The Crumbling Ottoman Empire and the Seeds of Nationalism
By the early 20th century, the once-mighty Ottoman Empire had become known as “the sick man of Europe.” Having lost nearly all its European territories through successive wars and rebellions, the empire entered World War I on the side of the Central Powers, a decision that would prove catastrophic. The Ottoman war effort collapsed in 1918, leading to the Armistice of Mudros on October 30, which effectively placed the empire under Allied control.
This period saw the rise of Mustafa Kemal (later known as Atatürk), a military officer who had distinguished himself during the war, particularly at Gallipoli. As Allied forces began occupying Ottoman territories, Kemal emerged as the leader of a burgeoning Turkish nationalist movement that rejected foreign domination and the empire’s apparent willingness to accept humiliating peace terms.
The Diktat of Sèvres: A Treaty Designed to Provoke
The Treaty of Sèvres, presented to Ottoman representatives in Versailles on May 11, 1920, proved to be the ultimate rallying cry for Turkish nationalists. The terms were deliberately harsh:
– Restoration of hated capitulations giving Western powers extraterritorial rights
– Allied control over Ottoman finances to ensure reparations payments
– British and French control over Arab provinces
– Italian control over southern Anatolia’s Mediterranean coast
– Massive territorial concessions to Armenia including Van, Erzurum, Bitlis, and Trabzon
– Greek control of Eastern Thrace and occupation of Smyrna (Izmir)
– International control over Constantinople and the Straits
What remained of the Ottoman “Empire” was reduced to a rump state in central Anatolia, with Ankara as its de facto capital. The treaty’s severity backfired spectacularly, stripping the Sultan’s government in Constantinople of its remaining legitimacy and driving more Turks into the nationalist camp.
The Ankara Alternative: Kemal’s Grand National Assembly
Even before Sèvres, Kemal had moved decisively. On April 23, 1920 (now celebrated as Turkey’s National Sovereignty and Children’s Day), he convened the Grand National Assembly in Ankara, declaring it the legitimate government of Turkey despite the Sultan’s nominal authority. Kemal positioned the Assembly as defending the Sultan-Caliph, who was “imprisoned” by Allied occupiers in Constantinople, while asserting its supremacy over all Turkish lands.
The treaty provided Kemal with powerful propaganda, but the military situation remained dire. Allied occupation forces numbered over 50,000, while Greece had amassed 100,000 troops in Smyrna. Meanwhile, the newly independent Armenian Republic saw an opportunity to expand its territory at Turkey’s expense.
The Eastern Front: Turkey’s Strategic Pivot
The Russian Revolution created unexpected opportunities for Turkish nationalists. With traditional Russian pressure removed, Kemal sought an alliance with Bolshevik Russia against their common enemies – the Western Allies and White Russian forces. This emerging partnership would prove crucial.
Armenia found itself in an increasingly precarious position. Having bet on the wrong side in Russia’s civil war (supporting the Whites against the Bolsheviks), and with Western support wavering, Armenia became isolated just as Kemal’s forces, led by General Kâzım Karabekir, began pushing eastward.
Key events unfolded rapidly:
– September 1920: Karabekir captured Kars and Sarıkamış
– December 2, 1920: Armenia signed the punitive Treaty of Alexandropol
– Days later, the Red Army entered Yerevan, effectively ending Armenian independence
The Moscow Treaty of March 16, 1921 formalized the new eastern borders, with Turkey regaining most of Kars and Ardahan while Russia took Batumi. This secured Turkey’s eastern flank, allowing Kemal to focus on other fronts.
The Western Front: Greece’s Anatolian Adventure
While dealing with Armenia, Kemal faced perhaps his greatest challenge – the Greek advance from Smyrna into Anatolia’s heartland. Initially limited to coastal regions, Greek forces pushed inland in 1920, capturing symbolic cities like Bursa (the first Ottoman capital) and advancing toward Ankara.
The Greek campaign became increasingly brutal, with reports of burned villages and civilian massacres driving more Turks to support Kemal’s nationalists. However, political changes in Athens would prove decisive.
The Tide Turns: From Sakarya to Smyrna
The pivotal moment came at the Battle of Sakarya (August 23-September 12, 1921), where Kemal’s forces halted the Greek advance just miles from Ankara. Though not large by World War I standards, the battle’s psychological impact was enormous. Kemal, now commander-in-chief, declared that the invaders’ “corpses will fill the temples of our great homeland.”
Following this victory:
– France and Italy withdrew from Anatolia, recognizing Kemal’s government
– The Bolsheviks increased military and financial support
– Greek forces, overextended and demoralized, began their retreat
The final act came in August-September 1922, when Turkish forces launched a general offensive that routed the Greeks. Smyrna fell on September 9, followed by a catastrophic fire that destroyed much of the city. The Greek dream of a greater Greece in Anatolia lay in ashes.
The Legacy of Resistance: From Sèvres to Lausanne
The Treaty of Sèvres, designed to dismantle Turkey, instead forged a new national identity. Kemal’s successful resistance led to its replacement by the Treaty of Lausanne (1923), which:
– Recognized Turkey’s current borders
– Ended foreign privileges and capitulations
– Established the Republic of Turkey
– Mandated population exchanges between Greece and Turkey
The struggle against Sèvres became the founding myth of modern Turkey, with Mustafa Kemal emerging as Atatürk – father of the Turks. The treaty’s failure demonstrated that even defeated nations could resist imposed settlements when galvanized by nationalist fervor and strong leadership.
Today, the lessons of Sèvres remain potent in Turkish politics, where suspicions of foreign designs on Turkish sovereignty persist. The nationalist movement’s success in transforming military resistance into diplomatic victory continues to inspire independence movements worldwide, while serving as a cautionary tale about the limits of imposed peace settlements.