a civilised nation. Kemal Bey who delivered a speech during the gathering in Kadıköy crystallises this attitude with his words when he asked ''I am asking you what do you want from us? Don't we have science? Don't we have virtues? Don't we have monuments or universities? Didn't we bring up geniuses?''529
We see a clear parallel drawn between being civilised -which is apparently measured by architectural, scientific and literary contributions made by a nation-, and that of the nation's right to exist. With this logic it could be presumed that nations that are deemed "uncivilised" according to these standards which were thought to deserve being erased from existence. However, we see that the speakers had a firm and unshakable belief that the Turks belonged to this "civilised nations' club" hence they could not make sense of the annexation of İzmir and the surrounding areas, as if being civilised was supposed to grant them some kind of immunity from invasion.
529 ''Size soruyorum: bizden ne istiyorsunuz? Bizde ilim mi yok, bizde fazilet mi yok, bizde abideler mi yok, bizde camialar mı yok. Biz dahiler yetiştirmedik mi? Camialarımız, her şeyimiz var.''
"Bugünkü Miting,'' Sabâh, Numero: 10604, 22 Şaban 1337 / 23 May 1919, p. 1.
258
If we take the speeches in their totality concerning how they portray Turks, we see the description of noble, proud, just and merciful people who made countless contributions to the world civilisation. In addition, we see many instances where a rather melodramatic language was used to describe the Turks where they were deemed unfortunate and grief-stricken who could not catch a break after years of suffering despite all their positive attributes. We believe this attitude stemmed from a combination of the need to boost the morale of a public and the need to communicate themselves to the Allied Powers as a "civilised nation" to put an end to the occupation of İzmir.
There are only two instances where this picture perfect image of the Turk was challenged. The first one took place during the Protest in Fatih held on 19 May 1919 in a speech delivered by Halide Edip when she talked about the sins of the Ottomans but quickly added that they were washed away with all the blood that they shed.
She does not explain what she means by these sins and basically red washes over them nevertheless it is noteworthy that there was a break from this "Perfect Turk" character. The second instance took place during the Second Sultanahmet Gathering and created such a disturbance that the speaker Hoca Rasim Efendi was taken off stage as we discussed above in detail.
He pretty much touched upon all the embarrassing realities of the World War I era and we saw that he mentioned deportation, using the words "taktiller and tehcirler." It is hard to interpret it as something other than a direct reference to the Armenian issue, which did not sit well with the organising committee and all but one of the newspapers omitted his speech from their coverage. It had been discussed that Hoca Rasim Efendi was anti-Unionist and had been imprisoned due to his stance so he might not have been the most objective speaker of all. However, after this
259
imagery of "the super Turk" both his and Hâlide Edip's words show us that there are people who approached the situation with some self-criticism. On the other hand, it should be understandable that this was not a very popular and widely-used rhetoric as the realities on the ground demanded quick solutions rather than reflective thinking and confessions.
The Allied Powers and specifically President Wilson was also a recurring theme of the speeches delivered at the gatherings and even though we saw a pretty consistent picture concerning the Greeks and to a lesser extent the Turks, the perception and reflection of the Allied Powers and President Wilson in the speeches delivered that the gathering was much more complicated. It should be noted that in the first few gatherings America is seen separately from the Allied Powers and deemed to be more "objective" because the Ottomans did not fight them. Halide Edip suggested that especially the American public and representatives should be contacted about the wishes of the Ottomans because they would be more impartial since the Ottomans did not fight them during the World War I.
Friend or Foe? The Allied Powers
When we look at the speeches to construct the perception of the Allied Powers we see four distinctive tendencies. The first is to praise the Western powers stating that they have high character; that they are civilised and they love justice. The idea here was that the nations with such high character, who contributed to the world civilisation in so many ways, who have stood up against tyrants during the French Revolution and who worked to ensure the nations' right to exist with the Fourteen
260
Points was not capable of carrying out a huge injustice that took place in İzmir, or allow it to continue.
If we are to give a few examples, during the first Sultanahmet Gathering, Selim Sırrı Bey talked about Europeans and Americans as people who value their promises. Milaslı İsmail Hakkı stated at the second Sultanahmet Gathering that since the Allied Powers were "scientific and enlightened" he did not want to believe that they would violate their promises after the armistice. On a side note, it is also interesting to see that somehow being scientific is an indication of one's moral reliability.
The Fourteen Points whether directly or indirectly, have probably been one of the most referenced topics throughout the gatherings and by the newspapers, especially the Twelfth Article which promised the Turkish portion of the Ottoman Empire secure sovereignty. We see that the pulpit at the first Sultanahmet Gathering had a banner with the Twelfth Article on it. We see that Alemdâr on its 24, 25, 26 and 27 of May 1919 issues had the Twelfth Article of the Fourteen Points with the title "Has Wilson Forgotten His Promise?" Within the first two weeks after the occupation of İzmir, we see that the newspapers made a habit of printing the Twelfth Article, usually somewhere on the first page within a frame without any commentary.
The constant referral to the Fourteen Points is understandable since we see a specific article securing the rights of the Ottomans in a statement delivered by the president of the United States to the whole world and how it was being completely ignored by the very forces that promoted these principles, based upon flimsy claims of demographic superiority by the Greek state. The occupation of İzmir by the Greek forces after such a guarantee from the Allied Powers just made the whole situation
261
more inconceivable and unacceptable. Hence, we saw many of the speakers who stated they did not want to believe that the Entente would go back on their word and expressed hope that this "mistake" would be corrected.
On the other hand, we see that not all speakers were so naïve when it came to the Allied Powers. Tahsin Fazıl Bey at the Fatih Gathering condemned the Allied Powers for taking everything away from the Turks in the name of a "deceitful right and justice." In similar vein, Memduh Necdet Bey of the Üsküdar Gathering accused the Allied Powers of deceiving the Ottomans.
The most extreme accusation concerning the Allied Powers came from Hâlide Edip Adıvar during the first Sultanahmet Gathering where she blamed Europe for having an invasion policy which continued for centuries with the aim of conquering all Turkish lands.
During the former gatherings Halide Edip had mostly stuck to a more or less diplomatic tone and focused more on the role of women in this struggle, or gave morale to the crowd by assuring them that God and faith were their strengths. Hence, it is interesting to see such a sharp change in her tone.
Lastly, we see that some of the speakers suggested that the Europeans were misinformed or were being tricked as we have seen in Milaslı İsmail Hakkı Bey's speech at the first gathering in Sultanahmet where he shared a conversation that was supposed to have occurred between Mister Wilson and Venizelos.
We also see that Rıza Nur during the gathering in Dârü'l-fünûn told the audience how there was a serious propaganda in Europe against the Turks and the Europeans "had the wrong idea" about them. This is probably even more naïve than actually hoping the Allied Powers would realise the mistake they did in İzmir. The conversation which allegedly took place between Venizelos and Wilson sounds
262
pretty shady and suggests that the heads of state of the most powerful countries at that time could easily be fooled is not realistic.
Turkish Reaction
The issue of what the Turkish reaction should be against the occupation of İzmir was naturally a very important part of the speeches. As to be expected, declarations about the braveness of the Turks and how they were not afraid to die or kill to protect what was rightfully theirs were very common. This of course was not meant to constitute a thorough plan but was an affirmation of the level of resolution that the Turkish nation had.
Hoping that the Allied Powers and the West would correct their mistakes or put a stop to the injustice taking place in İzmir had been one of the proposed ways to solve the problem at hand and as we have discussed above in detail, there were different opinions as to how helpful the Western powers would be in this situation.
A few of the speakers commented on the obvious military disadvantage that the Turkish nation was in deploying the "medeniyet dediğin tek dişi kalmış canavar" argument such as Halide Edip during the gathering in Fatih.
Also, at the first Sultanahmet Gathering, we see that Şair Mehmet Emin Bey and Doctor Sabit Bey both used this argument and stated that iron and weapons were not enough to destroy a nation. However these were very general points raised by the speakers to keep up the spirit of the public at a time when the Turks were obviously at a huge military and technical disadvantage.
We also see that some speakers considered the possibility of a long term struggle. Münevver Saime Hanım's speech at the Kadıköy meeting had a very
263
dramatic paragraph which explained in detail how she would raise her son with the stories of the great Ottoman sultans and of İzmir and when the time comes he would rebel to break the shackles put on by the winners of the war. We also see that during the second Sultanahmet gathering Milaslı İsmail Hakkı asked the crowd not to forget anything that happened and pass it on to their children.
Given the military and technical disadvantages that the Ottoman state was in at the time, a dormant opposition that would fight back when the time is right could have been a viable alternative. However, both speeches were given within the 15 days following the occupation of İzmir when the events were relatively contained around that area. As time progressed, it would become obvious that the enemy did not have any plans to leave breathing room for the Ottomans which would render this possibility hopeless.
Some of the speakers mentioned the Muslim world in their speeches such as Bahati Kemal Bey during the Üsküdar Gathering, Fahrettin Bey and Hayriye Melek Hanım during the gathering in Kadıköy and Halide Edip during the first Sultanahmet Gathering. The general point was that the Turks had the power of hundreds of millions of Muslims who would cry against the injustice done to the Turks although it raised questions about the Muslims who had rebelled against the Ottoman Empire. The only speaker who did not seem to miss the obvious irony here was Halide Edip Adıvar who used the for they did not know what they were doing argument to explain why Muslims had fought against the Ottoman Empire during World War I. She suggested that they were tricked by the Allied Powers into thinking that they were fighting for justice and humanity. Despite the weakness of the argument this is the only time that this fact was mentioned by a speaker who claimed that the Ottomans had a whole Muslim world behind them.
264
Although it was not very frequently used, we saw appeals to the sultan as a saviour too, especially during the Fatih Gathering by Halide Edip (Adıvar) who asked the sultan to be a father to the nation and ensured the employment of a capable government. In addition, the gathering proclamation plead to the sultan –addressed as the only bright star in the dark black sky of the nation- in a very dramatic tone to show the people who would not hesitate to sacrifice their lives for the throne, which path they should take.
This makes the gathering in Fatih an anomaly because in no other gathering do we see a "saviour" rhetoric used about the sultan although there is no indication as to why the Fatih Gathering had this characteristic. The Fourth article of the first Sultanahmet Gathering's proclamation stated the wish that the Sultan would make the best decisions for the motherland and the people and that is as close as we come to the sultan being remotely considered as something of a saviour. It is pretty sad to see that the speakers appealed to and put their faith in the Allied Powers or President Wilson rather than their own sultan.
We do not see the Anatolian movement mentioned as a potential saviour of the nation until the third gathering in Sultanahmet which is to be expected as the majority of the gatherings took place during the third and fourth week of May 1919. By the time we get to the third gathering in Sultanahmet we see that the Anatolian movement started making some noise and it was loud enough to earn itself a representative at the gathering. We had discussed that this was probably the reason of certain speakers calling for unity amongst the people without making it clear as to which side they wanted the people to unite on. The Kuvva-yı Milliye representative Vâsıf Bey asked for the İstanbulites not to hurt the Anatolian movement and assured
265
the crowd that with the support of İstanbul, the Anatolian movement would be strong enough to save the whole nation.
The newspaper coverage and the speeches at the gatherings give us valuable information about the different ideas, the inner workings, the step-by-step process and the evolution of the reactions against the occupation of İzmir by the Greek forces. We believe that this enriches our experience about this time period as we usually tend to get one-dimensional perception of the events after all is said and done as the nuances, contradictory or marginal ideas are overlooked as trivial and insignificant or simply dismissed.
When it comes to the perception and representation of women by the speakers we see a strong, sacrificing woman who is willing to give her all for the motherland. However, the conflicting and antithetical descriptions of what a Turkish woman was and should do shows us that they were still trying to make room for themselves but they were not sure of its boundaries. We understand from the speeches that there was a very strong sense of what "Turkish" and "Greek" meant and there were only a few instances where these perceptions were challenged. The attitude towards the Allied Powers had probably been the most erratic, ranging from confidence that they will do right by the Turks, to condemning them as sly enemies of hundreds of years. We also saw that the "hope in the West" line was never truly abandoned and as late as the last Sultanahmet Gathering, pleas were being made to the West to correct the mistake that they had done in İzmir.
The refusal by the Ottomans to accept that they were fed false promises by the Allied Powers might have stemmed from naïveness, the need to pay lip service to them in order to deflect backlash they might get, or just simply from the fact that it is excruciatingly painful for one to face utter annihilation after one has sacrificed all
266
and to admit that it was for nothing. Hence until the very last minute, we see that they tried to change the opinion of ears that had been deaf to them from the beginning.
267
CONCLUSION
The aim of this thesis was to try and provide an in depth analysis of the gatherings organised in İstanbul between 18 May 1919 and 13 January 1920 in protest of the occupation of İzmir by the Greek forces, get a fuller picture of the reactions to the event, the alternative ideas and proposed solutions to eliminate the problem before the National Struggle Movement took on full force.
Despite the fact that these gatherings are famous, our research on the secondary literature led us to come to the conclusion that the research about the topic was pretty much skin deep and did not entail a full focus on the speakers or the speeches themselves. With the exception of Kemal Arıburnu's work which was not without its problematics, most secondary literature that touched on these gatherings simply pointed out their importance, and sometimes gave a few lines from an important speakers before moving on to their main focus, which usually was the War of Independence.
This led us to seek primary sources and after the selection period which was explained in the introduction in detail, the five newspapers which were chosen to be within the scope of this thesis were transcribed. Afterwards, we tried to create a full reconstruction of the speeches and tried to recreate the events as portrayed by the media. Despite the physical challenges such as censorship and the lack of recordings, we believe that we were able to obtain a pretty solid account of the protests.
Furthermore, we tried to have a deep analysis of the content of the speeches which meant that we not only looked at what was said; but we compared the rhetoric of the speakers of the same gathering; looked at how the same speaker changed his/her tone in time; and how the general attitude towards this issue changed between 18 May 1919 to 13 January 1920.
268
What we have come up with was that the initial naïve interpretation of the occupation of İzmir by the Greek forces became abandoned by the speakers. We saw that in the beginning the event was downplayed or even attributed to misunderstandings, as speakers assured the crowds that the "civilised" Western powers would not really commit such an absurd act. However, as time progressed and it started to become obvious that the situation was only getting worse, we saw that the trust in the justice of the West that the speakers had expressed, started to wither away. Furthermore, we even saw some speakers expressed their belief that the West had always been working to ensure the destruction of the Ottomans from the very beginning. The untrusting and harsh rhetoric towards the Western powers undeniably amplified with each gathering.
Another metamorphosis that the speeches went through during this eight-month period is that in the beginning they had İzmir as their primary focus, but slowly shifted towards İstanbul where after a certain point the only issue talked about was the fate of İstanbul and in extension the Ottoman Empire. This shift went parallel with the abandonment of the naïve attitude we discussed above, as it started to become obvious that the real target was not İzmir or even the Western provinces but the very existence of their national existence.
The general themes that we saw frequently within the speeches were the underlining of the Turkishness of the city of İzmir, how the Turks did not deserve such a treatment given that they were a civilised and ancient people and how they would fight back with all they have left in case there was no improvement of the situation. However, we also saw that we could not necessarily talk about a unified approach to certain topics which lead us to believe that this period was still a time of soul searching. The discrepancies between speakers, or at times within different
269
speeches of the same speaker was not uncommon, especially when the topic was about the role of women within the national struggle or how the Western powers should be perceived.
The analysis of the speeches also showed that there was no solid game-plan about what needed to be done to change the situation on the ground and they remained rhetorical. The only time we see a more clear-cut approach resembling an actual strategy was during the last Sultanahmet Gathering held on 13 January 1920, where the official protest declaration included much broader demands concerning the fate of all Ottoman lands, and an ultimatum to the Western powers where it was stated that they would be addressed for the last time to correct the wrong that they have done. This makes sense in a number of ways: First of all there is the obvious time factor where the eight months that passed since the occupation of İzmir had been enough time to get over the shock of such an audacious act and put things in proper perspective. Second of all, we see that the Anatolian movement started to pick up pace and make tangible progress, which seems to have pushed the last gathering towards a more concrete tone directly addressing existing and potential problems such as the fate of the Ottoman lands in general, population exchange etc. And last but not least, it became known that the Paris Conference would come to a conclusion about the Ottoman issue very soon, which meant that the last Sultanahmet gathering was the last chance that they would get to communicate their wishes to the general and international public.
Another point that needs to be made is the "Muslim vs. Turkish" dichotomy.
Although the speakers address the crowd as "Muslims" and the emphasis on the Muslim character of the population as a common ground was existed in the speeches,
270
we also saw that the Turkish character was constantly stressed upon by the speakers. This showed us that the Turkish nationalism was the way of the future.
We also were able to see the evidence of social change within the Ottoman society when we looked at the coverage of the gatherings in the newspapers and the speeches delivered at the events concerning the role of women. Despite the fact that it was not yet clear what part women would play in this scenario, the obvious fact was that they not only wanted to be, but as the coverage of the newspapers have shown- were expected to take responsibility concerning the events in İzmir. It is widely known that advancement of female movements have coincided with times of war, and it could be suggested that one of unintended consequences of the occupation of İzmir was that it made it easier for women to get involved with and have a say in political affairs of the time in order to influence their own destiny in some way.
Another point that needs to be made is that within this eight-month period, we were not able to find the existence of pro-national vs. anti-national struggle camps. Peyâm-ı Sabâh is considered to be a publication against the national struggle. However the great majority of the time period of our thesis falls under when it was published as Sabâh without the infamous Ali Kemal's involvement. Hence, we do not see any negative coverage about the gatherings.
Alemdâr is also one of the newspapers categorised as "anti-national struggle" in the literature. However despite short coverages concerning the events, Alemdâr had absolutely nothing negative to say about the gatherings protesting the occupation of İzmir.
Of course the time period of the thesis does not overlap with the full-on armed struggle of the National Independence Movement. Yet, it is important to note
271
that none of the newspapers had a critical tone towards the gatherings during this time period. On the contrary, they were always reported with praise and support.
As a final note, we want to add that even though we tried to answer questions about what happened on the stage, the back-stage remains a topic worthy of research. We do see the announcement of the first gathering in Sultanahmet in the newspapers. However how were the people of Istanbul informed about these gatherings? Who decided the locations where they would occur, and whom the speakers would be?
Things such as the announcement of the gathering proclamations after each gathering and their communication to the necessary authorities, or the obviously staged appearance of the French Lady at the last gathering in Sultanahmet were pre-planned events that needed detailed planning. Who made these plans and how did they proceed?
In addition to all this, what could be said about the silence of the Sultan? It is obvious that if there was a true opposition on their part, none of the gatherings could have taken place and everything would be dismantled before it began. We even saw that the gathering in Fatih taking place in front of the municipal building. So could this be interpreted as proof that the organisers of the gatherings were in contact with the Imperial Court? Even though there was no official siege the Allied presence and pressure in Istanbul was undeniable. So, how did the Sultan or the Ottoman Government position themselves to influence events without taking a backlash from the Allied Powers or without alienating their subjects? These are some of the questions that we aspire to answer in the future.
272
APPENDIX A
TURISH TRANSCRIPTION OF SELECTED ARTICLES FROM THE NEWSPAPERS WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THIS THESIS
ALEMDAR 19 MAYIS 1919 / 19 ŞABAN 1337 NUMERO: 147-1457
KİMİ İSTİYORUZ?
Refikimizde okunduğuna göre, İzmir Müdafaa-ı Hukuk-u Miliye Cemiyeti kâtib-i umumiliği marifetiyle payitahtdaki ricâl-i ma'rûfe, cemiyet ve müessesat-ı milliye ve Dârü’l-fünûn da dahil olduğu halde muhtelif heyetler ve müesseseler namına dün Amerika mümessil-i siyasîsine bir muhtıra verilmiş. Bu muhtırada İzmir'in Yunanistan tarafından işgal ettirilmesinin kavânîn-i hazıra-i düveliye nokta-i nazarından pek büyük bir haksızlık olacağını emsal ve edille ile mantıkî bir surette ispat edildikten sonra en nihayet idare-i hükûmette ehliyetsizliğimiz iddia ediliyor ve bir muavenete ihtiyacımız hakkında rücu kabul etmez bir karar verilmiş bulunuyorsa bu muavenet vazifesinin bî-taraf bir hükûmete, binaenaleyh Amerika'ya tevdi'i talep olunuyor.
Bu babda doğrudan doğruya isim tasrih edilerek bir devletin muavenetini talep etmeyi biz doğru bulmuyoruz. İki gündür dolayısıyla beyan eylediğimiz bir fikri bugün bütün vuzuhuyla ortaya atacağız.
Acaba bizim kendi kendimize adam olmak ihtimalimiz yok mudur? Bin türlü matem ve keder içinde daima kanayan kalplerimizden aynı zamanda haset, ve teneffu’ hislerini söküp atamayacak mıyız?
Bizim bulunduğumuz halet-i ruhiye ile mahv olan milletlerin akibetinden şimdiye kadar neden mütenebbih olmadık? Tarihin bir tekerrürden ibaret olduğunu ve bu kafa ile her türlü salah ve felahtan ümidimizi kesmek lazım geldiğini ne zaman takdir edeceğiz? Heyhat, Bade harabi’l-Basra!
Bugün acı pek acı bir matem karşısındayız. Bu matem bu memleketin öz evladından olan İzmir'in ziyâ’ı değildir. Daha derindir, daha etraflıdır, şümûllüdür.
273
Ne yapacağız? Hangi taşa başımızı vuracağız? Bize bir hayat verecek, halet-i ihtizarda çırpınan bu büyük hastaya bir parça kuvvet, yatağından doğrulacak kadar bir kuvvet bahş edecek hangi halâskâr el var. Bu deva-yı âcile şimdi süratle ihtiyacımız var, terkibatı adaletten ibaret olan bu iksir-i hayatı bekliyoruz.
Dün de yazdığımız vecihle Avrupa her halde bizler hakkında iyi bir düşüncede bulunmuyor. Bunu evvelden de biliyor ve takdir ediyorduk. Yalnız şimdiye kadar bütün neşriyatımızla Avrupa'dan bizleri soğutan avâmilin ne olduğunu izah eylemeye çalıştık. Fakat maatteessüf bir taraftan uğraştıkça diğer taraftan yapılan yeni yeni hataiyyat bu milleti zorla müşkil mevkide bulunduruyordu.
Ne ise bunlardan ileride bahs edeceğiz. Şimdiki halde senelerden beri, bilhassa son on seneden beri yuttuğumuz zehirlerin vücudumuzda husule getirdiği tahribatı durduracak, teşfiye edecek panzehiri düşünelim.
Yataktayız, hastayız. Fakat kalplerimiz kuvvetli uzun senelerden beri, hasta vücudumuz üzerinde bî-aman tecrübe ameliyatı yapılıyor. Bizi bayıltmaya bile lüzum görülmeden bugün çatır çatır bir kolumuzu kesiyorlar o yaramızı timar ettirmeye vakit bulamadan müthiş bir neşter de başka bir uzvumuza saplanıyor. Bu ölümden bedter bir haldir, kuvvetli kalan kalbimizde bunun acısını her gün biraz daha haşmetli surette hissediyoruz. Başımızdaki muhtelif tarz-ı tedaviye taraftar olan doktorlar elinde ne yapacağımızı şaşırdık korkuyorum ki deva-yı kati' olmak üzere tanıdığımız ilac ebediyen gözlerimizi kapattıktan sonra gelecek:
Nûş dârû pes ez merg be Sohrab dehend!
Ben diyorum ki bile bile gözlerimiz açık olduğu halde her gün bir uzvumuz koparılacağına hazakatına tedavi eylediği hastalarla emniyet kesb ettiğimiz bir doktora kendimizi teslim edelim. Heyet-i mecmuamızla bizi tedavi edecek, istikbal için sıhhatimizi kurtaracak bir usul ile yaşamaya çalışalım. Bizi yaşatacak olan bu âmile dört el ile sarılmaya mecburuz.
Bu âmili tedkik ediyoruz. Anlosakson ırkı bize karşı daima hayr-hah olagelmiştir. Pek acı bir geçit üzerindeyiz. Bu kati imtihandan ya tamam diplomayı alarak çıkacağız
274
veyahud mekteb-i hayattan kovulacağız, bunu böyle bilelim. Hakikat acıdır, fakat hakikattir. Bizim yaşamamızda menfaatdar olan (çünkü siyasette biraz, biraz değil hatta en fazla âmil olan menfaattir.) hangi kuvvet ise onunla beraber yürümek hatta, birlikte teneffüs etmek mecburiyetindeyiz. Şimdiye kadar tarihi göz önüne getirelim. Kırım muharebesinde bizim ile yürüyen, Bursa'ya kadar gelen Mehmed Ali Paşa ordusunu çeviren, Ayastefanos'tan Rusları ters yüzü döndüren kuvvet hangi kuvvet ise onun elini tutmak lazım geliyor.
Bizim için son çare budur. Mesela diğer kuvvetleri göz önüne getirelim: Himaye etmek üzere bulundukları mahaller başkalarının elinde hiçbir eser-i feyz ve terakki görmemiş, eskiden ne halde ise o halde kalmıştır. Halbuki Anglosaksonlar bulundukları yere öyle bir hayat nefh ederler ki onu hale layık ve istikbale karşı kuvvetli bir namzed olacak bir mevkiye getirirler. Bunu misal ile irad etmeyelim. Vukuat ve hadisat meydandadır.
Dün bir Giritli ile İngiltere'den bahs ediyorduk. Dostumuz bize öyle bir vaka nakl etti ki burada tekrar etmeden geçemeyeceğim. Düvel-i muhtelite Girit'i işgal ederken biraz sonra İngilizler Kandiye'de bulunan kuvâ-yı askeriyeyi tebdil eder, yerine Transvaal'den gelen bir kuvvet bırakır. Arası biraz geçer. Giritliler gün ufukta koca bir zırhlı görürler. Biraz zaman sonra karaya takarrüb eden zırhlı ile karadaki kuvâ-yı askeriye kumandanlığı flama ile muhabere eder ve zırhlı tevakkuf eder etmez indirilen motora bir zabit râkib olur, rıhtıma doğru yakşalır. O esnada bir çift hayvan koşulmuş bir arabada bir İngiliz zabiti hamilen motora yetişir. Motordan çıkan bahriye zabiti resm-i selamı ifa eyledikten sonra diğer zabite ufak bir şişe teslim eder ve gemiye döner.
Bu bittabi Giritlilerin nazar-ı dikkatini celb eder. Sorarlar, tahkik ederler. Mesele şu imiş:
Transvaal'de asker arasında müthiş bir maraz zuhur eder. Transvaal hastalığı ismini verdikleri bu müthiş marazın İngilizler serumunu bularak birçok askerin hayatını kurtarırlar. Kandiye'ye gönderilen İngiliz kuva-yı askeriyesi hastalığın önü alınmış olmasını ve sırf mevzi’î bir hastalık olan mezkur maraz ile kimsenin malul olmayacağını zannederken birlikte serum getirmez. Fakat arası birkaç gün geçip de efraddan birinde Transvaal
275
hastalığının irazı görülünce seruma ihtiyaç olduğu anlaşılıyor ve derhal Malta'ya bir telgraf çekilir.
''Falan neferde Transvaal hastalığı vardır. Eğer yirmi dört saate kadar serum gönderilmezse ölecektir'' mealinde olan telgrafı Malta'da bulunan kumandan haber alır almaz İngiliz donanmasından binlerce tonluk koca bir zırhlı küçücuk bir şişe ilacı hamilen üç dört bin liralık kömür yakarak Kandiye'ye yetişir ve tebaasından bulunan neferinin hayatını kurtarır!
Biz bu vakayı dinlediğimiz zaman gözlerimiz yaşardı.
Nerede o serum? Nerede şu muhtazır memlekete nûş dârûyu getirecek olan halâskâr el?
Refi' Cevad
276
HADİSAT 24 MAYIS 1919 / 24 ŞABAN 1337 NUMERO: 144
TÜRKÜN GALEYANI
Gerek Bizans, gerek İstanbul, bu şehrin ilk temel taşı atıldığı günden düne kadar misali görülmemiş, muazzam bir nümayişle Türk’ün ve Osmanlı’nın İzmir’deki hukuku mahfuz bulunduğu ilan edildi.
“Türk’ün galeyanı çabuk geçer” diyorlar. Diyorlar ki: “Girit bizim canımız, dediler ve unuttular. Trablusgarb, Balkan hadiselerinde ve her zaman ve vakada böyle oldu.”
Bu iddiada bulunanlar bizi asla tanıyamamış olanlardır. Evet, “Girit bizim canımız” dedik. Unutmadık. Tarihimizde hiçbir hadise-i canhıraş görülmedi ki hatıra-yı tali’imizde bir hüzün payidar bırakmış olmasın.
Susmak unutmak değildir!..
Biz Girit’i, Afrika’yı ve Balkanlarla Adaları o kadar unutmadık ki son iki buçuk asırda uğradığımız her musibetin müsebbibi ve bugün de dünyanın başına musibet olan Rusya ile Brest Litovsk muahede-namesini imza ettiğimiz dakikaya kadar gayz-ı akdes-i milli namına hûn-nisar olduk. Tarihinin maceralarını unutmuş bir kavimden böyle esatirî maceralar görülebilir miydi?
Başında Enver adlı hem ahmak, hem çılgın bir musibet bulunan son harbin suret-i idaresi bizi hurde-haş etti. Şimdi idrak ediyoruz ki o şerait dahilinde bu harbe o süratle iştirak etmek izmihlal-âver bir gaflet imiş. Hele Brest-Litovsk muahedesi imzalandıktan sonra inat göstermek caniyane bir hata idi. Bunu gözyaşlarıyla itiraf ederiz.
Gafletler, hatalar, ihanetler bir tarafa bir bırakılıp da bu vakaya dahil ve hakim olan Türk ruhu tedkik olunursa görülür ki Türk gördüğü fenalıkları unutmayacak bir fıtrattadır. Maziyi herc ü merc etmiş olan bu haslet-i kindaraneden istikbal-i beşer emin kalmak istenirse, hakkına fazla tecavüz olunmak hatası irtikab olunmasın.
Rusya Kırım muharebesinin intikamını 93 seferiyle aldı. Biz de 93 ve diğer hengameler namına o hasm-ı a’sâr-dîdeden ahz-ı sâr ettik. Dübb-i şimalin iki yüz elli senelik tasallutları ve bunların hatıra-i ebed-bidârı olmasaydı, Almanya imparatoru Türk’ün ruh-ı necîbini
277
Enver gibi fürû-mâye bir şahs-ı zelîl vasıtasıyla teshîr edemezdi, hiçbir vakit Almanların dostu olmadık. Biz Moskofların düşmanı idik. Çanakkale’de, Kafkas, Irak, Filistin cephelerinde, hatta Galiçya, Romanya gibi doğrudan doğruya alakadar olmadığımız mahallerde kahramanân-ı esatiri i’câb edenler, hep Moskof gayzına îsâr-ı hun ve hayat ettiler. Ve memnuniyetle.
Bizim son yarım asırda hemen hiç dostumuz kalmamıştı. Ve bir – fakat hacmen – büyük düşmanımız vardı: Rusya.
Her dostun düşmanı insana düşman olmaz. Fakat düşmanların dostu daima düşmandır. Son harbin bizdeki müsebbibleri ve hususiyle fena idare edenleri müebbeden tel’in edilsin. Fakat Türk’ün büyük fedakar ruhu bu badirede tezlîl edilmek ne layıkdır, ne muhik.
Payitahtımıza şeref vermeyen bazı düşman gazetelerinin neşriyat-ı gûnâgûnuna karışan bu iddia, Türkün galeyanı çabuk geçer sözü dünkü nümayiş-i muazzamının tesiratına tevdi-i hissiyat edebileceğimiz dakikaların birinde hatıramıza geldi. Hiçbir taraftan saik ve müşevvik olmadığı halde, İzmir’in derd-i ahîri münasebetiyle memleketin her tarafından milletin ka'r-ı ruhundan feveran eden teessür-i millînin serîü’z-zevâl olduğunu zannedenler pek ziyade yanılıyorlar. Biz aradan birbuçuk asra karib müddete rağmen Kırım’ı bile hâlâ unutamadık. Bu kıtanın ziyâ’ından seksen altı sene sonra doğdum. Bununla beraber çocukluğum o maceraya ağlayan gözleri idrak etti.
Hiçbir kavim bizim kadar mesâibe tahammül göstermemiştir. Bu tahammülü tevlid ve idame eden esbâb ve evâmil arasında yad-ı mazi ile intikam-ı milliye hürmet hissi büyük bir mevki ihraz eder. Galeyanı çabuk geçen bir kavim, üçyüz senelik bir devr-i fütuhatı vücuda getirebilir miydi?.. Bir üçyüz seneden beri de dünya ile uğraşıyoruz. Ve dahilden, haricden düçar olduğumuz bu kadar taarruzat, bizi üç asırdan beri hala ayakta tutuyor.
Türk serîü’t-teessür değildir. Binaenaleyh müteessir oldukdan sonra galeyanı derhal zail olmaz.
Bizi akvam-ı şehide idâdına koymak isteyenler, bilsinler ve emin olsunlar ki bu yetim akvam, yalnız tarihe tazallüm-i hal etmekle kalmayacakdır. Tarihimiz, lisanımız,
278
edebiyatımız var. Tarîk-i terakkide vâkıâ hatavât-ı müte'enniyane ile ilerliyoruz. Bu kabahat bizim değildir. Ne vakit mülkümüzü imara teşebbüs etmek istedikse karşımızda Moskof Çarını ve arkasında irili ufaklı birçok taçları sedd-i râh eder bir halde bulduk. Meşrutiyet-i idareyi kabul ve ilan ettiğimiz günleri tes'id ederken Avusturya, tamamiyet-i mülkiyemize ilk darbeyi indirdi. Ve bunu malum olan darabat-ı ahd-şikenâne yıldırım süratiyle takib etti. Ve ediyor.
(İMZA)
Süleyman Nazif
279
İLERİ 21 MAYIS 1919 – 21 ŞABAN 1337 NUMERO: 493-111
TÜRK ATİSİNDEN EMİNİZ
Muharreri: Mim Re
Mevcudiyet-i devleti tehdit eden tehlike-i uzmâyı teşrihten bir an hali kalmadık. Garb hayalperestleri akıbet-i elîmemiz kaziyesi üzerine mesut kâşâneler bina etmekten Yunan rical-i muhterisesi ecza-ı memalikimize dest-i taaddi ve tecavüzlerini uzatmakdan geri durmuyorlar. Avrupa, hidmet-i askeriyesinde kullandığı bu ücretli askerlerin ulufesini bizim cismimizden, kanımızdan veriyor. Keza dört senelik harb-i umuminin yüzünden dûçâr olduğu ziyanları, hasarları tamir ve telafi etmek için mamur ve feyyaz kıtalarımıza dest-i temellükünü uzatıyor. Güya ki harb-i umuminin müsebbiyiz, hasarat-ı azîmenin baisiyiz, düvel-i muazzamanın mevcudiyetini tehdid eden biz idik de onların cezası olmak ve âlemin huzur ve selametini temin etmek üzere imha-yı vücudumuza lüzum görülmüş.
Fakat cereyan-ı ahvale nazaran naire-i harb bizim başımızda toplandı. Kıyamet-i uzma bizim memleketimizde kondu. Sivrisineklere bile hakk-ı hayat veren murabba-ı siyasat, nedense şanlı bir tarihe malik olan kahraman Türkleri harita-i âlemden silecek kadar bir adaletsizlik icra ediyor. Bu icraat-ı kahirâneye bakılınca dörtler meclisi sulh-i alem değil bir mahkeme-i ihtilal-i cihan mahiyetinde, bila-tedkikat-ı amika, ağır hükümler verdiklerine kanaat getirilir. Eğer cemiyet-i akvam bu esaslar üzerine bina edilecek ve daima kavinin zaifi mahv etmesi mihver-i siyaset olacak ise bu âleme pek yazık! Galipler minhac-ı adaletten gidecek yerde harb zamanlarını, inkisar hayalleri şarkın âfâk-ı cazibesinden telakki etmeye kalkışacaklarsa yazık ümitlere, ümid-i cihana!
Bütün cihan emin olsun ki Türkler, adalet-i rabbaniyeye ve haklarının büyüklüğüne güvenerek en büyük bir mübareze-i mevcudiyete bir mücadele-i bekaya girişecekler ve tamamen mahv olmadıktan sonra miras-ı mübareklerini eyadi-i ihtirasa terk etmeyeceklerdir. Millet, büyüğüyle, küçüğüyle, erkeğiyle kadınıyla bu cidâl-i azîme karar vermiş hiçbir fedakârlıktan çekinmeyecektir.
280
Ümidimizi kesmeyelim. Cihan köhne bir siyasetin varislerinden ibaret değil. Milletler, daha uzun zaman müsâlemet-i âlemi birkaç kafanın hevesatına ve hatta dehasına terk etmek usulüne münkad kalamayarak mukadderatını ekseriyet-i âdilenin hükme tevdi' edileceğidir. Yekdiğerine kaviyen merbut, hakiki bir cemiyet-i ümem, yapılacak haksızlıkları tamir edecek ve umûr-ı münasebat-ı beynelmilelde bir minhac-ı sahih ittihaz eyleyecektir. Bu, münasebat beynelmilelin muhtaç olduğu bir inkılâptır ki dahili idarelerden tevellüd eden meşrutiyetler gibi cemiyet-i beşerde cari olan müsavatsızlık ve adaletsizlikten doğacaktır. İnsanlar, harb gibi bir beliyye-i ihtirasat-ı siyasiye saikasıyla ve bilâ-ihtiyar tahammül etmekten artık bıkmışlar ve müsâlemet-i alemi gizli entrikalardan başka ve metin ve merdane esaslar üzerine tesis eylemeğe azm etmişlerdir.
SANSÜR
Ta ki beşeriyet-i mazlumenin feryadlarına bizim de ah ü eninlerimiz inzimam etsin. Buna da muvaffak olamazsak dünyanın adalet tanır bir yerinde elbette feryatlarımıza bir aks-ı seda uyanır. Binaberin milletin galeyanını tebcil ederim. Padişahın en büyük fedakârlığı ihtiyar hususundaki azm-i şahanesini tebrik eylerim. Bütün millet el birliğiyle hak uğrunda mücahede etmelidir.
Milli kongrenin, vahdet-i milliyenin, fırak-ı muhtelifenin, ayanın mesaisini, İstanbul Türklerinin muazzam mitinglerini gördükçe bu gayret-i milliyenin heba olmayacağına kanaatim artıyor. Zat-ı padişahi bir meclis-i meşveret akd ederek mukadderat-ı memlekete mütedair müzakereler icrasını ferman buyurmuş. Keşke milletimizin her köşesinden ayan, ve eşrafımızı, sahib-i rey ve nüfuz zevatı da daha büyük bir meclis-i müessis olmak üzere davet buyursa idiler, ati-i devleti metin esaslar üzerine kuracak müşavirler ve kararlar ittihaz etse edilir. Çünkü bu zamanın icabatı mukadderat-ı millete, yine millet karar verir. Türklerin tehlike-i mevcudeyi bertaraf ettikten sonra da yapacakları büyük bir iş var. Her türlü makes-i temayülata olan yamalı bir usul-ü hükûmete nihayet verip milli, metin ve asri bir Türk devleti tesis etmek meselesi şimdiki mücadele-i hestiyyenin tetimmesidir. Ona da aynı zamanda teşebbüs etmek zaruridir. Bu teşebbüsatı yaptığımız zaman Türklerin atisini
281
hakkıyla temin etmiş oluruz. Her halde bir galeyan-ı umumiyenin semere-i feyznakından eminiz. Çünkü dinmiyoruz, hakkımızı istiyoruz. Vakar ile metanetle istiyoruz.
282
İKDAM 19 MAYIS 1919 18 ŞABAN 1337 NUMERO: 8001
HEYECAN VE BUHRAN DEVAM EDİYOR
İzmir'in işgalinden mütevellid heyecan-ı milli devam ediyor. Dünden beri Müslüman esnaf ve tüccar dükkanlarını sedd etmiş, İzmir'in işgali aleyhinde hamûşâne bir nümayiş yapmıştır. Dükkanların seddi ile çarşıların aldığı manzara-i sükûn u matem, milletin hissiyat-ı kalbiyesini tersim ve tasvir ediyordu.
Haricde dükkanların kapatılmasıyla icra edilen o hamuşâne nümayişe zamimeten Dârü'l-fünûna toplanan Türk gençliği, İzmir'in işgali ile milletin dûçar olduğu gadr ve tecavüzü pür-galeyan ve ateşin bir lisan ile protesto etmişlerdi. İzmir'in İşgali ile istikbal-i milletin son derece dûçar-ı muhatara olduğunu hakkıyla idrak eden Dârü'l-fünûn ve mekâtib-i âliye gençliği yani o istikbalin sahibi olan nesl-i cedid-i münevver, protestolarını yalnız tasvir-i hissiyata ait ateşîn ifadelere münhasır bırakmayıp İzmir için fiilen çalışmak üzere dahi ahd ve misak eylemiştir. Türkiye'nin her tarafındaki hiddet ve galeyân-ı milli dahi her dem mütezayid olmak üzere devam etmektedir. Gerek hükûmete ve gerek matbuata her gün gelen protesto telgrafnamelerinin miktarı yüzlere baliğ olmaktadır.
Milli cemaatlere dahi İzmir'in işgalinden dolayı düvel-i muazzama-i itilafiye hükümdaranına, rüesa-yı hükûmetine ve zimamdarân-ı umûruna protesto telgrafnameleri göndererek bu suret-i hareketin milliyet prensiplerine mugayir olduğunu ve şarkın asayişi için muzır ve muhataralı bulunduğunu beyan ve izah etmekte ve hak ve adalete rücu' edilmesini talep ve istirham eylemektedirler. Velhasıl İzmir'in işgalinden dolayı millette hasıl olan heyecan-ı milli ve infial her dem mütezayid olarak devam etmektedir.
Millete bahş-ı itminan edecek mahiyette bir kabine henüz teşekkül edemediği için millet resmi ve salahiyetdar makamlardan tenvir olunamamakta ve İzmir'deki işgal hadisesinin geçirmekte olduğu safahat hakkında resmi tebliğlerden mahrum kalmakta olduğu için meşkukiyet içinde asabiyyeti daha ziyade artmaktadır. Bu satırları yazmakta olduğumuz zaman yeni kabine henüz teşekkül etmemiş idi ve kimlerden teşekkül edebileceği dahi kati' olarak tahmin edilememekte idi.
283
Yeni teşekkül edecek kabinenin bugünkü ahval ve şerait içinde ne gibi evsaf ve mezaya haiz olması lazım olduğunu dün bu sütunlarda kendi fikir ve nazarımıza göre arz ve izah eylemiş idik. Bugünkü buhran, adiyen bir buhran-ı vükelâ olmayıp devletimizin istiklaline ve mevcudiyetine aid büyük ve muhataralı bir buhran olduğu için onun tesviye ve izalesini deruhde edecek kabine dahi ona göre mücehhez olarak mevki'-i iktidara gelmelidir.
Buhranı tevlid eden mesele milletin istiklalini ve devletin mevcudiyetini dûçar-ı muhatara eden bir mesele olduğu ve istiklal ve mevcudiyetin muhafaza ve temini için partilerin programlarında ve nokta-i nazarlarında asla bir ihtilaf bulunmadığı için, memleketin bilcümle partileri bu noktada ittihad eylemek icab etmektedir.
Zaten mevki-i iktidara gelecek yeni kabine öyle mufassal bir programın tatbik ve icrasına müekkel olmayıp ona bütün programı yalnız bir maddeden ibaret bulunacaktır. O da, milletin istiklalini ve devletin mevcudiyetini kurtarmak olacaktır.
Onun programında dahiliye ve hariciyeye dair müteaddid ve muhtelif maddeler bulunmayacağı için yüksek kabine teşkilinde fırkalar arasındaki ictihad ve nikat-ı nazar-ı farkları ve ihtilafları asla mevzu-i bahs olmamak lazımdır.
Siyasi fırkalar, haiz-i istiklal bir milletin, mevcut vatanında muhtelif siyasetlerin ve ictihadların tatbik ve icrası için teşekkül eder. Binaenaleyh milletin istiklali ve vatanın mevcudiyeti bütün fırkalar için muhafazası elzem en birinci bir şarttır.
Onun için vatanın istiklal ve mevcudiyeti dûçar-ı muhatara olunca bu muhatara karşısında bütün partilerin ittihad etmesi ve o muhataranın ref' ve izalesine müştereken çalışılması gayet tabiidir.
Muhtelif partiler bayrakları altında toplanmış olan efrad-ı millet, milletin organize olmuş kısmıdır. Bunların haricinde kalmış olanlar ise organize olmamış kısmıdır. Her memlekette bu ikinci kısım büyük bir ekseriyet teşkil ettiği misillü, bizim gibi partileri henüz pek za'if olan memleketlerde ise bu kısım pek mühim bir ekseriyet ve kuvvet teşkil eylemektedir.
284
Tehlike-i umumiye karşısında partilerin ittihadı hasıl olunca milletin organize olmayan kısmı dahi bilâ-tereddüt o ittihada iltihak etmeyi mukaddes bir vazife-i milliye bilir ve derhal o ittihadın etrafına toplanır.
Bir de bu ittihadın husul ve devamında kabinede nazırlık mevkii pazarlığı mevzu-i bahs olmamalıdır. Çünkü partilerce bir kabineye müzaheret etmek yalnız kabinede o partiye mensub nazır bulunmasıyla meşrut değildir. Kabineye nazır vermek ile iştirak etmeyen partiler dahi o kabineye pekala müzâhir olabilirler.
Bugünkü ahval ve şeraite göre, yeni kabinede aranacak sıfat ve meziyet, o kabinenin milletin ve padişahın emniyet ve itimadına ve itilaf düvel-i muazzamasının hüsn-i teveccühüne layık olmasıdır.
Artık bu sıfat-ı meziyeti temin etmek için yeni kabinenin mutlaka bir partiden veya muhtelif partilerden neş'et etmesi hususu mevzu-i bahs olamaz. Yeni kabine ister yalnız bir partiden neş'et etsin ister muhtelif parti mensublarından mürekkeb olsun, bunun ihtiyacına göre ona lazım olan şey bütün partilerin müzaheretini kendisine temin etmiş olmasıdır.
Yeni kabinenin bu evsaf ve şeraite haiz bütün milletlerin müzaheretine mazhar kuvvetli bir milli kabine olmasını temenni ediyoruz.
285
SABAH 31 MAYIS 1919 – 1 RAMAZAN 1337 NUMERO: 16013
HALA MÜTENEBBİH OLMAYACAK MIYIZ?
Bir memleket, büyük bir felaket ve musibet karşısında bulunduğu, ufk-ı mukadderâtının kesîf ve muzlim bulutlar ile kaplanmış olduğu zamanlarda hiç olmazsa seviye-i ilmiyeleri itibarıyla millete pişvâ olmak, muhtelif cereyanları selamet-i vatana mûsil yollarda tekâsüf ettirmek vazifesiyle mükellef münevverlerinin müzaheret ve muavenet-i samimiyesine mazhar olur. Hayat ve mevcudiyet-i vatanın mevzu-i bahs olduğu o müşkil demlerde münevverler, menfaat-i memlekete muvâfık bir siyaset tatbik ve hükûmetin yanında bir kitle-i rasin halinde ahz-ı mevki' ederler. Çünkü ancak böyle bir tarz-ı hareket, hükûmete gösterilecek büyük bir muavenet ve müzaheret, memleketi girîve-i izmihlalden kurtarabilir.
Memleketimizin âtisi ve mukadderâtı pek karanlık günlerdeki, her gün yeni bir kıta-ı vatanın hadise-i işgali haberiyle kalplerimiz müteellim ve nalan olduğu şu zamanlarda halkımızın, tabir-i aherle münevverlerimizin siyaseti nedir?
İşte bu makalede biz bunu mevzu-u bahis etmek istiyoruz. Hükûmet, sefine-i devleti kör ve câniyane bir siyasetin netice-i elemiyyesi olarak baştan kara edildiği müthiş kayalıklardan mehma-emken az bir zararla kurtarmak, Osmanlı devletinin, Türk milletinin beka ve selametini temin için aylardan beri sarf ettiği mesai-i hayriyenin semeresini iktitaf etmek, kimsesizlikten, sulh konferansında doğrudan doğruya müdafaa edilememek yüzündan payimal olan hukukumuzu müessir bir surette müdafaa etmek için Avrupa'ya bir heyet-i mahsusa göndermek muvaffakiyetini idrak etmek üzere bulunduğu şu sırada münevverlerimiz hükûmetin bu mesaisini teshil için nasıl bir hatt-ı hareket takip ediyorlar?
Kemal-i teessüf ile itiraf etmek mecburiyetindeyiz ki, seviye-i ilmiyeleri, tarz-ı idrak ve irfanları itibarıyla mazinin feci' derslerinden, halin vehâmetinden, istikbalin gözlerimiz önünde feci' bir muhtıra arz eylemek istidadında bulunan ihtimal-i mahûfundan mütenebbih olmak ve tarz-ı hareketini ona göre tadil ve ıslah eylemek vazifesiyle mükellef olan bir kısım münevverlerimiz, hükûmetin istihlâs-ı vatana ma'tûf teşebbüsâtını işkâl edecek, halâs ve
286
necâtımızı ancak isticlâb-ı teveccüh ve muhabbetlerine mutavakkıf bulunan İtilaf devletlerini kuşkulandıracak bir hatt-ı hareket takip ediyorlar.
Varlığımıza, rehâ ve necâtımıza ta'alluk eden en mühim ve hayati meseleleri bir tarafa bırakarak, beyhude gürültüler, koparttılar, adi işler şahsiyet ve istirahat ile uğraşıyorlar. Bundan mey’ûs ve meftûr olmamak kabil değildir.
Eğer bedbaht memleket ve vatanımız, bu günkü hal-i fecide ve ortada sekerat-ı mevt arasında çırpınan ve kurtarılabilmesi acil ve seri bir tedaviye muhtac olan cism-i vatan bulunmasaydı bu şahsiyat ve ihtirasatı mazur görebilecektik. Fakat bugün maatteessüf böyle bir vaziyette bulunuyoruz. On senelik kör ve caniyane bir siyasetin netaic-i vahimesi gözlerimiz önünde mahûf bir kabus gibi dikili duruyor. Memleketin vaziyet-i hazıra-i nazikesi böyle bir tarz-ı harekete, bu gibi ihtirasata mütehammil değildir. Ufak bir sarsıntı, cüzi bir asayişsizlik bu bedbaht memleketin sernüvişt-i siyahını tahtim edebilir. Bunu bilmek ve ona göre hareket etmek lazımdır. Geçirdiğimiz bu feci demlerde maziden mütenebbih olduğumuzu isbat etmek gerekdir. Bu vazife, dediğimiz gibi sınıf-ı münevverimize terettüb ediyor.
Münevverlerimiz, tuttukları sakim yoldan vaz geçerek, hükûmetin icraatını işkâl değil teshil ederler ve Avrupa da hükûmet ile tabakat-ı halk arasında sıkı bir temas ve müveddet bulunduğunu Osmanlı hukukunun itidal ve basiret, azim ve kiyasetle müdafaa edildiğini görür ise elbet hakkımızda başka türlü muamele eder. Binaenaleyh münevverlerimiz, memleketimizin vaziyet-i hazırasını, her zamandan ziyade bu dakikalarda itilaf devletlerinin muavenet ve müzaheretine şiddetle muhtaç olduğumuzu düşünerek ecâbini kuşkulandıracak, hükûmetin harekât ve icraatını işkâl edecek hareketlerden tevki' ederlerse büyük küçük her ferdin en büyük ve ciddi endişesini teşkil etmesi lazım gelen rehâ-ı vatana hidmet etmiş olurlar. Geçirdiğimiz vahim dakikalar, bütün milletin bir kitle-i rasin halinde etrafında hükûmet toplanmasını icab ettirir. Bu hakikatten tegafül etmek bizi muahharen ne kadar kanlı göz yaşları döksek dökelim, tamir ve tashihi maalesef imkan dahilinde bulunmayacak olan yeni felaketlere maruz bırakabilir. Aleyhimize yağdırılacak olan siham-ı taarruz ve tenkide ehemmiyet atf eylemeyerek bî-muhaba bu hayr-hahâne
287
ihtaratta bulunmayı lüzum addediyoruz. Mazinin feci' derslerinden, mecnunane hareketlerin bizi maalesef bugün sürüklemiş olduğu vaziyet-i feciadan o derece ürkmüş bulunuyoruz ki, bu bedbaht vatanın başına yeni felaketler ihdas edebilecek olan hareketleri tenkid etmek bu vatana samimi bir alaka besleyen her ferd için vatani bir borçtur. Vatanın hayat ve mematı mevzu-u bahis olduğu ve her ferdin efkar ve mesaisini hükûmettekiler ile tev'em olması lazım gelen bu feci' dakikalarda, münevverlerimizin mütenebbih olduklarını göstermeleri, şahsiyat ve ihtirasatdan tevakki eylemeleri lazımdır. Vatanın tehlikeye maruz kalan menâfi'-i aliyyesi karşısında böyle bir hatt-ı hareket ihtiyar ve takib eylemek, memleketimize bu müşkil zamanlarda yapılacak olan en büyük hidmet olacağını bilmek ve anlamak gerekir.
288
APPENDIX B
SELECTED VISUALS FROM ISTANBUL NEWSPAPERS
AKŞAM. 24 MAY 1919 – 24 ŞABAN 1337 NUMERO: 246
''Dünkü Miting İntıba'atından''
"Impressions from Yesterday's Gathering"
AKŞAM. 24 MAY 1919 – 24 ŞABAN 1337 NUMERO: 246
Dünkü Miting İntıba'atından
Impressions from Yesterday's Gathering
289
İLERİ. 3 JUNE 1919 - 4 RAMAZAN 1337 NUMERO: 506_124
-Ne kadar kıyafetinizi değiştirseniz azizim Venizelos yine Türkler farkına varacaklardır!
-It does not matter if you change your clothes Mr. Venizelos, the Turks will still notice.
It should be noted that along with ''Raisins'' and ''Smyrna'', the words ''Çekirdeksiz'' and ''İzmir'den'' are written on the boxes.
290
İLERİ. 19 MAY 1919 - 19 ŞABAN 1337. NUMERO: 492_110
İzmir Körfez ve Havalisinin Haritası
Map of the Gulf of İzmir and the Surrounding Area
291
İLERİ. 19 MAY 1919 - 19 ŞABAN 1337. NUMERO: 492_110
''Ne hassas terazi!''
Aydın'da 1,293,527 Müslümana mukabil ancak 223,924 Rum vardır. Nefs-i İzmir'in nüfusu 111,486 Müslüman, 78,497 Rumdan ibarettir.
(Yukarıya derc ettiğimiz resim aradaki gayr-ı kâbil-i inkâr farkı temsil etmektedir.)
''What sensitive scales!''
There are 1,293,527 Muslims in Aydın as opposed to 223,924 Rum. The population of İzmir is composed of 111,486 Muslims and 78,497 Rum.
(Yukarıya derc ettiğimiz resim aradaki gayr-ı kâbil-i inkâr farkı temsil etmektedir.)
292
İLERİ. 17 MAY 1919 - 17 ŞABAN 1337. NUMERO: 479_108
Wilson Prensipleri Nerede? Hakkın Kuvvete Galebesini İstiyoruz.
Where are the Wilson Principles? We Want that Right Triumphs over Might.
293
İLERİ. 16 MAY 1919 - 16 ŞABAN 1337. NUMERO: 477_106.
İzmir Rıhtımının Bir Manzarası.
A View of the İzmir Peer.
294
İLERİ. 16 MAY 1919 - 16 ŞABAN 1337. NUMERO: 477_106
İzmir ve Havalisi.
İzmir and the Surrounding Areas.
295
ZAMAN. 17 MAY 1919 - 17 ŞABAN 1337. NUMERO: 369.
Müslüman: 1295,500 Rum: 233,914 Musevi: 36,750
Ermeni: 21,194 Katolik: 3,611
Musim: 1295,500 Rum: 233,914 Jewish: 36,750
Armenian: 21,194 Catholic: 3,611
296
ZAMAN. 17 MAY 1919 - 17 ŞABAN 1337. NUMERO: 369.
- Son haber...
- Okusana!... Alt tarafı..
-Alt taraf bembeyaz. Demek ki daha havadis gelmemiş olacak, yalnız haber veriyorlar!
- Breaking News...
- Read it!... The part below..
-It's all white. I guess the news have not arrived yet, they just let us know!
297
ZAMAN. 20 MAY 1919 - 20 ŞABAN 1337. NUMERO 372.
Wilson prensiplerinin yeni bir tarz-ı tatbiki:
Akalliyetin hukuku muhafaza edilecektir!
A New Way of Implementing the Wilson Principles:
The Rights of the Minorities will be protected!
298
ZAMAN. 24 MAY 1919 - 24 ŞABAN 1337. NUMERO: 376.
Dünkü Mitingin Bir Safhası
A Part of the Gathering Yesterday
299
ZAMAN. 24 MAY 1919 - 24 ŞABAN 1337. NUMERO: 376.
Şehrimizin Dünkü İntıbaatından:
Sultanahmet Meydanındaki Miting.
Yesterday's Impressions from Our City:
Gathering in the Sultanahmet Square.
ZAMAN. 24 MAY 1919 - 24 ŞABAN 1337. NUMERO: 376.
Dünkü Mitingin Diğer Bir Safhası
Another Part of Yesterday's Gathering
300
ZAMAN. 24 MAY 1919 - 24 ŞABAN 1337. NUMERO: 376.
Mehmed Emin Bey Hitabesini İrad Ederken...
Mehmed Emin Bey during His Speech...
301
ZAMAN. 24 MAY 1919 - 24 ŞABAN 1337. NUMERO: 376.
Halide Hanım İrad-ı Nutuk Ederken...
Halide Hanım during Her Speech...
302
ZAMAN. 31 MAY 1919 - 1 RAMAZAN 1337. NUMERO 383.
Dünkü Tezahürat-ı Vatanperveraneden Bir İntiba'
An Impression from Yesterday's Patriotic Gathering
303
ZAMAN. 31 MAY 1919 - 1 RAMAZAN 1337. NUMERO 383.
Hamdullah Suphi Bey Hitabesini İrad Ederken...
Hamdullah Suphi Bey during His Speech...
304
ZAMAN. 31 MAY 1919 - 1 RAMAZAN 1337. NUMERO 383.
İsmail Hakkı Bey İrad-ı Nutuk Ederken...
İsmail Hakkı Bey during His Speech...
305
ZAMAN. 31 MAY 1919 - 1 RAMAZAN 1337. NUMERO 383.
Bayezid Cami-i Şerifi
Bayezid Mosque
ZAMAN. 31 MAY 1919 - 1 RAMAZAN 1337. NUMERO 383.
Dünkü Mitingin Bir Safhası
A Part of Yesterday's Gathering
306
VAKİT. 24 MAY 1919 - 23 ŞABAN 1337. Numero: 565
"Sultanahmet Meydanında Türklerin Hakk ve İstiklal Davası"
"Turks' Fight for their Rights and Liberty at the Sultanahmet Square"
VAKİT. 24 MAY 1919 - 23 ŞABAN 1337. Numero: 565
"Dünkü Mitingde Asayiş ve İnzibatı Temin Edenler"
"The Ones who Provide Order and Security during the Gathering Yesterday"
307
VAKİT: 31 MAY 1919 - 1 RAMAZAN 1337. NUMERO: 572
Sultanahmet'de Yapılan Dünkü Büyük Mitingte
Şair Mehmed Emin Bey, İrad-ı Nutuk Ederken
Şair Mehmed Emin Bey during His Speech at the Great Gathering held in the Sultanahmet Square
308
VAKİT: 31 MAY 1919 - 1 RAMAZAN 1337. NUMERO: 572
Dünkü dua ve dava gününde: Sultanahmet İctimaı
Şukûfe Nihal Hanım, nutuk irad ederken.
During the Day of Prayer and Cause: The Sultanahmet Gathering
Şukûfe Nihal Hanım during Her Speech
İLERİ. 22 MAY 1919 - 22 ŞABAN 1337. NUMERO: 494-112.
"Wilson Prensipleri"
"Wilson Principles"
309
BIBLIOGRAPHY
NEWSPAPER ARTICLES
Alemdâr
"(300,000)e Karib Müslüman." Alemdâr. Numero: 152-1462, 24 Şaban 1337 / 24
May 1919.
"Beyanname". Alemdâr. Numero: 144-1454, 16 Şaban 1337 / 16 May 1919.
"Dünkü Miting." Alemdâr. Numero: 147-1458, 20 Şaban 1337 / 20 May 1919.
"Dünkü Miting." Alemdâr. Numero: 159-1469, 1 Ramazan 1337 / 31 May 1919.
"Dünkü Muazzam Miting – İstanbul Türk Kalacaktır." Alemdâr, Numero: 394-2694, 22 Rebiyyülâhir 1338 / 14 Kanunisâni 1920. p. 1.
"Dünkü Muazzam Miting," Alemdâr, Numero: 300-2600, 15 Muharrem 1338 / 11 Teşrînievvel 1919.
"İzmir Hadisesi Etrafında. Tezahürat Her Tarafta Devam Ediyor." Alemdâr. Numero:
147-1457, 19 Şaban 1337 / 19 May 1919.
"Kardeşler!" Alemdâr. Numero: 151-1471, 23 Şaban 1337 / 23 May 1919.
Refi' Cevad. ''Hak İsterim,'' Alemdâr, Numero: 147-1458, 20 Şaban 1337 / 20 May 1919.
Refi Cevad. "İzmir Hadisesi Münasebetiyle." Alemdâr. Numero: 145-1455, 17
Şaban 1337 / 17 May 1919.
Hadisât
"1,239,782 Türk ve Müslüman 298,373 Rum'ın Rıbka-i Zulm ve Esaretine
Mevdu!!!" Hadisât. Numero: 137, 17 Şaban 1337 / 17 May 1919.
"Dün Üsküdar'da Büyük Bir İctima' Akd Edildi." Hadisât. Numero: 141, 21 Şaban
1337 / 21 May 1919.
"Dünkü İkinci Sultanahmet Mitingi." Hadisât. Numero: 150, 1 Ramazan 1337 / 31
May 1919.
"Dünkü Kadıköy İctiması – Yağmur Altında 15,000 Kişi." Hadisât. Numero: 143, 23
Şaban 1337 / 23 May 1919.
"Gözyaşlarımız Olsun, Bırakınız Aksın." Hadisât. Numero: 137, 17 Şaban 1337 / 17
310
May 1919.
"İstanbul Dün İzmir İçin Çırpındı." Hadisât. Numero: 140, 20 Şaban 1337 / 20 May 1919.
"İzmir'in İşgali." Hadisât. Numero: 137, 17 Şaban 1337 / 17 May 1919.
Süleyman Nazif "İzmir'in İşgâli." Hadisât. Numero: 137, 17 Şaban 1337 / 17 May
1919.
"Tarihin Kayıd Ettiği Bir Gün – Padişahı İçin Can Veren Bir Millet." Hadisât.
Numero: 144, 24 Şaban 1337 / 24 May 1919.
İkdâm
"Dünkü Muazzam İctimâ': İzmir Türkiye'nin; İstanbul Türklerindir." İkdâm, Numero: 8234, 22 Rebiyyülâhir 1338 / 14 Kanunisâni 1920.
''Halk Mitingi Bugün Akd Ediliyor,'' İkdâm. Numero: 8005, 22 Şaban 1337 /
23 May 1919.
"İzmir Hadisesinin İstanbul be Vilâyâtdaki Teessüratı: İstanbul Gençlerinin Dünkü Tezâhüratı," İkdâm. Numero: 8001, 18 Şaban 1337 / 19 May 1919.
"İzmir Hadisesi Milletin Kalbine Kök Saldı." İkdâm. Numero: 8003, 20 Şaban 1337 /
21 May 1919.
"İzmir'in İşgali". İkdâm. Numero: 7999, 16 Şaban 1337 / 17 May 1919.
"İzmir İşgali Meselesi: Vilayattan Varid Olan Telgrafnameler." İkdâm. Numero:
7999, 16 Şaban 1337 / 17 May 1919.
"Sevgili İzmir İçin İstanbul Müslümanlarının Dünkü Tezahüratı." İkdâm. Numero:
8002, 19 Şaban 1337 / 20 May 1919.
"Sultanahmet Cami-i Şerîfinde," İkdâm, Numero: 1418, 15 Muharrem 1338 / 11 Teşrîn-i Evvel 1919.
"Sultanahmet Meydanında Yüzbine Karib Ehl-i Tehvidin İctiması." İkdâm.
Numero: 8013, 1 Ramazan 1337 / 31 May 1919.
"Tebliğ-i Resmi". İkdâm. Numero: 7998, 15 Şaban 1337 / 16 May 1919.
''Verilen Karar,'' İkdâm, Numero: 8006, 23 Şaban 1337 / 24 May 1919.
"Yüzbin Müslüman Sultanahmet Meydanında Muazzam Bir Miting Akd Eyledi."
311
İkdâm. Numero: 8006, 23 Şaban 1337 / 24 May 1919.
İleri
"Ayasofya'daki Muazzam Miting." İleri. Numero: 506-121, 1 Ramazan 1337 / 31
May 1919.
"Dünkü Tezahürat-ı Milliye – Dünkü Büyük Miting." İleri. Numero: 493-111, 21
Şaban 1337 / 21 May 1919.
"Gün Geçirmeyelim." İleri. Numero: 492-110, 20 Şaban 1337 / 20 May 1919.
"İstanbul Müslümanları Dün Sultanahmet Camii'inde Sevgili İzmir'imiz İçin Yine
Feryad Etti, Hakkını İstedi." İleri, Numero: 630, 15 Muharrem 1338 / 11 Teşrîn-i Evvel 1919.
"Kalplerimizin Matemi Devam Ediyor – Kadıköy'de Büyük Miting." İleri. Numero:
495-113, 23 Şaban 1337 / 23 May 1919.
Mim. Re. "Heyet-i Vükela Dün İstifa Etmişlerdir." İleri. Numero: 479-108, 17
Şaban 1337 / 17 May 1919.
Mim. Re. "İzmir İşgali," İleri. Numero: 477-106, 16 Şaban 1337 / 16 May 1919.
Mim. Re. "Wilson Prensipleri Nerede? Hakkın Kuvvete Galebesini İstiyoruz." İleri.
Numero: 489-107, 17 Şaban 1337 / 17 May 1919.
"Pay-i Tahttaki Tezahürat-ı Milliye" İleri. Numero: 492-110, 20 Şaban 1337 / 20
May 1919.
"Sultanahmet Camii Dün İzmir İçin Bir Kez Daha Titredi," İleri, Numero: 630, 15 Muharrem 1338 / 11 Teşrîn-i Evvel 1919.
"Sultanahmet'te Yüzbinlerce Müslüman." İleri. Numero: 496-114, 24 Şaban 1337 /
24 May 1919.
""Türkler İzmir'i Unutamaz - Gençlik Vazifesini Hissediyor". İleri. Numero: 491-109, 19 Şaban 1337 / 19 May 1919.
"Wilson Prensipleri Nerede? Hakkın Kuvvete Galebesini İstiyoruz." İleri. Numero:
479-108, 17 Şaban 1337 / 17 May 1919.
"Yüz Binlerce Müslüman Dün Sultanahmet'de Toplandı." İleri, Numero: 820, 22 Rebiü'l-Âhir 1338 / 14 Kanun-i Sâni 1920.
Sabâh – Peyâm – Peyâm-ı Sabâh
312
''Bugünkü Miting." Sabâh. Numero: 10604, 22 Şaban 1337 / 23 May 1919.
"Dünkü Halk İctiması." Sabâh. Numero: 10612, 1 Ramazan 1337 / 31 May 1919.
"Dünkü Miting." Sabâh. Numero: 10601, 19 Şaban 1337 / 20 May 1919.
"Dünkü Muazzam İctimâ.'" Peyâm-ı Sabâh, Numero: 10825, 22 Rebiyyülâhir 1338 / 14 Kanunisâni 1920.
"Dünkü Muazzam Miting." Sabâh. Numero: 10605, 23 Şaban 1337 / 24 May 1919.
"Dünkü Tezahürat-ı Milliye." Sabâh. Numero: 10600, 18 Şaban 1337 / 19 May 1919.
"Fezleke-i Siyâsiye," Peyâm, Numero: 310-68, 15 Muharrem 1338 / 11 Teşrînievvel 1919.
"İzmir Fecâi'ine Karşı Dünkü İctima'nın Mukarreratı," Peyâm, Numero: 310-68, 15
Muharrem 1338 / 11 Teşrîn-i Evvel 1919.
"Kabinenin İstifası": Sabâh. Numero: 10598, 16 Şaban 1337 / 17 May 1919.
"Tebliğ-i Resmi". Sabâh. Numero: 10597, 15 Şaban 1337 / 16 May 1919.
"Üsküdar'da Tezahürât-ı Milliye." Sabâh. Numero: 10602, 20 Şaban 1337 / 21 May
1919.
SECONDARY LITERATURE
Adkisson, Laura Madge. Great Britain and the Kemalist Movement for Turkish Independence, 1919-1923. (Austin: University of Texas, 1958)
Akşin, Sina. İstanbul Hükümetleri ve Milli Mücadele. Cilt 1. (İstanbul: Cem
Yayınevi. 1992),
Arıburnu, Kemal. Milli Mücadelede İstanbul Mitingleri. (Ankara: Yeni Matbaa.
1951).
Ateş, Toktamış. Türk Devrim Tarihi. (İstanbul: Der Yayınları, 1998)
Bayar, Celal. Ben de Yazdım: Milli Mücadele'ye Giriş. (Baha Matbaası: 1965) v. 6
Belen, Fahri. Türk Kurtuluş Savaşı. (Ankara: Kültür ve Turizm Bakanlığı Yayınları
542. Atatürk Dizisi: 18. 1983).
Berber, Engin. Bir İzmir Kabusu. Mütareke ve İşgal Dönemine Ait Yazılar. (İzmir:
İzmir Büyükşehir Belediyesi Kültür Yayını. 2002).
Boray, Ferit Erden. Kuvvayı Milliye ve Ölümsüz Kadın Kahramanlar. (İstanbul: Kum Saati Yayınları, 2008)
313
Busch, Briton Cooper. Mudros to Lausanne: Britain's frontierin West Asia, 1918-
1923. (New York: State University of New York Press. 1976).
Cebesoy, Ali Fuat. Milli Mücadele Hatıraları. (İstanbul: Vatan Neşriyatı, 1953)
Çağrı, Erhan. "Greek Occupation of İzmir and Adjoining Territories Report of the
Inter-Allied Commission of Inquiry. May-September 1919." SAM Papers No. 2/99. Ankara: April 1999.
Eldem, Edhem. "7 Şubat 1920 – Sultanahmet Mitingleri." Toplumsal Tarih, Ağustos 12, 2011.
Erikan, Celal. Kurtuluş Savaşı Tarihi. (İstanbul: Türkiye İş Bankası Kültür Yayınları.
2008).
Finefrock, Michael M. "Ataturk, Lloyd George and the Megali Idea: Cause and
Consequence of the Greek Plan to Seize Constantinople from the Allies,
June-August 1922." The Journal of Modern History. Vol. 52, No. 1.
Goldstein, Erik. "Great Britain and Greater Greece 1917-1920" The Historical
Journal, Vol. 32, No. 2 June, 1989.
Horton, George. The Blight of Asia: An Account of the Systematic Extermination of
Christian Populations by Mohammedans and of the Culpability of Certain Great Powers; with the True Story of the Burning of Smyrna. (Indiana: The Bobbs-Merrill Company, 1926).
Huddleston, Sisley. Peace-Making at Paris. (London: T.Fisher Unwin. 1919).
İzzet Öztoprak. KurtuluşSavaşı'nda Türk Basını. (Ankara: Türkiye İş Bankası Kültür Yayınları, 1981)
Jacobson, Jon. "Strategies of French Foreign Policy after World War I," The Journal
of Modern History. Vol. 55, No. 1, Mar., 1983.
Jaeschke, Gotthard. Türk İnkılabı Tarihi Kronolojisi. (İstanbul: Milli Mecmua
Basımevi. 1939).
Jelavich, Charles and Jelavich, Barbara. "The Establishment of the Balkan National
States, 1804-1920" A History of East Central Europe. Vol. VIII. (Seattle and London: University of Washington Press, 2009).
Kabacalı, Alpay. Türkiye'de Gençlik Hareketleri. (İstanbul: Gürer Yayınları, 2007)
Karaosmanoğlu, Yakup Kadri. Vatan Yolunda: Milli Mücadele Hatıraları (İstanbul: Selek Yayınevi, 1958)
Kinross, Patrick Balfour. Ataturk: The Rebirth of a Nation (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1964)
314
Lansing, Robert. The Big Four and Others of of the Peace Conference. (New York:
Houghton Mifflin Company. 1921).
Larew, Karl G. "Great Britain and the Greco-Turkish War, 1919-1922" Historian.
35:2 (1973:Feb.).
MacMillan, Margaret. Paris 1919, The Six Months that Changed The World. (New
York: Random House Trade Paperbacks. 2003).
Özkaya, Yücel. 'İzmir'in İşgali,' in: Berna Türkdoğan, ed., Milli Mücadele Tarihi –Makaleler-. (Atatürk Araştırma Merkezi: Ankara, 2002)
Selvi, Haluk. Milli Mücadele'de İlk İşgaller, İlk Direnişler. (İstanbul: Yeditepe Yayınevi, 2011)
Smith , Michael Llewellyn. "Eleftherios Venizelos: The Trials of Statesmanship."
edited by; Paschalis M. Kitromilides. Venizelos’ Diplomacy, 1910–23: From
Balkan Alliance to Greek–Turkish Settlement. (Edinburg: Edinburg University Press, 2006).
Smith, Michael Llewellyn. Ionian Vision: Greece in Asia Minor, 1919-1922,
(Michigan: The University of Michigan Press. 2000).
Somel, Selçuk Akşin. The A to Z of the Ottoman Empire. (Lanhman, MD: Scarecrow Press, 2010)
Sonyel, Salahi. Türk Kurtuluş savaşı ve Dış Politika, I. Mondros Bırakışmasından
Büyük Millet Meclisi'nin Açılışına Kadar. (Ankara: TTK Basımevi. 1995).
Stewart, Matthew. "It Was All a Pleasant Business: The Historical Context of "On
the Quai at Smyrna." The Hemingway Review, Volume 23, Number 1, Fall
2003.
Sonyel, Salahi. Türk Kurtuluş Savaşı ve Dış Politika I. (Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi: Ankara, 1995)
Strauss, Johann. ''Kütüp ve Resail-i Mevkute': Printing and publishing in a multi ethnic society,' in: Özdalga, Elizabeth, ed., Late Ottoman Society: The Intellectual Legacy, (Taylor & Francis e-Library, 2005)
Tansel, Selahattin. Mondros'tan Mudanya'ya Kadar. (Ankara: Başbakanlık Basımevi, 1973)
Tansu, Samih Nazif. İki Devin Perde Arkası / Hüsamettin Ertürk Anlatıyor. (İstanbul: Pınar Yayınevi, 1964)
Taylak, Muammer. Saltanat, II. Meşrutiyet ve I. Cumhuriyet'te Öğrenci Hareketleri. (Ankara: Başnur Matbaası, 1969)
315
Topuz, Hıfzı. II. Mahmut'tan Holdinglere Türk Basın Tarihi. (İstanbul: Remzi Kitabevi, 2003)
Toynbee, Arnold J. The Western Question. (London: Constable and company, ltd.
1922).
Tökin, F.H. Basın Ansiklopedisi, "Hadisât." İstanbul, 1963.
Uyanıker, Ferhat. Milli Mücadele'de Türk Kadını. (Ankara: Genelkurmay Başkanlığı, 2009)
Venizelos, Eleftherios. Greece before the Peace Congress. (Oxford: Oxford
University Press American Branch, 1919).
Yavuz, Resul. İşgalin Sancılı Yılları. (İstanbul: Akis Kitapları, 2011)