Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > World History Forum > Middle Eastern and African History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

Middle Eastern and African History Middle Eastern and African History Forum - Egypt, Syria, Israel, Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and all nations of Africa and the Arabian Peninsula


Closed Thread
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old November 24th, 2012, 11:08 AM   #1

koseku's Avatar
Lecturer
 
Joined: Mar 2012
From: Istanbul
Posts: 432
How did Hatay joined Turkey but Mosul and Kirkuk did not?


I wonder what was the difference that Hatay could join but other Misak-ı Milli regions like Mosul and Kirkuk and mayme Batumi did not join Turkey, if there would be an election like in Hatay, would they join Turkey?
koseku is online now  
Remove Ads
Old November 25th, 2012, 01:26 AM   #2

Midas's Avatar
Γορδιεϝαις the Phrygian
 
Joined: Dec 2011
From: Scandinavia, Balkans, Anatolia & Levant
Posts: 2,851
Blog Entries: 2

No idea. Hatay joined Turkey with 22 more votes for pro-Turkey. That is soooooooooooo tight as it can be. No problems there though. It has worked well.
Midas is online now  
Old November 25th, 2012, 02:56 AM   #3

Farinal's Avatar
Chapuller
 
Joined: Jun 2012
From: Constantinople
Posts: 2,177

Quote:
Originally Posted by koseku View Post
I wonder what was the difference that Hatay could join but other Misak-ı Milli regions like Mosul and Kirkuk and mayme Batumi did not join Turkey, if there would be an election like in Hatay, would they join Turkey?
There was no "British" oil in Hatay.
Farinal is offline  
Old November 25th, 2012, 03:14 AM   #4

Efendi's Avatar
Kayıkçı Efe
 
Joined: Jul 2009
From: Anatolia
Posts: 11,072

I second to the charismatic user above.

Kerkuk was withing the misak-ı Milli borders. (The border accepted as Turkish border during the independence war). But Turkey lost the land to British during Sheik Said rebellion in south east Anatolia.
Efendi is offline  
Old November 25th, 2012, 12:24 PM   #5

infestĝr's Avatar
Surprise pĝlse!
 
Joined: Jan 2012
From: Ẍ
Posts: 3,810
Blog Entries: 3

musul, kerkük and süleymaniye was indeed within the borders of Misak-ı millî. however there was the british and league of nations pressure over turkey at the time. ataturk and the committee did not want to risk another war with the british*. the plan was to take musul and kerkük later on once the turkish army was stronger (never happened).

batum was also within the Misak-ı millî. but it was given to ussr over the withdrawal of the russian forces from the eastern turkey in ww1.

ardahan and artvin was taken within the Misak-ı millî for the georgians favored this decision.

kars on the other hand had to be taken by battle from the armenians.

ığdır is rather a peculiar case. it was not within misak-i milli, at all. neither turkey not ottomans never claimed the rights on it. nevertheless, it was left to turkey after the withdrawal of the russian army. i suspect that these were sort of compromises by ussr since they got the best out of it: batum (kick ass city)

western thrace was to choose its own decision. this did not happen. but turkey did not push this over. the trauma of balkan defeat was still in minds of the committee.

there are 2 very common misconceptions about Misak-ı millî: hatay and cyprus was not within Misak-ı millî. (though we got hatay and ⅓ of cyprus later on )

*: here is a quote from the confidential documents about the turkish committee at the time:
(sorry it's in turkish only)
Quote:
"[...] musul mes'elesinin bir sene sonra halline muvafakat etmek mes'elesi. buna muvafakat ettiğimizde zarar mı vardır? kaideten şimdilik faide mi vardır. buna muvafakat etmezsek ne yapmağa mecburuz? bunları zan ederim, muhakeme edersek ve buna bir karar verirsek, bugünün işi hal edilmiş olabilir.[...] bugün suhuletle hepimiz anlayabiliriz ki, musul'ü vermemekte ısrar edersek muharebeye dahil oluruz.[...] bazı arkadaşlarımız, mesela sırrı bey gibi arkadaşlarımızın, medarı kelamı misaki milli oluyor. hey'eti murahhasa misaki milliyi mahvetmiş, heye'eti vekile misaki milliyi feda etmiş. ben de diyorum ki sırrı bey misaki millinin ne olduğunu anlamamıştır. misaki millinin ne olduğunu evvela anlamalı ondan mütecavizlerin kimler olduğunu meydana koymalı. efendiler, arazi meselesi ve hudut meselesi misaki millinin, mâlumu âliniz, birinci maddesinin dairesi şümulündedir. misaki milli şu hat bu hat diye hiçbir vakitte hudut çizmemiştir. o hududu çizen şey milletin menfaati ve hey'eti celilenin isabeti nazarıdır. yoksa bu haritası mevcut bir hudut yoktur."
(tbmm gizli celse zabıtları, c.3, s. 1318)

Last edited by infestĝr; November 25th, 2012 at 12:38 PM.
infestĝr is offline  
Old November 25th, 2012, 03:11 PM   #6
Citizen
 
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 47

Turkey accepted to not have Mosul and Kirkuk if there is no major change in Iraq by signing Lozan Treaty. Today Iraq has changed too much and a new country is being formed there so it seems like Turkey will take Mosul and Kirkuk in the near future. More on the sooner side because some people might be getting ready for a Turkic ethnic cleansing there which would anger the Turks a lot.
ancalimon is offline  
Old November 25th, 2012, 03:36 PM   #7

infestĝr's Avatar
Surprise pĝlse!
 
Joined: Jan 2012
From: Ẍ
Posts: 3,810
Blog Entries: 3

Quote:
Originally Posted by ancalimon View Post
Turkey accepted to not have Mosul and Kirkuk if there is no major change in Iraq by signing Lozan Treaty. Today Iraq has changed too much and a new country is being formed there so it seems like Turkey will take Mosul and Kirkuk in the near future. More on the sooner side because some people might be getting ready for a Turkic ethnic cleansing there which would anger the Turks a lot.
can you give a reference to this? 'cos i've never heard of it.
afaik the deal was: uk gets musul, kerkük, erbil and süleymaniye for 500.000 sterlings and pay turkey 10% of the oil profits for 25 years. turkey didn't get a penny from those profits. i don't know about the 500.000 sterlings part of the deal, though.
infestĝr is offline  
Old November 25th, 2012, 05:15 PM   #8

Farinal's Avatar
Chapuller
 
Joined: Jun 2012
From: Constantinople
Posts: 2,177

Quote:
Originally Posted by ancalimon View Post
Turkey accepted to not have Mosul and Kirkuk if there is no major change in Iraq by signing Lozan Treaty. Today Iraq has changed too much and a new country is being formed there so it seems like Turkey will take Mosul and Kirkuk in the near future. More on the sooner side because some people might be getting ready for a Turkic ethnic cleansing there which would anger the Turks a lot.
No it's a done deal. Those cities have already been cleansed of Turkmens during the war and even if they weren't they are Iraqi soil.
Farinal is offline  
Old November 25th, 2012, 05:50 PM   #9

infestĝr's Avatar
Surprise pĝlse!
 
Joined: Jan 2012
From: Ẍ
Posts: 3,810
Blog Entries: 3

Quote:
Originally Posted by Farinal View Post
No it's a done deal. Those cities have already been cleansed of Turkmens during the war and even if they weren't they are Iraqi soil.
this is not true. there are still turkmens there.
infestĝr is offline  
Old November 25th, 2012, 05:54 PM   #10

Pacific_Victory's Avatar
SEMISOMNVS
 
Joined: Oct 2011
From: MARE PACIFICVM
Posts: 4,682

There are definitely Turkomen in Kirkuk still. I've spoken to them (through a translator of course)
Pacific_Victory is offline  
Closed Thread

  Historum > World History Forum > Middle Eastern and African History

Tags
hatay, joined, kirkuk, mosul, turkey


Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Just joined - hello AncientGardener New Users 19 September 13th, 2012 10:43 PM
Hey, just joined :D Rja17 New Users 21 May 24th, 2012 05:25 PM
Just joined Lupo Borracio New Users 33 July 11th, 2011 05:35 AM
Hello everyone, I just joined! mysteryshvitz New Users 21 June 1st, 2010 05:40 PM
just joined today Illg New Users 7 August 10th, 2006 12:24 PM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.