29 Aralık 2017 Cuma
After the Great War
When Sir Adam Block, the British delegate and President of the Council of the Ottoman Public Debt Administration, was preparing to leave Istanbul after war was declared in 1914, he made the following strange remark:
If Germany wins, you will be a German colony. But if Britain wins, you will perish!334
The devastating WWI that started with the firing of a pistol on July 28, 1914 came to an official end on November 11, 1918. Around two months after the finalization of hostilities, the Paris Peace Conference was convened. On January 18, 1919 some of the parties began to enforce the secret deals they had previously drafted while the war was still raging on. Britain and France, to avoid complete violation of Wilson's Fourteen Points, but not willing to give up on their colonial aspirations, proposed 'war reparations' instead of 'war indemnity' and 'mandates' instead of 'colonialism'.
The Paris Peace Conference witnessed heated discussions on the laws of war and on the sharing of territory; but these weren't the only topics debated. Secret steps were being taken to shape a new world order. With a session held on May 30, 1919, it was decided to make an elusive organization official, which the world's deep state would later use to shape the world. To better understand this structure, which is today known as the 'Chatham House', let's first learn some facts about its founding father, Lionel George Curtis.
Architects of the Treaty of Sèvres
Lionel Curtis first came to prominence during his activities in the British colonies in South Africa between 1899-1909. Appointed by Sir Alfred Milner to carry out various duties in the region, Curtis was accompanied by other Oxford graduates, who were also sent by Milner.
Known as 'Milner's Kindergarten', this was a close-knit group of people with similar educational backgrounds, lifestyles and shared values. They spent their time together in South Africa, and had frequent debates on social and political matters. The Kindergarten consisted of the following people:
George Geoffrey Dawson: Director and Editor of the Times magazine
Richard Feetham: Lawyer, Judge of Appeal on the South Africa Court of Appeals, member of the Transvaal Legislative Council
William Lionel Hitchens: Chairman of the English Electric Company
Robert Henry Brand: Managing director in Lazard Brothers Co.
Sir Patrick Duncan: Governor General of South Africa
John Dove: Journalist, editor of the Round Table journal
J. F. (Peter) Perry
After 1905, Philip Kerr (British ambassador to the US, 1939-1940), Lord Selborne and Sir Dougal Orme Malcolm also became a part of the group.
The activities of the Kindergarten group continued long after these particular members left South Africa.
The goal of Alfred Milner was uniting the South African colonies under the British flag. He helped transfer money to the Kindergarten from the 'Rhodes Scholarship', which was previously set up in line with Cecil Rhodes' will. The readers will recall from the first chapters of the book that Cecil Rhodes was one of the prominent Darwinist and racist members of the British deep state, who became rich in South Africa through diamond trade and mining.
In the meantime, Lionel Curtis began to be called 'the prophet' within the Kindergarten (Certainly prophets are above such remarks). Curtis managed to unite South Africa on May 31, 1910, through his pursuit of a global ideal. To Curtis, South Africa was a 'microcosm' and what was true for the British Empire was equally true in South Africa. After the unification was completed on the continent, he believed that the Kindergarten could "begin some work of the same kind" on the scale of the Empire.335
In 1909, Alfred Milner met with potential sponsors and supporters helping Lionel Curtis with one more task: enabling him to organize a Round Table meeting in the residence of Lord Anglesey at Plas Newydd in Wales, Great Britain on September 4-5, 1909. In addition to the Kindergarten team, Lords Howick, Lovat, Wolmer and F. S. Oliver were also in attendance. Shortly after, another exclusively British lineup joined, which included Leo Amery, Lord Robert Cecil, Reginald Coupland, Edward Grigg and Alfred Zimmern.
Lionel Curtis published an article in December 1918 in the Round Table publication, where he proposed that a League of Nations should be built after WWI to oversee a worldwide mandatory system. He believed that a British-American alliance in the management of the system would ensure international balance. Consequently, he was invited to the Paris Peace Conference. Then, he attended the League of Nations session chaired by Robert Cecil from the British Ministry of Information, who was also in the cadres of the Round Table. In 1919, the American-British Institute of International Affairs was founded, which would later transform into CFR (the Council on Foreign Relations) in New York, and the Royal Institute of International Affairs, a.k.a. Chatham House, in London.
First presidents of Chatham House:
Arthur James Balfour
John R. Clynes
Interestingly, this lineup was also behind the dismemberment plans made for the Ottoman Empire in the Paris Peace Conference as well as the Treaty of Sèvres.
Furthermore, again during the conference, the British-led commission decided to build the League of Nations.
New Turkey on the way to Lausanne
The defeat of the Greek army in Anatolia on August 30, 1922 by the Turkish army led to the Armistice of Mudanya on October 11, 1922. This cease-fire agreement stipulated that occupation forces leave Turkish territory and a final peace treaty be signed. Accordingly, the Allies sent a notice on October 27, 1922 to the Ankara government and invited it to the peace conference that would start in Lausanne on November 13, 1922.
Turkey fought 10 years to be able to reach the road to Lausanne. From the Balkan Wars that started in 1912 until the end of the Turkish Independence War in 1922, 5 million people lost their lives. Compared to other countries that fought in WWI, this represented the biggest casualty. The Turkish nation emerged battered, tired and impoverished from this horrible war and it lacked a state. However, despite all the setbacks, the Turkish people never gave up and made a comeback with a new state through the Treaty of Lausanne. This treaty is the sole peace treaty that is still in effect since WWI. All other treaties signed in the post-war era were revoked by WWII. In other words, Turkey is the only country that has spent the last 93 years without a war.
The Conference of Lausanne was an arduous, tense and strenuous negotiation process that saw hard bargaining. The negotiations started on November 20, 1922 but only on July 24, 1923 were the parties able to reach an agreement and sign the treaty. Furthermore, matters like Mosul, the Straits and Hatay could not be solved and were postponed to a later date. From time to time, talks hit a dead end and were halted or suspended. However, the new Turkish state was resolute on the National Pact (Misak-ı Milli) and would not budge on its stance on the Straits or the capitulations. Therefore, when the negotiations came to an end, the National Pact borders were preserved to a large extent despite minor surrender of some lands.
Britain, which proved to be the main source of difficulty for the new Turkish state during the negotiation process, due to its deceitful policies and ruses - even intercepting telegrams of the Turkish delegation - intensely employed deep state policies during the Lausanne negotiations and did its best to try and ambush the Turkish side.
Britain before the Lausanne Negotiations
It will be helpful to understand the British approach to Turkey before the Lausanne negotiations, and how it shaped its relevant strategies under the influence of the deep state. This point is important because this section of the book will focus mainly on the British deep state ruses against Turkey during the negotiations. To do that, one should first understand how the then British leaders viewed Turks and young Turkey.
Most British leaders, as previously explained, are selected among people that will risk almost everything for the 'interests of Britain' and the selection is almost always made by the British deep state. Because of this strategy, all the Conservative leaders that took office throughout history saw Russia as a big threat and opted to support the Ottoman against this threat. Needless to say, Ottoman being a powerful empire played a huge role in that policy. However, it should be well remembered that the British deep state inherently chooses to side with the might and not the right.
When the Ottoman Empire began to lose its power, and became vulnerable as 'a rich source ready to be exploited', the policies of the British deep state changed. This shift in attitude was marked by the Liberal Party's Gladstone assuming power in 1880 and his sudden hostile attitude towards the Ottoman Empire. Gladstone's East policy, as explained before, was largely built on hatred that reveals itself in the following baseless claims (Noble Turkish nation is above such claims):
No government ever has so sinned, none has proved itself so incorrigible in sin, or which is the same, so impotent in reformation.336
Let the Turks now carry away their abuses, in the only possible manner, namely, by carrying off themselves.337
Surely, it is not a coincidence that these remarks were uttered at a time when the British deep state started propagating the lie of Darwinism and when Darwin particularly singled out the Turks as a 'primitive race' (Noble Turkish nation is above such remarks). Superior-inferior race concepts, developed by means of the false theory of evolution, are nothing but a deceit and a curse introduced to the world by, again, the British deep state. The policy of hostility towards Turks was developed in line with that strategy.
The anti-Turkish policy of Lloyd George, who was another Liberal Party Prime Minister of Britain during the Lausanne negotiations, should be studied as a phenomenon not separate from the said strategy. The following 1914 remarks of Lloyd George clearly show his ill-natured outlook on the Turks:
The Turks are a human cancer, a creeping agony in the flesh of the lands which they misgovern, rotting every fibre of life. And now that the great day of reckoning has come upon the nation, I am glad. I am glad the Turk is to be called to a final account for his long record of infamy against humanity in this gigantic battle between right and wrong.338
At the end of the war, Lloyd George was boasting about having defeated the Ottoman Empire, supposedly the best thing Britain had ever done. However, he was unwittingly revealing the 500-year-old insidious plan of the British deep state. He wanted to take control of Anatolia, deprive the Turks of land to live on and even wanted to completely annihilate them. No one was able to do that before. George, being among the victors of WWI, must have believed that he finally had done it. His words during a speech given at the House of Commons on October 29, 1919, suggest so:
Practically the whole of the conquest of Turkey was the achievement of British arms. There were 1,500,000 men put into the fight with Turkey. It was the achievement of Great Britain, and we have got to hold it now. That is our doing. We have accomplished one of the finest tasks for civilisation this country has ever set its hand to—the emancipation of a vast country, one of the richest in the world, from the blighting influence of the Turk. After civilisation has failed for hundreds of years to accomplish it, Britain has done it.339
The Treaty of Sévres was so destructive for the Turks, it could well have been the dream of Lloyd George. The British deep state didn't come up with such a destructive treaty even for Germany, which started the war in the first place. Even though all the defeated countries had to surrender some territory, the treaties signed with them didn't make their entire countries open to occupation, like Turkey did. Lloyd George was convinced during the war that the ones that really needed to be 'punished' were the Turks. He believed that the goal of the 'Question of the East', a project of centuries, had to be achieved. The British deep state was never comfortable with the Turks continuing their presence strongly in the middle of that 'question'. It must have seen the outcome of WWI as an opportunity for a true solution to this 'problem', because Lloyd George didn't hesitate from voicing his intentions after the war (Noble Turkish nation is above such remarks):
When peace conditions [of Sévres] are announced the Turks will see what heavy punishment will be meted out to them for their madness, their blindness and their crimes... The punishment will be such it will satisfy even their greatest enemies.340
Sévres was indeed the death warrant of the Ottoman Empire, drawn up with this hatred, and it was built on the centuries-old plans of the British deep state. The Istanbul Government, affected by defeat, signed this death warrant without hesitation, and the Allied Powers, acting under the directions of the British deep state, one by one, began to invade our beautiful country.
It should be remembered that the destiny created by our Almighty Lord will always be in favor of the good and the innocent. Once again, this is what happened with Turkey. Even though Turkey lost in WWI, it didn't really lose. Lloyd George, the Turkophobe, made a big mistake. He underestimated Mustafa Kemal, his comrades, and the brave and pious Turkish people. The victors will always be the supporters of God.
As for those who make God their friend, and His Messenger and those who have faith: it is the party of God who are victorious! (Qur'an, 5:56)
The Turkish militia force led by Mustafa Kemal put up a great fight and pushed back the arrogant invasions of the Allies to rewrite the history of bravery. Lloyd George's plans failed one after another as the Turkish state and nation weren't made history, and didn't leave Europe. The so-called Sévres 'punishment', in the words of George, was thrown away unrealized. The British deep state was heavily routed by the new Turkish state and was forced to sit down at the table at Lausanne, following an epic Turkish victory.
The Lausanne negotiations have been analyzed and studied so many times before. However, this book focuses on the sensitivities of the British deep state, which came to light during the negotiations: Mosul and capitulations. Understanding these points is crucial because the unyielding attitude of the British regarding these topics during the talks gave away its future plans for the Middle East and Turkey. Indeed, they were the reason why the Lausanne negotiations came to a halt and even at one point, the resumption of the war preparations. Today, we can better understand the large-scale plans behind these two points, which the British side so adamantly pushed during those days.
To better understand this plan, first let's look at the root causes of the scourge of the PKK and the so-called 'Kurdish issue' that certain parties try to show as a problem for Turkey. The Mosul talks at Lausanne reveal a lot about it.
Mosul Issue at the Treaty of Lausanne
Mustafa Kemal sent İsmet Pasha (İnönü) as the chief negotiator for Turkey to the Lausanne Peace Negotiations. However, for that to be possible, İsmet Pasha had to be in the Council of Ministers. In a quick succession of events, he was made the Minister of Foreign Affairs, and was appointed as the head representative for the Turkish side. Turkish Parliament appointed a Board led by İsmet Pasha and consisting of Hasan Bey (Saka), MP for Trabzon, and Dr. Rıza Nur Bey, MP for Sinop. This Board, in turn, set up a delegation of experts to help them at Lausanne.
The chief negotiator for the Lausanne negotiations, İsmet Pasha, in his speech on November 3, 1922, assured the Parliament that they would not deviate from the National Pact. The resulting discussions and proposals were later handed to him by the Speaker of the Parliament as the decision of the Parliament.
* The general headlines to be discussed at Lausanne were as follows:
* Border issues (Iraq border-Mosul, Southern border-Syria, Wester border- Greece and Western Thrace)
* Minorities and foreign schools,
* War indemnity,
* Public debts,
* The Straits,
* The Dodecanese Islands,
* Ecumenical Patriarchate.
During the Peace Conference of Lausanne, Great Britain was represented by the then Foreign Secretary Lord Curzon. It is important to note that Lord Curzon was no different than Lloyd George in terms of his anti-Turkish sentiment. And just like George, he was one of the architects of the Treaty of Sévres. Never hesitating to voice his aversion to the Turks even during those years, he frequently said that Turks must definitely be driven out of Istanbul. What Curzon really had in mind was confining the Turks to a small Asian country with Konya as the center, taking control of Istanbul, Thrace, and the Aegean and Mediterranean coastlines and creating Britain-dependent countries like 'Kurdistan and Armenia' in East and Southeast Anatolia. What is particularly interesting is the fact that this horrible scenario advocated by Curzon is still one of the most basic goals of the British deep state.
This goal explicitly spelled out by Curzon was found risky by some circles. As a result, the British Cabinet instead suggested that the Turks and the Caliph remain in Istanbul, but that Istanbul should be further weakened. However, Curzon wasn't ready to give up on his impossible dreams:
We are losing an opportunity for which Europe has waited for nearly five centuries, and which may not recur. The idea of respectable and docile Turkish Government at Constantinople, preserved from its hereditary vices by a military cordon of the Powers —including, be it remembered, a permanent British garrison of 10,000-15,000 men— is in my judgment a chimera... But beyond all I regret that the main object for which the war in the East was fought and the sacrifice of Gallipoli endured —namely, the liberation of Europe from the Ottoman Turk— has after an almost incredible expenditure of life and treasure been thrown away in the very hour when it had been obtained, and that we shall have left to our descendants —who knows after how much further sacrifice and suffering?— a task from which we have flinched.341
Heavily influenced by the Darwinism scourge created and propagated by the British deep state, Curzon mentioned the so-called 'hereditary vices' of the Turks, referred to races and almost admitted that the real goal behind WWI was 'the liberation of Europe from the Ottoman Turk'.
As mentioned above, the Mosul question proved to be a highly disputed topic between the Turks and the British during the Lausanne negotiations. It should be remembered that the British deep state had the plan of building a 'Kurdish state' in southeast Turkey as part of the Lausanne talks. The establishment of the Turkish-Iraqi border ruined the British deep state plans, but at the same time made Mosul the center of debate. Two countries, which previously had many encounters on battlefields, had to prove their skills on a diplomatic level. The British side, under the auspices of the British deep state, didn't hesitate to resort to many insidious methods.
In order to fully understand the details of this diplomacy war over who would win Mosul, let's have a brief look at the history of the region.
Mosul throughout History
Mosul has been a Turkish land since the Seljuks captured it in 1055. After Sultan Selim I's Chaldiran victory in 1514, it became a part of the Ottoman Empire and then a state in 1534, following Sultan Suleiman I's campaign in Baghdad. This made Mosul the center of a province (vilayet) that consisted of Sulaymaniyah, Kirkuk and Mosul sanjaks.342 This province was surrounded by Iran in the east, Diyarbakır in the north, Baghdad in the south, Damascus in the west, Aleppo and Zor Sanjak in northwest.
However, an imperialist power with sly goals was emerging in the 1800s with dirty plans for this region, which had remained under Turkish rule for around 1000 years and 400 years under Ottoman rule: it was the British deep state…
Mosul was important to Britain due to the latter's imperialist exploitation policies. In the early 19th century, Britain had the highest number of Muslim colonies, and saw Iraq and Arabia, en route to India, strategically crucial to its Middle East policy. The British colonial empire believed that the safety of its borders and transportation routes, as well as the future expansion of its hegemony across the world, depended on being able to get to the open seas, maintain the power balance in Europe and control the world's oil policy.343 Mosul, naturally, was a crucial part of this plan due to its strategic position.
In addition to its geo-strategic location, Mosul was extremely valuable because underneath its virgin soil laid millions of barrels' worth of oil.
These were indispensable factors for the British deep state. More important was coming up with a strategy to end the Turkish presence in Europe and Anatolia for good. Mosul was at the heart of this strategy, which following pages will be focusing on in more detail.
In 1890, the investigation ordered by Sultan Abdul Hamid II revealed that Mosul and Baghdad were home to rich oil resources. As a result, the Sultan, by decrees issued in 1890 and 1898, declared these regions 'Magnificent Lands' (Memalik-i Şahane) and made them his personal property.344
However, when the Young Turks dethroned Abdul Hamid II on April 27, 1909, the ownership of Mosul and Baghdad were transferred to the Ministry of Finance. This development suited the interests of the British deep state and influenced their later strategies.
In 1909, Britain signed a deal with the Ottoman Empire and founded a bank named 'National Bank of Turkey', with 100% British capital, to create capital for its oil surveys and most importantly, to keep a look-out for British interests. In 1912, a group led by Sir Ernest Cassel started the 'Turkish Petroleum Company', once again with complete British capital, and to search for oil in Ottoman lands and run the oil business.345 At this point, it will be useful to remember how the British deep state first uses financial systems to build its hegemony. Once again, this strategy was in place as a means to strengthen the British deep state domination of the already weak Ottoman Empire. The scenario was oddly similar to what happened in India.
Mosul during WWI
When WWI broke out, the Ottomans didn't have a significant military presence in Iraq. On August 2, 1914, general mobilization was declared throughout the entire empire346 and in the days following, the Turkish army was reconstructed on the Iraq front. However, it didn't look very likely for this army to be able to fight off the regular armies of Europe. It was very difficult to replenish uniforms and equipment or transfer weapons to the area.347
Moreover, the number of troops in Iraq was very low. Ostensibly due to the Italo-Turkish war, the Balkan riots and the Balkan wars, the Ottoman army had to shift its focus away from Iraq. However, according to Ahmed İzzet Pasha, one of the Ottoman grand viziers, the real reason was different. The Ottoman Empire never contemplated the prospect that British could launch an attack in the region. In his memoirs, he explains the dilemma:
Even the kids know that the British have had plans for Iraq since a long time ago. Owing to the impressive cultural legacy and history of civilization of Iraq and Mesopotamia, and its reputation that, with good management and utilization, it could rival the fertility of Nile, Punjabi, Sindh and Ganges basins, these places proved their worth for their owners but also stoked the hunger of big occupying states. The tombs and families of Imam al-A'zam, extremely sacred to Muslims and particularly dear to Shia and very sacred to Sunnis, and the tomb of Abdul-Qadir Gilani, very beloved to Indian Muslims are located in Iraq. Therefore, it could be easily seen that Britain, with already a sizable Muslim subject population and with hopes of being defender of Hejaz, would benefit greatly, in terms of its Islam policy, from capturing this region. It was only natural that the British would set its eyes on Iraq, also for the purpose of preventing this strategically important place from being captured by a strong enemy that could pose a future threat against India. Separating Iraq region from local forces is the same as provoking and inviting the British government to invade this property of ours. Therefore, it is a great mistake that more troops are not dispatched to these regions, before the ultimate need arises.348
Although Ahmed İzzet Pasha clearly pointed to the severity of the situation in the region and the sinister plans of the British deep state, sufficient troops weren't stationed at Mosul. Needless to say, the fact that the Ottoman Empire was fresh out of the Balkan Wars at the time played a great role in this.
Iraq after the Siege of Kut
Despite all its shortcomings and previous defeats, the Ottoman army was still successful on many occasions on the Iraq front, which was very important for the Ottoman Empire. On November 22, 1915, the British were heavily defeated at Kut Al Amara. This unexpected defeat shook them greatly. The Kut Al Amara victory by the Turkish army is a very significant achievement that should be remembered as well and as often as the Gallipoli victory.
The British forces couldn't accept this unexpected defeat and made a particular effort after that point not to leave Iraq to the Ottoman Empire. To achieve their goals, they employed tactics to divide from within. After the Kut Al Amara rout, the British deep state increased the number of spies in the region, who were very knowledgeable about the fabric of Iraq, speaking better Arabic than Arabs and better Kurdish than Kurds. British also took advantage of people of Middle Eastern origins, who lived in Britain and who thought that they were indebted to Britain.349 The use of Britons of Middle Eastern origin against the Middle East is known to be a deep state policy that is still in use. Many nations, put under obligation to Britain throughout history, were seen to be potential agents willing to serve the deep British policies and were used thus.
Even in October 1918, when WWI came to a conclusion, the British soldiers continued to advance towards Mosul. The Iraq front became a place where the Ottoman 6th Army suffered great losses.
At the time of the signing of the Armistice of Mudros on October 30, 1918, marking the end of WWI for the Ottoman Empire, the positions of Ottoman and British forces in Iraq were as follows:
The British had advanced up to Al-Hazar, Al-Qayyarah oil wells, Altun Kupri, As-Salahiyah and Kirkuk line. Ottoman forces were dominant over Raqqa, Deir Ez-Zor, Al-Mayadin, Sinjar, Tal Afar, Hamam al-Alil, Sulaymaniyah and Halabja line.350
The Turks optimistically hoped that the places under Turkish control at the date of the signing of the armistice would be considered the 'Armistice Line'. Even though according to the armistice conditions the forces in the region should stay put in their current positions, the British forces didn't oblige. Continuing to advance, the British entered Hamam al-Alil on November 1 and after declaring that they would invade Mosul, asked Turkish forces to retreat to 5 km north of the city of Mosul.
Ali İhsan Pasha reported this demand of the British to the grand vizier and, as a result of a series of telegram exchanges, the grand vizier ordered Ali İhsan Pasha to evacuate the city on November 15. Complying, the Pasha left Mosul to the British on November 10 and retreated to Nusaybin, where he established his headquarters.351 As a result, British occupied Mosul after WWI, in violation of armistice and international war rules.
This occupation, though, didn't help the British initially, because they couldn't achieve domination in the region. The tribes and people in the region didn't want the British. People of Kirkuk and Sulaymaniyah refused to pay tax to them, and frequent street fights became a familiar sight. The majority of the indigenous people sided with the Turks. People of Mosul supported the Turkish independence movement that got even stronger with the opening of the new Parliament in Ankara. Even the Arabs in the region considered cooperating with Mustafa Kemal Pasha against the British. Based on British documents, Mim Kemal Öke explains that the Arabs and Kurds in Mosul preferred to trust Anatolia, rather than Faisal supported by the British.352 There were multiple reasons behind this choice and İsmet Pasha explained these as follows:
1- The residents of Mosul vilayet insistently demanded to be annexed by Turkey; because they knew that only that way they could be part of an independent country, and not a colonized people. Furthermore, those people have considered themselves Turks since 1055 and Ottomans since 1514.
2- Geographically and politically, this vilayet was a part of Anatolia. The British deep state felt it had to get to Anatolia to benefit from the Mediterranean trade and saw Mosul as a key that would unlock the doors.
3- In legal terms, since Mosul is still a part of the Ottoman Empire, any agreements or treaty Britain signs for Mosul are invalid.
4- In terms of Turkey's trade relations and the safety of the region, it is imperative that Turkey controls Mosul, which sits at the crossroads of the paths that join the south of Anatolia.
5- Most importantly, Mosul is a Turkish vilayet. For centuries, it had existed as a part of a Turkish state, and the Kurds, Arabs and Turks living on those lands are still a part of the Turkish state. Accepting the rule of another country is impossible for the indigenous people, who call themselves Turks.
6- After the end of the war, the Mosul vilayet, like other occupied regions of the Ottoman Empire, was taken from Turks in violation of the rules of the armistice. For this reason, it is necessary that Mosul, like other occupied regions, are returned to Turkey.353
28 Aralık 2017 Perşembe
The Lion's Den
After WWI ended, the British deep state was trying to conclude its occupation of Istanbul and Anatolia through spying operations, and was forging alliances with other European countries in a bid to solidify its steps towards its greater goals.
Allied Powers, the victors of the world war, shared mandate regions and oil at the San Remo Conference in Italy on April 25, 1920. Britain obtained 75% of Mosul's oil revenues, and received the control of the oil companies. France, on the other hand, settled for 25%. Further, British showed the 'election' of King Faisal in Iraq as the acceptance of the British mandate by the local people and persuaded the League of Nations in San Remo to accept it. Strangely, although the mandates could be placed only by the League of Nations at the time, at the instigation of Britain, the rule was applied in reverse order.354
One of the important purposes of the San Remo Conference was the founding of an autonomous Kurdish state in the southeastern part of Turkey. Britain suggested that an independent Kurdish state or a federation of tribes should be built and should be free from any official control of other powers. However, due to the reservations of France, the proposal was rejected, which prompted to make the
British to make another move. This strategic move would allow the Kurds to not only gain local autonomy but also apply to the League of Nations for full independence within a year.355 This development clearly revealed the true intentions of the British deep state. The aspiration of building an independent Kurdish state had always been their true goal, and a major reason for the Mosul issue. The British deep state viewed such a British-controlled state including southeastern Turkey as a crucial goal and hoped that it would weaken the Turks and even help expel them from Anatolia.
British Prime Minister Lloyd George said on May 19, 1920 during the San Remo Conference that the Kurds would not be able to survive unless they were supported by a major state power and revealed the approach of the British deep state to the matter:
It will be difficult to convince all the Kurds to accept a new protector, as they are used to the Turkish rule… Mosul, of which mountainous areas is home to Kurds and South Kurdistan, which contains it, are of concern to British interests. It is believed that Mosul region can be separated from other regions and join a new independent Kurdish state to be established. … However, it will be very difficult to solve this problem through an agreement.356
When the victors forced the defeated countries to sign treaties, the Turks proved an exception. Although the now ineffective Istanbul government had signed the Treaty of Sévres, the new Turkish state flat out refused to recognize it. Thus began a long war of independence for the Turks, even if they had just emerged battered from the devastating WWI. Nevertheless, the Turks managed to drive the enemy out of their country, and were now getting ready to sit down at the negotiation table at Lausanne in a stronger position compared to other defeated countries of the war. The Allied Powers, having to end their occupation of Anatolia after facing the epic heroism and bravery of Atatürk's forces, tried to defeat the Turks at the table in Lausanne. The British deep state's main goal at Lausanne was making the Turks accept the Sévres. What they failed to take into account was that this time there was a different Turkish administration. This Turkish state represented an altruistic, passionate, unconquerable nation, who fought tooth and nail under the leadership of the great Turk Mustafa Kemal, and secured a phenomenal victory. All the sides at Lausanne, most notably Britain, would soon realize this.
Efforts to provoke the Kurds of Anatolia
The Society for the Rise of Kurdistan was established on the day Armistice of Mudros was signed, which was October 30, 1918. The particular attribute of this society was its close ties to the authorities of the British deep state and that it served almost as the center of British spying efforts. Mustafa Kemal himself made it clear that the society aimed to build an independent Kurdish state under foreign protection.1 The British deep state used such organizations as fronts to devise its plans for building a Kurdish state in Anatolia. British High Commissioner Admiral John de Robeck, made this plan very clear on March 26, 1920.
"Kurdistan must completely secede from Turkey and gain independence. We can reconcile the interests of Armenians and the Kurds. Seyid Abdülkadir, the head of Kurdish Club in Istanbul (Society for the Rise of Kurdistan) and Şerif Pasha, the Kurdish delegate in Paris, are at our service."2
The aforementioned Şerif Pasha is the person who started the separatist movements in Anatolia under the direction of the British deep state. Together with Sheikh Abdülkadir, he made sure that the Treaty of Sévres had an 'independent Kurdish state' clause.
However, this plan of the British deep state came to nothing.
In April 1919, the tribes that Major Noel worked to draw to British side, vowed to fight on the side of the Ottoman Empire against the occupiers until their last breath. A telegram sent by the British High Commission to London reveals that 30,000 Kurds would fight along the side of Mustafa Kemal Pasha as soon as the Turkish War of Independence started. Around the same time, Kurdish tribal leaders were attending the Erzurum Congress and were elected to the Representative Committee.
Şerif Pasha and Sheikh Abdülkadir, spies and minions of the British deep state, carried out propaganda claiming that Kurds wanted to leave the Ottoman Empire. This propaganda led Kurdish leaders all over the country to send countless telegrams swearing allegiance first to the Ottoman Parliament and then to the Turkish Parliament in Ankara.3
One telegram sent to the Turkish Parliament on February 26, 1920 read as follows: "We learned about the separatist efforts of traitor and heretic Şerif Pasha, targeting Kurds. Turks and Kurds are one. Kurds and Turks are true brothers in blood and religion. They share the same land. Kurds never consider leaving the Ottoman community or the Islamic Union. They wish to live within the Islamic Union until the end of the world. We hereby declare to the whole world that we strongly disavow the activities of Şerif Pasha and other similar efforts and that we are loyal to our government."
The telegram was signed by the following:
Mayor Ali Riza, Yusuf the head of Keçel Tribe, Seyit Ali the head of Abbasi Tribe, Hüseyin the head of Kelani Tribe, Paşa Bey the head of Balanlı Tribe, Çiçek the head of Baratlı Tribe, Yusuf the head of Aşranlı Tribe. From religious scholars: Sheikh Saffet, Sheikh Hacı Fevzi, Mufti Osman Fevzi. From business circles: Arapzade Ahmet, Ruhzade Halis, Tavşanzade Recep, Hacı Eşbehzade Şükrü, Müftüzade Hakkı. From the gentry; Hacı Mehmet, Çapıkzade Münir, Ahmet Paşazade Şemsi, Beyzade Sami.4
After the Turkish Grand National Assembly was opened in Ankara, similar telegrams were sent there, too. The parliament records make it clear that telegrams were received from the residents of Solhan, Çemişkezek, Hasankeyf, Kangal, Palu, Bitlis, Adıyaman, Kahta, Ahlat, Hizan, Şirvan, Şırnak protesting the separatist movements and that swore allegiance to the Parliament. These telegrams were read in the Parliament. The following joint telegram of the tribal leaders clearly demonstrate the unity decision of the Kurds:
"Please be informed that we will assist and aid our government with all our might to ensure peace within the National Pact and that we never wish to hear that Kurdish identity is treated as separate within the Grand National Assembly of the Republic of Turkey.
Wishing success, we present our deepest regards."
Hacı Sebati head of the İzoli Tribe, Mehmet the head of the Aluçlu Tribe, Halil the head of the
Bariçkan Tribe, Hüseyin the head of the Bükrer Tribe, Halil the head of the Zeyve tribe, Hüseyin the head of the Deyukan Tribe and Mehmet the head of the Cürdi Tribe. From religious scholars: Bekir, Sıtkı, Rüştü, Avni, Halil, Hafız Mehmet. From the gentry: İzdelili Fehim, Hüseyin, Bulutlu İbrahim, Nail, Zabunlu Halil, Sadık.5
Apparently as soon as WWI was over, the British deep state was seeking to stoke problems not only in Mosul and within the borders of Iraq, but also in Anatolia between Kurds and Turks. However, the greatest answer to this insidious plan came from our Kurdish people again. Members of the Turkish Parliament in Ankara and the Kurdish people declared to the entire world - and especially to the British deep state - that Kurds and Turks are one and a whole. The British deep state, having failed with its plans with Şerif Pasha, would make another attempt after Lausanne and seek to use Sheikh Said this time.
1. "Kürdistan Teali Cemiyeti" (Society for the Rise of Kurdistan), Wikipedia, https://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%C3%BCrdistan_Teali_Cemiyeti
3. Van Bruinessen, Ağa, Şeyh ve Devlet (Tribal Leader, Sheikh and State), translated by Banu Yalkut, Istanbul: İletişim Yayınları, 2004, p. 27
4. Meclis-i Mebusan Zabıt Ceridesi (Parliament Minutes of Proceedings), Session LV, vol. 1, p. 208
5. Sibel Özel, "Anayasa M. 66/I Hükmünde Yer Alan Türk Tanımı Üzerine Bir Değerlendirme", Baro Dergisi, vol. 86, no. 2012/6, 2012, p. 48
Seeking a Solution for Mosul
The Turkish government demanded that the conference be held in Izmir, because communication between Lausanne and Turkey would be difficult. The real reason behind this request was their desire to closely follow the progress of the conference and prevent the loss of battlefield gains at the negotiation table. However, according to international traditions, the conference had to be held on neutral ground. Therefore, the invitation to Lausanne was accepted following a meeting at the TBMM (the Turkish Parliament) on October 29, 1922.
Some of the proposals and suggestions discussed at the Turkish Parliament concerning Mosul before the delegates left are as follows:
Delegates will request that Sulaymaniyah, Mosul and Kirkuk are returned to Turkey. If any unexpected situation arises during the conference, the instructions of the Council of Ministers should be awaited. Certain economic privileges, for instance, privilege in oil operations, can be offered to Britain.
The border with Syria should be pushed further south and southeast. Best efforts will be made to correct this border. The border should start at Re'si ibn Hayr, continue along Harm, Al-Muslimiyah, Maskanah and Euphrates road, Deir Ez-Zor and finally end at Mosul for the south border.
The desired Syrian border would be connected to Mosul, Sulaymaniyah and Kirkuk and would complete the southern border of the National Pact. This short but definitive instruction was essentially based on the National Pact, and demanded that certain land issues that remained unsolved with the Armistice of Mudros be solved (the Straits, Istanbul and Eastern Thrace).357
Mustafa Kemal made it clear on many occasions that he considered Mosul as a Turkish land and that he wouldn't accept the British mandate. For instance, on December 25, 1922, he explained his clear stance on Mosul during an interview he gave to Paul Herriot of Le Journal at Çankaya:
We declared many times that vilayet of Mosul is a part of the land within our national borders. The parties opposing us at Lausanne are perfectly aware of this. We made great sacrifices to build the borders of our country. We adopted a peaceful attitude although it was against our interests. From now on, trying to take apart even the smallest part of our national land from Turkey would be highly unfair. We will never accept it.358
During the independence war, Mustafa Kemal's plan had always been making Mosul a part of Turkey again and he made his intentions clear on numerous occasions. When the special correspondent of the newspaper Tanin sent a telegram to Mustafa Kemal and asked him about the Mosul vilayet,359
Mustafa Kemal answered in Amasya on October 22, 1919 and said, "Mosul vilayet is within the borders that were effective on the day the ceasefire was signed, which is October 30, 1918. It is a Muslim majority province and will never leave the Ottomans."360
Mustafa Kemal, on December 28, 1919, the day after his arrival in Ankara, gave a speech to his visitors and counted Mosul, Kirkuk and Sulaymaniyah among the places under Turkish control on the day of the signing of the ceasefire and reiterated that those places constituted national borders.361
When the United Telegraph correspondent asked Mustafa Kemal about how the Turkish nationalists saw the US and Britain, in an interview on January 17, 1921 he said that the US was friendlier and continued: ... As to Britain, our nation is offended by their imperialist and exploitative attitude.362
Mustafa Kemal also explained why Mosul was important for the British:
Mosul is very important for the British as it is the region closest to Kurdistan. British desired to keep Mosul for various reasons because Mosul is the closest route to Soviet Union, to Iran and the most convenient region to exert pressure on Turkey.363
In other words, Mustafa Kemal was perfectly aware that the British deep state focused on Mosul for the purpose of being able to corner Turkey, and he knew that Mosul was going to be one of the most challenging topics in Lausanne.
Winston Churchill, the then Secretary of State for the Colonies, said on September 12, 1922, 'If Britain and Ankara are forced to fight, it seems inevitable that Kemalist forces will march to Mosul. In such an event, even if the British loses these lands at war, it has to take it back not by military means, but in the Peace Conference.'364
Given that Churchill operated under the auspices of the British deep state for his entire political career, his words clearly demonstrate the British deep state's approach to the issue. Unsurprisingly, his instructions were followed precisely.
The Talks Begin
The new Turkish state had won the battle for its independence and was thus recognized by the Western states - except for one: Britain.
This attitude of the British continued throughout the Lausanne negotiations. London's administration was determined not to treat Turkey as an equal or a sovereign state, and because of this attitude the negotiations risked suspension on more than one occasion, and even came to a halt in February 1923.365
Unsurprisingly, the sessions on Mosul witnessed some of the most heated and tense exchanges.
British Prime Minister Bonar Law and the Secretary of State for the Colonies instructed Lord Curzon -who was the representative of Britain at Lausanne- that the negotiations should continue without suspension and the Turkish side should be persuaded. At the time, the Secretary of State for the Colonies wrongly believed that the Turkish government would waive its claims on Mosul in exchange for 20% of the oil revenues.366
İsmet İnönü and his aide Rıza Nur, who represented the Turkish side, maintained that Mosul was a Turkish vilayet and that all the Kurds living there were Turkish citizens. The delegation of the Turkish Parliament explained in detail the Turkish case with political, historical, ethnographical, geographical, economic and military evidence.
İsmet Pasha clarified his point with the following words:
The Grand Assembly of the Turkish Republic is the government of Kurds as much as it is Turks'. Kurds also have representatives in the Grand National Assembly. Kurdish people and their representatives in the Assembly do not accept the separation of their brothers in Mosul vilayet from the mainland.367
However, Lord Curzon, in an attempt to rebut the argument of İsmet Pasha, claimed that the Kurdish representatives at the Turkish Parliament did not represent the Kurdish people, that they had been appointed by Mustafa Kemal, did not have rights to representation and even implied that their election was dubious: 'As to the Kurdish representatives of Ankara, I ask myself how they were elected'.368
Yusuf Ziya Bey, who was a Kurdish MP representing Bitlis, gave the perfect answer to this allegation during his speech at the Parliament on January 25, 1923:
Apparently, our delegates in Lausanne didn't give the necessary answer to these accusations. We are the true representatives of the Kurdish lands, and we are here not by appointment, but by election. We took part in the elections under no pressure. If Kurdish people wanted separation, they wouldn't have participated in this election. Kurdish people participated in these elections despite all the efforts of British with their offers of gold. Kurds share the same goal as their Turkish brothers.369
Statements of the other Kurdish MPs that gave speeches at the Parliament should also be remembered. One notable example is Diyab Ağa, the 70-year-old Dersim representative, who was also one of the symbolic names of the Turkish Independence War. He said:
We all know and say that our religion, our religious affairs, origins and ancestors are all one. We have no differences or quarrels. Our name, religion, our God is One.
When the MPs asked Diyab Ağa what he said to the delegation that went to Lausanne, he responded as follows:
May God help them. May God give the best result. Thank God, the ones that went there are good people, pious and devout… We are all one. There is no question of Turkish or Kurdish identity. We are all one; we are brothers (interrupted by applause and 'bravo's). A man might have five, ten sons. One might be called Hasan, another Ahmed, Mehmed, Hüseyin. But they are all one. This is how we are. There is no difference between us (chants of 'bravo'). But enemies are plotting to turn us against each other. They are trying to sow animosity by saying 'you are like that, I'm like this etc.'… We are brothers. Our religion, culture is one. Some people don't know this. They say a lot of things, but they do not know. It is not how it is. La ilaha illa Allah Muhammad ar-Rasul Allah [God is One and Muhammad is His Messenger]. That is it. (Deafening applause and bravos).370
Süleyman Necati (Güneri) Bey, an Erzurum MP who later took the stage, said the 'majority of the people that voted for him were Kurdish', emphasized the concept of 'brotherhood of land' and reiterated that Turks and Kurds had the same history, that they weren't different people, that there weren't racial minorities in Turkey.
Yusuf Ziya Bey, a Bitlis MP, during another speech, said the following about minorities based on language and racial differences:
Europeans say, 'The biggest minority in Turkey is the Kurds'. I am a true Kurd. And as a Kurdish member of the Parliament, I can assure you that Kurds do not want anything. They only want the welfare and safety of Turks, their big brothers (Loud applause). We, Kurds, gladly trampled all the rights Europe wanted to give to us with that excuse of a treaty, called Sévres, and returned it back to them. Remember how we fought in Al Jazeera (Arabian Peninsula) (Another round of applause). Remember how we sacrificed ourselves and joined the Turks, we didn't leave them, and didn't want to leave them. We don't and won't want to leave them (Another round of applause). As I finish my words, I'm kindly asking our delegates [in Lausanne], to make sure that when the minority issue comes up, they make it clear that Kurds have no claims or demands and that they repeat my words here as a spokesperson for the Kurdish people… 371
Durak (Sakarya) Bey, who was an Erzurum MP, said that throughout the history of Islam, Turks and Kurds mingled and families became one in Anatolia.372
In a motion submitted on behalf of Mardin MPs, the Turkish delegation at the Conference of Lausanne was asked to declare that Turks and Kurds were one and a whole. Van MP Hakkı Ungan Bey said that it should be made clear in Lausanne that Kurds cannot be differentiated from Turks.373
Without doubt, neither the Kurdish population in Mosul, nor those in Anatolia, saw themselves any different than the Turks nor it was possible to separate them from each other.374 The indigenous people wanted to live under the same roof as the Turks and Kurds just like before, in other words they wanted to continue to live under Turkish rule. Even Arabs didn't want the British mandate and declared 'it is either Turkish rule or independence'. So much so, it became a common occurrence for the Kurds conscripted by the Iraqi government to switch to Turks' side.375
Before the war, in the region covering Mosul, Kirkuk, Sulaymaniyah and Erbil, the languages used for writing had been Turkish, Arabic and Persian. However, the British in the region took it on themselves to develop the Kurdish language and its written form. After a while, the British authorities turned Kurdish into a communication tool. Although the local people insisted using Arabic and Turkish in their daily lives and correspondences, the British deep state was adamant on Kurdish. They stipulated that even the newspapers be printed in Kurdish. Again, the British deep state worked to remove Turkish as the written language and introduced a ban on its use in private correspondences. The British deep state also sought to cancel Turkish as the official language in the region and pursued a deliberate policy of annihilation targeting Turks and Turkish in the vilayet of Mosul.
Academician and author İhsan Şerif Kaymaz explains the state of affairs as follows:
It is clear that Britain, having understood that Kurdistan will not be established any time soon, is making long-term plans in a bid to create a national Kurdish identity so that Kurdistan can be built. The fruits of these efforts will be reaped in a couple of decades and a process that will create serious problems for the future of both Turkey and the region will thus be started.376
Two people that lived together for almost a thousand years, that mixed and built families together, were forcefully torn apart according to a deep plan amidst the background of war. The architect of the plan was the British deep state, the perpetrator of all separations and divisions. For the sake of its interests, it accepted dividing a nation, and indeed as following pages will study further on, threatened and slaughtered them in a bid to make them indebted to itself. The British deep state has been the architect of divisive policies throughout history. No one could stand up to them and this mafia structure was never held to account for its activities. That's why this horrible policy continues today. Today, the plots around Southeastern Anatolia are the same as those concocted for Mosul in the early 20th century. The British deep state has been behind each and every one of them.
The strategy that the British deep state pursued in Lausanne to drive a wedge between the Turks and Kurds must be well studied, because the games of those days are once again being played in Southeastern Anatolia through the PKK.
İsmet Pasha, the head of the Turkish delegation in Lausanne, sent a telegram to Turkey on December 28, 1922. He was convinced that the British had absolutely no intention of leaving Mosul. Only a small border correction in North Mosul would be made and the issue would be discussed amicably.
Shortly thereafter, British General Townshend made a surprising statement to İsmet Pasha. He said that Britain would give up on Mosul, that they would not be the cause of another war. He added that within a year British forces would withdraw from Mosul and following that, the Arabs would riot against King Faisal and the Turks would be able to enter Mosul without a problem.377
Clearly, the British deep state had a secret agenda. The members of the deep state would employ every tactic to gain the upper hand in the tense negotiations and resorted to all methods to bewilder and put the Turkish delegates on the wrong track. Indeed, in another telegram, İsmet Pasha said the British sought to remove the Mosul issue from the scope of Lausanne; it was to be discussed later and turned into an issue between the two states.378
Nevertheless, İsmet Pasha saw through their plans, didn't find their suggestions convincing and resorted to the assistance of the French government as a first step. However, France said that the Mosul issue should be resolved between the Turks and the British.
At the same time, dissidents were getting louder in British parliament. Although Curzon claimed that it was because of İsmet Pasha's obstinacy that the Mosul issue was still a problem, it was viewed as a failure of Curzon at the British Parliament and a campaign against him started. On December 8, 1922, former Prime Minister Bonar Law wrote a letter to Curzon and made his stance on the issue very clear:
… There is a great campaign started here against you. Most recently, the letter Gounaris wrote to you on February 15 was publicized. The claim that you were the reason behind the Greek failure and not Lloyd George is being used as a weapon against you. A parliamentary question was submitted to investigate whether the Cabinet was aware of those letters. And I said, yes. The issue was investigated but no conclusion could be reached. It is very important evidence for us that your name is not mentioned not only in the Foreign Office list, but also in the lists that Horne and Austen left to their successors. So, rest assured. They can never blame you at all for this issue.379
It appears that Curzon was under immense pressure by the British deep state and was forced not to compromise on the Mosul issue. Because of this pressure, Curzon did his best to not give away Mosul at Lausanne, as it was an important leverage for the British deep state.
Seeing that there was no agreeing with Lord Curzon over Mosul, İsmet Pasha sent Turkish economist Rüstem Bey and Şeref Bey, the former Minister for Trade and Railways, to Bonar Law, the British PM who didn't wish for the negotiations to be suspended. This move angered Lord Curzon to no end. He wrote a stern letter to the British diplomat Sir Eyre Crowe on January 11, 1923 and said that unless the talks with the Turkish representatives were ended, he would withdraw from the negotiations about Mosul.380
Later Curzon sent another letter with the same harsh tone on January 17, 1923 to Walter Hulme Long, the Secretary of State for the Colonies.381 He said:
As a former colleague and friend of yours, can I ask you, how can you stick your nose in matters that I'm dealing with here? The other day, Rickett, with whom you are also acquainted, was here. Going behind my back and deceiving İsmet Pasha, he convinced him to send three representatives to London, with whom I'm sure you are familiar with.382 These representatives went to London to offer oil concessions in exchange for the return of Mosul to Turks. I, on the other hand, had made it clear that I was adamantly against the idea and that I would do anything to defend Mosul and with the policy I pursued, I aimed to make sure that Turks would have no dreams about those lands not today, not in the future. Rickett must have convinced Turks that he had a big influence on you and Bonar Law, and Turks thought that if they went to London, they could somehow take back Mosul. Of course, I cannot know how much you know about what's going on. The only thing I know is that you wouldn't deliberately try to make my job more difficult and harm the interests of your country. Please stay away from this oil adventure. Many disgraceful acts are involved in this matter that you are unaware of and which can stain an innocent person sooner or later. Rickett is most certainly an unreliable person. I know what he has been saying to Turks and what he has been saying to Sir G. Armstrong.383
The many disgraceful acts that Lord Curzon referred to were the dirty tricks that the British deep state staged behind closed doors.
Another important detail was that British intelligence had illegally intercepted the Turkish telegrams. With a special radio-telegram decoding system that the British installed in Istanbul, they could intercept and decode the telegrams sent by the Turkish government to Lausanne and sent them to London before the Turkish delegation could get them in Lausanne. After they got their instructions, they would sit down at the table, fully aware of the leverages the Turks had. Rumbold, head of the British delegation at Lausanne, was happily announcing this to his friend Lancelot Oliphant in the Foreign Office on July 18:
The information we obtained at the psychological moments from secret sources was invaluable to us, and put us in the position of a man who is playing Bridge and knows the cards in his adversary's hand.384
This allowed Lord Curzon and his assistant Rumbold to know when Turks could afford to be more flexible. Closely monitoring their future strategies, based on this knowledge they would either insist on a condition, or give up knowing that there would be no point pressing İsmet Pasha. This information also enabled the British deep state to identify points which the Turkish side would be more willing to discuss. Evidently, the British deep state didn't hesitate to apply its sinister intelligence policies even at the peace negotiations and tried to win Mosul through plots and tricks. This was more than a desire to obtain control over oil revenues and trade routes. Mosul was the first step in a 100-year-old plan against Turkey.