How did Hatay joined Turkey but Mosul and Kirkuk did not? - Historum

koseku · November 24th, 2012, 11:08 AM

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?

**Midas** · November 25th, 2012, 01:26 AM

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.

Farinal · November 25th, 2012, 02:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by koseku

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.

**Efendi** · November 25th, 2012, 03:14 AM

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.

**infestør** · November 25th, 2012, 12:24 PM

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)

ancalimon · November 25th, 2012, 03:11 PM

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.

**infestør** · November 25th, 2012, 03:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ancalimon

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.

Farinal · November 25th, 2012, 05:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ancalimon

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.

**infestør** · November 25th, 2012, 05:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Farinal

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.

Iraq's Turkmen fight for identity in Kirkuk - YouTube

**Pacific_Victory** · November 25th, 2012, 05:54 PM

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