Nikoy PSYROYKI. / Mikrasiatiki katastrofi. I Eggis Anatoli meta ton proto Pagkosmio Polemo 1918 - 1923. Athina. "Epikairotita". 1974. 272 p.

Nikos PSIRUKIS. The Asian catastrophe of 1918-1923. The Middle East after the First World War.

The book of the Greek progressive historian N. A. Psirukisa 1 is devoted to an interesting, complex and extremely relevant problem that has not yet received sufficient coverage in both Soviet and foreign historiography. It deals with the national liberation movement that developed under the influence of the Great October Socialist Revolution in the Middle East, where the epicenter of the revolutionary upheavals was the Ottoman Empire, in which the bourgeois Revolution took place, which was the first step towards the elimination of colonial oppression in this region.

The author analyzes the situation in the Middle East after the First World War, examines the policy of the great powers and inter-imperialist contradictions, the dialectical interdependence and interdependence of the revolutionary situation and the aggravation of inter-imperialist contradictions. The book also explores the role of Greece in the Middle East, whose ruling circles hoped to implement their great-power plans here with the help of British imperialism. N. Psirukis shows why, in those circumstances, it was the Greek army that became the main striking force of the imperialist intervention against revolutionary Turkey.

The question is why Greece became the instrument of the implementation of British plans in the Middle East after the First World War. Psirukis is very complex. The author draws attention first of all to the coincidence of interests of English and Greek capital in the Middle East and in the Black Sea region. It was here that Greek capital was most active. Greek-English "cooperation" was also promoted by the subordination of Greek capital to English capital. The choice also fell on Greece because it had a significant military force and at the same time it could be controlled with the help of the British Navy that dominated the Mediterranean. A large role in Britain's choice of Greece as its "policeman" in the Middle East was played by the presence of a large number of Greeks in Asia Minor. The problem of the Greeks of Asia Minor and the hatred of the Greek population for their Ottoman enslavers made it possible for the Greek oligarchy to attract the people with the great-power idea of creating a Greece of "five seas and two continents".

The book examines the course of the Turkish revolution from the Armistice of Mudros (October 30, 1918) between the Entente powers and the Ottoman Empire to the signing of the Soviet-Turkish Treaty of Friendship and Brotherhood (March 1921) in Moscow. After the armistice, the imperialists occupied the main strategic and economic regions of the Ottoman Empire. The Sultan and his Government shifted the main burden of the occupation onto the working people. Direct and indirect taxes on the peasants, who made up the vast majority of the population, increased fourfold in the four years after the war. The peasants lost half of their land. The devastation of the rural population adversely affected the underdeveloped industry. As a result, the interests of not only the working masses, but also the national Turkish bourgeoisie were affected. That is why the resistance to the invaders has taken on a national character (pp. 109-110). Spontaneous demonstrations of the Turkish people began immediately after the armistice. Attempts by the Sultan's government to deal with the discontented were unsuccessful, and at the suggestion of D. Lloyd George, on May 6, 1919, the Entente Supreme Council assigned the functions of a "policeman" in Turkey to the Greek troops. May 19, 1919 The first Greek division landed in Izmir. The Greek Government has announced the launch of a plan to create a "greater Greece".

Objectively, the Turkish revolution faced tasks of both a national liberation and a bourgeois-democratic nature. But Turkey's economic backwardness and dependence on foreign capital determined the one-sided nature of the revolution, which did not affect agrarian relations.-

1 He is also the author of other works, for example: "Istoria tis Syghronis Ellados (1940-1967)". Tt. 1-3. Athinai. 1975-1976.

page 196

shen'iy. Based on extensive factual material, the author reveals complex contradictions in the Middle East. Against this background, the author analyzes the alignment of class and political forces in the Turkish revolution, examines the causes of its zigzags, its strengths and weaknesses. N. Psirukis notes that in the course of the revolution, three directions were defined in the camp of national-patriotic forces: the people's democratic one, which defended the interests of the working people of the city and countryside, it sought a close alliance with Soviet Russia; the right-wing, conservative one, which reflected the interests of the liberal landlords and part of the Comprador bourgeoisie and advocated cooperation with the Entente, power and its privileges; a centrist movement that supported the interests of the national, mainly commercial, bourgeoisie of Anatolia, which was anti-imperialist.

Sharp class contradictions between these diverse socio-political trends were revealed during the Erzurum and Sivas Congresses of National Patriotic Forces ("Society for the Protection of Rights"), held in July and September 1919. At the same time, these congresses marked the transition from the spontaneous struggle of the Turkish people to an organized one. The Turkish Revolution gained a leading center and organization. The parliamentary elections in November - December 1919, held at the request of the patriotic forces, were won by supporters of General Mustafa Kemal. At the beginning of 1920, the new parliament adopted the "National Abet" in Istanbul, which became the program of the Turkish revolution. In response, the Entente forces occupied Istanbul and dispersed the parliament. On August 10, 1920, the Entente countries signed the Treaty of Sevres with the Sultan's government, which fixed the division of the possessions of the Ottoman Empire and expanded the regime of capitulations of Turkey.

N. Psirukis exposes the conspiracy of the imperialist powers against the Turkish revolution. He recalls that simultaneously with the Treaty of Sevres, a secret treaty on spheres of influence in the Middle East was concluded between England, Italy and France. Moreover, the Treaty of Sevres turned out to be a pure utopia, because it did not take into account, firstly, the will of the Turkish and other peoples of the Middle East, secondly, the existence of acute inter-imperialist contradictions, and, thirdly, the aggressive appetites and opportunities of American imperialism in this region (p.129).

Turkey's patriotic forces rejected the Treaty of Sevres. As early as April 23, 1920, the Grand National Assembly of Turkey was convened in Ankara, which instructed Mustafa Kemal to form a government, and on April 26, Kemal sent an official letter to V. I. Lenin with a proposal to establish diplomatic relations between the two countries and a request for help in the fight against the imperialist occupiers. Thus, there was already a real dual power in Turkey: the power of the Sultan in Istanbul and the power of the Grand National Assembly in Ankara. As the book shows, Western diplomacy, which contributed to the break between the sultan and the patriotic forces, did not understand that the formation of a dual power did not indicate weakness, but, on the contrary, the strengthening of the forces of the Turkish revolution.

The policy of the Greek government in Europe was adapted to the interests of France, and in the Middle East - England. In the context of the aggravation of Anglo-French relations after the Treaty of Sevres, and especially after the government of A. Briand, a supporter of Franco-American cooperation, came to power in France, the author notes, the policy of Greek Prime Minister E. Venizelos no longer satisfied England (pp. 133-135). Therefore, it was with satisfaction that the opponents of Venizelos, whose foreign policy was entirely based on the interests of British imperialism, came to power in Greece in November 1920. The subsequent open rupture of Greece with France and Italy allowed England to freely control the fate of Greece. At the beginning of January 1921, the Greek army was launched into a new offensive on the Asia Minor front. Its unfortunate outcome, however, complicated the position of England. Held in February-March 1921. The London Conference, which was attended by representatives of Britain, France, Italy, Greece, the Sultan's government and the revolutionary government of Ankara, attempted to revise the Treaty of Sevres, which consolidated British rule in the Middle East (pp. 139-140).

One of the reasons for the revision of the treaty was the Entente's desire to disrupt the Soviet-Turkish negotiations that began on February 26.-

page 197

N. Psirukis characterizes the imperialists ' attempts to draw Turkey into the anti-Soviet war by individual concessions. However, the supporters of the deal with the Entente among the Kemalists were defeated. The Moscow negotiations ended on March 16, 1921, with the conclusion of a treaty of friendship and brotherhood between Soviet Russia and revolutionary Turkey.

The author conducts a skilful polemic with bourgeois historiography on the nature and significance of the Republic of Soviets ' assistance to the liberation struggle of the peoples of the Middle East. Most Western historians, on the one hand, seek to belittle the role and significance of the Turkish revolution, the heroic struggle of the Turkish people for their freedom and independence, and, on the other hand, as emphasized by the author. Psirukis, to falsify the essence of Lenin's foreign policy by claiming that the actions of the Soviet state in the Middle East in 1919-1922 were a continuation of the policy of tsarist Russia .2
One cannot, however, agree with N. Psirukis, who believes that Soviet historiography does not sufficiently cover the question of the nature and driving forces of the Turkish revolution .3
The book convincingly shows that the Soviet state's assistance to revolutionary Turkey had nothing in common with the policy of tsarist Russia. It did not follow from market considerations either. This assistance was provided without any conditions and was not directed against a third party. In the policy of the Soviet state, which advocated "the emancipation of all colonies; the emancipation of all dependent, oppressed and inferior peoples"4 , all the basic Leninist foreign policy principles found their practical embodiment: democracy, proletarian internationalism, and peaceful coexistence of States with different social systems. This fact, N. concludes. Psirukis shows how democratic and progressive was the policy of Soviet Russia aimed at protecting the interests of small peoples and national minorities (p.46).

While emphasizing the positive contribution of the Turkish revolution to the anti-imperialist struggle of the peoples, the author also notes its limitations. He rightly writes that if bourgeois chauvinism had not taken hold of the Turkish masses, not only would the lives of hundreds of thousands of Armenians and Greeks in Asia Minor have been preserved, but the Turkish revolution would also have received a deeper social content. N. Psirukis concludes that the disorientation of the Turkish people at the crucial moment of their victory, the unleashing of the massacre of the non-Turkish population, deprived them of the opportunity to fully benefit from the fruits of their victory (p.147).

N. Psirukis analyzes the situation in the Middle East after the conclusion of the treaty between Soviet Russia and Turkey, finds out the reasons for the military-political victory of the Turkish people and its consequences. The book covers in detail the situation in Greece, summarizes the overall results of its Asia Minor adventure, and reveals a new balance of power in the region under study.

The national liberation struggle of the Turkish people forced the Entente imperialists to change their tactics. At the end of April 1921, Lloyd George officially declared that "the Allies are unanimous in observing strict neutrality [in the Asia Minor war - K. M.]. Britain has not assumed any economic obligations either to Turkey or to Greece." 5 Western diplomacy tried to give the imperialist intervention in Asia Minor the appearance of a Greek - Turkish conflict, presenting the war in Asia Minor as the mutual destruction of the Greek and Turkish nations. In the summer of 1921, the Greek army launched a general offensive against Ankara. As stated in the paper, the main goal of the offensive was to destroy inner Anatolia, which corresponded to the plans of British imperialism. In the largest battle in the history of the Asia Minor war, the Battle of Sakarya (August-September 1921), the Greek army, which defended interests alien to the Greek people, was defeated. After that, holding the Greek occupation forces in Ma-

2 R. Lakoste. La Russie Sovietique et la question a orient. P. 1934.

3 These subjects are discussed in detail in the works of Soviet scientists. See: "The Modern History of Turkey", Moscow, 1968; E. K. Sargsyan. The Great October Socialist Revolution and the National Liberation Struggle in Turkey (1918-1922). Yerevan. 1958; G. Astakhov. From Sultan to democratic Turkey. Ocherki iz istorii kemalizma [Essays from the History of Kemalism]. Essays on modern Turkey. Tiflis, 1923.

4 V. I. Lenin. PSS. Vol. 31, p. 53.

5 "Proteyoysa" (Athinai), 20.IV.1921.

page 198

N. Psirukis rightly believes that among the imperialist powers, the United States was in the most advantageous position at that time, which was already laying the foundations of its neocolonial domination in the Middle East.

The book pays considerable attention to the views of Mustafa Kemal and the evolution of Kemalism as an ideology and policy.

A valuable study by a progressive Greek scholar is the first of its kind on this complex problem. Objective analysis of the situation in the Middle East and in the south-eastern part of the Balkan Peninsula, skilful opposition of the policy and diplomacy of the Soviet state to the predatory aspirations of imperialism * exposing imperialist intrigues and defending the just cause of the national liberation struggle of the Turkish people, protecting the interests of workers of different nations, national minorities and calling for their unity 6 against the common enemy - imperialism - all this makes N. Psirukis ' monograph relevant both in scientific and political terms.

To. Mikhailidis

6 n. Psirukis is in solidarity with the Greek progressive public and political figure A. Papanastasioy, who once warned that it is in the interests of both the Turkish and other peoples of Asia Minor "to promote the humane cause of Turkey's real freedom, leaving aside their nationalistic great-power ideas and aggressive appetites" (A. Papanastasioy. I Toyrkiki epanastasis. Athinai. 1920, s. 20).

page 199

Permanent link to this publication: