ahmet efiloğlu - fuat dündar and the deportation of the greeks

7/23/2019 Ahmet Efilolu - Fuat Dndar and the Deportation of the Greeks

1/19

This article was downloaded by: [Florida State University]On: 09 October 2014, At: 00:42Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Middle East CritiquePublication details, including instructions for authors and

subscription information:

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ccri20

Fuat Dndar and the Deportation of the

GreeksAhmet Efilolu

a

aBlent Ecevit University, Turkey

Published online: 28 Apr 2014.

To cite this article:Ahmet Efilolu (2014) Fuat Dndar and the Deportation of the Greeks, Middle

East Critique, 23:1, 89-106, DOI: 10.1080/19436149.2014.896593

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19436149.2014.896593

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (theContent) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditionshttp://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/19436149.2014.896593http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditionshttp://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditionshttp://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19436149.2014.896593http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/19436149.2014.896593http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ccri20


2/19

Fuat Dundar and the Deportation of theGreeks

AHMET EFILOGLUBulent Ecevit University, Turkey

ABSTRACT A review of the controversial book by Turkish historian Fuat Dundar, ModernTurkiyenin Sifresi, Ittihat ve Terakkinin Etnisite Muhendisligi [The Code of Modern Turkey: TheCommittee of Union and Progress Ethnic Engineering], published in 2008. The main thesis of thebook is that the fundamental aim of Committee of Union and Progress (CUP) government was to

Turkify Anatolia through the deportation and re-settlement of its non-Turkish population. Dundar

deals primarily with the deportation of the Armenians. He believes that the Unionists had been

exerting their utmost effort toward Turkifying Anatolia since 1913.1 The CUP master plan was to

deport the Armenians, thus cleansing them from Anatolia. Dundar claims that in 1915 the CUP even

found it necessary to massacre the Armenians in some regions.2However, this review examines only

the section of his book on the deportation of the Greeks, a topic that does not garner as much

attention as the Armenian deportations. This review attempts to show how Dundar addressed this

topic, how he used the documents, and how well he managed to deliver on his aim of interpreting the

documents in a way that sheds new light on the deportations of Greeks. He views the deportation and

resettlement of the Greeks as a development that came about after the beginning of World War I,

when the CUP entered into an alliance with Germany, and references documents that he studied in

the Ottoman archives to support his argument.

KEY WORDS: Armenians; Committee of Union and Progress; deportations; ethnic engineering;Greeks; migration; Talaat Pasha; Turkey; World War I

To conduct his research, Dundar relies on public documents in the Ottoman archives. He

states that it is necessary to look at how the documents in these archives are read,

summarized, and interpreted. He claims that he gives the documents the meaning that

they deserve and an interpretation that is necessary in order to understand the deportation

in a way that no one else has. He discusses the deportation of the Greeks in the Otoman

Empire by focusing on: (1) Germanys prevention of a war that was about to break out

between the Ottoman state and Greece over the Aegean Islands; and (2) the migration of

Greeks in the first half of 1914. According to Dundar, Germany brought Greece and

Ottoman authorities together to establish what became known as the Balkan Alliance. He

states that Ottoman Grand Vizer Said Halim Pasha and Greek Prime Minster Eletherios

q 2014 Editors of Middle East Critique

Correspondence Address: Ahmet Efiloglu, Assoc.Prof.Dr., Bulent Ecevit University, College of Humanities,

Department of History, Zonguldak, Turkey. Email: [email protected] Fuat Dundar,Modern Turkiyenin Sifresi, Ittihat ve Terakkinin Etnisite Muhendisligi, 19131918(Istanbul:

Iletisim Yaynlar, 2008), pp. 85 225.2 Ibid, pp. 30, 257, 345.

Middle East Critique, 2014

Vol. 23, No. 1, 89106, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19436149.2014.896593
mailto:[email protected]://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19436149.2014.896593http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19436149.2014.896593mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]


3/19

Venizelos met in Brussels on 23 July 1914 and commenced efforts to build an alliance.

He asserts that CUP (Unionists) leaders were desirous of such an alliance, largely

because Germany prodded them into it; indeed, Germany played a key role in ending the

abuses that the Unionists allegedly were committing against the Greeks, and it was

because of Germany that the Unionists policy toward the Greek population changed

immediately after the declaration of mobilization.3 However, according to the Ottoman

ambassador to Greece, Galip Kemali Bey, this meeting never took place. He wrote that

Said Halim Pasha avoided meeting with Venizelos and stayed in Constantinople.4 Galip

Kemali Bey also would have understood why the Grand Vizier under Unionist rule,

whom he believed was on the verge of building an alliance with Greece, avoided meeting

with Venizelos, who opposed such an alliance.

Moreover, Dundars assertion that it was only upon Germanys behest that the Unionists

shifted their policy toward the Greeks needs further investigation. Developments during

the period of Greek migrations reveal that pressure from Britain, France, and Russia, in

addition to that from Germany, forced the CUP to take efforts to halt the migrations of

Greeks in Western Anatolia. Representatives from these different states even came to

Western Anatolia per the request of the CUP in June 1914 to investigate the situation.5

Dundars claim that the Unionists changed their stance toward the Greeks only after

forging an alliance with Germany is also incorrect. This is because the CUP already had

changed the informal Greek migration policy it had been pursuing up until late June,

before it entered into an alliance with Germany, which was in August.6 It is misleading to

attribute all of these developments to Germany and say that the Greek migrations were

stopped only after money was received from Germany. Also, if the Germans acted so

compassionately toward the Greeks and, in Dundars words, the abuses that the CUP

committed were too much for the Germans to accept, why was it that the Greeks blamed

the Germans for the deportations after the war?7 Also if the Germans had prevented the

deportations of the Greeks, why did the Greeks think that the Germans were going to

exterminate them during the war?8 Dundar does not address these questions.

Another issue is Dundars claim that the day immediately before the mobilization, the

Ottoman state began to (1) detain citizens of Greece between the ages of 16 and 45; and (2)

hastily sent the Greeks in this age group to garrisons.9 Hence, according to Dundar, the

Unionists tried in some odd way to try to forge an alliance with Greece on the one hand,

while arresting Greek nationals living in the country during the summer of 1914 on the

other hand. In other words they tried to implement two contradictory policies at the same

time. It is not possible to explain in any logical way why the Ottoman government would

act with such inconsistency. Also the government allegedly continued to act inconsistently

3 Dundar, Modern Turkiyenin Sifresi, pp. 228 230.4 Galip Kemali Soylemezoglu, Hatralar, Atina Sefareti (19131916) (Istanbul: Turkiye Yaynevi, 1946),

pp. 169176.5 Ahmet Efiloglu, Osmanl Rumlar, Goc ve Tehcir (19121918) (Istanbul: Bayrak Yaynlar, 2011),

pp. 214 218.6 Ibid, Osmanl Rumlar, pp. 204213.7 Bayram Bayraktar, Osmanldan Cumhuriyete Ayvalk Tarihi, (Ankara: Ataturk Arastrma Merkezi

Yaynlar, 1998), pp. 6365.8 See Mihail Rodas, Almanya Turkiyedeki Rumlar Nasl Mahvetti, (Istanbul: Belge Yaynlar, 2011).9 Dundar, Modern Turkiyenin Sifresi, pp. 229 230.

90 A. Efiloglu


4/19

by arresting all Greeks in the country between the ages of 16 and 45. In other words, it

allegedly jeopardized its relations with Greece at a time when it was trying to form an

alliance. Dundar cites two Ottoman documents in support of his claim. However, the first

document is a telegram to Mosul, Diarbekir, and Urfa concerning inter-tribal fighting in

areas which had no Greek migrations. The second document is a report from the Bolu

district on the arrest of a certain Apostol. Apparently the man had been encouraging

members of theEtnik-i Eterya Societyand other Greeks to refuse enlisting in the army or

paying the military exemption tax.10

Dundar referred to Ottoman archival documents that contradict his claims that the

Ottoman government persecuted Greek citizens living in the empire. From the start of the

mobilization in August 1914, the government treated these Greeks citizens as subjects of a

neutral state until Greece officially entered the war in 1917.11 Moreover, the Ottoman

government recruited local Greeks. Yet, instead of deploying them for front line service,

the men were enlisted in labor battalions. It is incorrect that the Ottoman government

detained all Greeks in the Empire and sent them to garrisons.12

The Question of Prohibiting Greek Migration

According to Dundar, the Ottoman government prohibited Greek migration on 22 October

1914, and all oppression against the Greeks ended. The reason for this was that two days

prior Ottoman and German administrators had met in secret. Germany had promised that it

would offer financial help to the indebted Ottoman Empire if it would enter the war as an

ally. Consequently the Ottomansforbade the Greeks from migrating, both in groups and

individually, no matter the reason.13 Dundars periodization of the Greek migration raises

some issues. For example, he asserts that October 22, 1914 was the very date that the

migrations of Greeks were made illegal and that the Ottoman government ended its

oppression of the Greeks. He substantiates this claim with an encoded message sent byTalaat Bey to Adrianople province ordering that the Greek migrations are to be strictly

forbidden. However, in June, July, and August a number of telegraphs were sent to places

where migrations were taking place that contained phrases suchas all types of migration

are strictly forbidden and migration is to not be permitted.14

This telegram sent in October was characteristically different from orders that had been

sent to Adrianople province before. The government gave up on its informal policy of

forced migration of the Greeks in June and July. However, it was not easy to settle disputes

that arose among the Muslim people, the migrants, and the Greeks. Even if the Ottoman

government tried to prevent clashes between locals and violent attacks on Greeks, these

10 Basbakanlk Osmanl Arsivi (hereafter: BOA). Dahiliye Nezareti (hereafter: DH), Sifre Kalemi (hereafter:

SFR), 43/143. Ministry of Interior to Urfa district, Mosul, Diyarbekir provinces, 2 August 1914; BOA, DH

Emniyet-i Umumiye Muduriyeti (hereafter: EUM) 3.Sube (hereafter 3.SB), 1/27, Bolu district to Ministry of

Interior, August 21, 1914.11 Efiloglu,Osmanl Rumlar, pp. 303304.12 Zekeriya Ozdemir, Dunya Savasnda Amele Taburlar, (Master thesis, Gazi University Social Sciences

Institute, Ankara, 1994), p. 31; andEfiloglu, Osmanl Rumlar, pp. 265267.13 Dundar, Modern Turkiyenin Sifresi, p. 230.14 DH.SFR, 41/211, Ministry of Interior to Edirne Province, June 9, 1914. See also, Efiloglu,Osmanl Rumlar,

pp. 204213.

Fuat Dundar and the Deportation of the Greeks 91


5/19

still occurred, occasionally resulting in some casualties. Also the government did not

appear to alter its population policy in any way during the month of October. Nothing

resulted from talks between Ottoman and Greek representatives in Europe over the

Aegean Islands. Uncertainty persisted over the issue of the Islands as well as the issue of

population exchange. In November, talks about a population exchange were initiated once

again; however, it appears that no progress was made.

Despite Dundars assertion that Greek migration was prohibited on October 22, it

appears that many migrated to Greece and the Aegean Islands even after that date. For

instance, in a message sent to the Ministry of the Interior on October 20, it was stated that

3,000 Greeks migrated from Thrace to Alexandroupolis.15 Even after the Ottomans

entered the war there were people who migrated from Aydin province to islands in

Greeces possession. Dundar offers no explanations for these migrations.

The July 1914 Decision to Deport the Greeks

Dundar claims that the Unionists decided to deport the Greeks at the end of July 1914.16

He supports this claim by citing a talk between the vali of Aydin, Rahmi Bey, and theBritish Consul at Smyrna. However, the claim that the Ottoman government made the

decision to deport the Greeks to the inland regions of Anatolia cannot be taken seriously,

since it is based only an informal talk between thevaliand the British Consul. In order to

establish the seriousness of such a claim it would be appropriate to corroborate it with

other documents and statements, not simply the Consuls words. In fact, every claim that

Dundar makes regarding the supposed deportation decision of July 1914 is based on

secret correspondence that he does not reference. So far, the existence of such

correspondence cannot be ascertained in the Ottoman documents.

Shortly after the declaration of mobilization, Talaat Bey sent a telegram on August 10,

1914, to the provinces of Adrianople, Erzerum, Adana, Angora, Aydin, Bitlis, Basra,Baghdat, Beirut, Hedjaz, Aleppo, Bursa, Diyarbekir, Trebizond, Kastamonu, Konya,

Mosul, and Van and to the districts of Izmit, Bolu, Samsun, Balikesir, Canakkale,

Menteshe, Teke, and Cesarea informing them at the present time we remain neutral and

depending on the direction that these events take, it is possible and probable that we will be

exposed to invasion from some direction and asking them to keep an eye out for such a

possibility and to take preventative measures on the coasts especially.17 The decision to

withdraw people inland from the coasts was made in the context of war preparations

during this period. Yet, the order makes it clear that only Muslim women and children

were to be withdrawn inland. For instance, a telegram to Aydin province and Canakkale,

Balikesir, and Menteshe districts on 6 August 1914 requests that the necessary militaryprecautions be taken due to the extraordinary situation on the coasts and the island s,and

that Muslim women and children be settled in villages and towns far from the coast. 18 In a

15 BOA, DH.EUM.3.SB 2/5, Ottoman ambassador at Athens Galip Kemali Bey to Ministry of Interior, October

16, 1914, No. 835.16 Dundar, Modern Turkiyenin Sifresi, p. 232.17 BOA, DH.SFR, 43/219, Talaat to Adrianople, Erzerum, Adana, Angora, Aydin, Bitlis, Basra, Baghdat, Beirut,

Hejaz, Aleppo, Bursa, Diyarbekir, Trebizond, Kastamonu, Konya, Mosul, Van provinces, Izmit, Bolu,

Samsun, Balikesir, Canakkale, Menteshe, Teke, Cesarea districts August 10, 1914.18 BOA, DH.SFR, 43/176, Ministry of Interior to Aydin, Tchanakkale, Balikesir, Menteshe, August 6, 1914.

92 A. Efiloglu


6/19

telegram sent to the valis of Smyrna, Beirut, Aleppo, Adana and the mutasarrfs of

Canakkale, Balikesir, Antalya, Menteshe, and Jerusalem on September 28, 1914, in which

it is revealed that the Allied Powers intended to attack the coasts in due time, no mention is

made of deporting Greeks and other non-Muslims living along the coasts so as to protect

the coastline.19

The Ottoman government thought it necessary to move inland only Muslims. The

mutasarrfof Balikesir informs the Ministry of the Interior in a telegram sent on August

13, 1914, that all Muslim women and children in the villages in the center of Edemit were

taken inland, and that the process of transporting those in Burhaniyewas begun, as well as

those Ayvalik, even though the Muslim people there were few.20 Initially the order to

move Muslims living on the coast inland did not apply to every location. For instance, a

telegram sent to the mutasarrfof Samsun on October 7, 1914 ordered that women and

children [are] not be moved inland unless it was absolutely necessary so as to avoid

causing unnecessary agitation on the Black Sea coasts.21

The transfer of populations to inland regions began after the Ottoman state entered

World War I in November 1914. Even before the Ottomans entered the war, Allied fleets

began blockading the coasts in September and started to attack both military targets andcivilian settlements. Once the Ottomans entered the warin November, the bombardment

of the Aegean and Mediterranean coasts intensified.22 In order to keep civilians from

exposure to attacks, Ottoman authorities moved an increasing number of them inland,

particularly on the coasts of Smyrna and Balikesir.23 Dundar does not say anything

regarding these matters.

The Locations of the First Population Transfers

Dundar notes the following on the population transfers:

Toward the end of the month of January [1915, A.E.], after the attacks on the Greeks

in Aivali, Talaat Pasha managed to put an end to the wave of terror. It was at about

that time that the Ottoman government made their first decision to transfer the

Greeks to inland Anatolia . . . . The Ottomans first sought to remove the Greeks in

the region of Thrace. This decision to move them inland was spurred by the fact that

a large of number of Greeks were gathered in the Adrianople region waiting to cross

into Greece. Not long after the decisionwas made, Greece reacted to the news and a

new crisis arose between the two states.24

19 BOA, DH.SFR, 45/112, Ministry of Interior to Aydin, Beirut, Aleppo, Adana provinces, Tchanakkale,

Balikesir, Antalia, Menteshe, Jerusalem districts, September 28, 1914.20 BOA, DH.EUM.3.SB, 1/20, Governor of Balikesir to Ministry of Interior, August 13, 1914.21 BOA, DH.SFR, 45/206, Ministry of Interior to Samsun district, October 7, 1914.22 Efiloglu,Osmanl Rumlar, pp. 235240.23 BOA, DH.EUM.3.SB, 2/56, p. 4, Balikesir district to Ministry of Interior, November 6, 1914. It is written in a

memorandum published by Rahmi Bey on March 9, 1915, that unarmed civilians with their women and

children have agreed to move inland for protection against the cannon balls and bullets that are being fired.

After this announcement the people, who are mostly women and children were sent by private trains on March

12, 1915, to Aydin Denizli, Salihli, and Cumaovas. Ahmet Mehmetefendioglu,Rahmi Beyin Izmir Valiligi,

Cagdas Turkiye Tarihi Arastrmalar Dergisi 1, no. 3 (1993), pp. 364365.24 Dundar, Modern Turkiyenin Sifresi, pp. 232 233.



7/19

In the text above, Dundar asserts that the place first targeted after the deportation decision

in January 1915 was Thrace. Here Dundar is wrong. He references the Ottoman document

DH.SFR 47/335 as attribution for the claim that the Greeks in Thrace were deported to

inland Anatolia.25 In order to understand why Dundar has made a mistake here, it is

necessary to look first at some documents that are dated before the above-mentioned

document. The incident that Dundar gives as an example is related to the migrations that

were going on in November and December 1914 in the environs of Adrianople. As

indicated before, the Greek migrations continued to occur during these months, even if

they were fewer. In fact, in a telegram dated November 16, 1914, the Ottoman ambassador

to Athens, Galip Kemali, said that Greek Prime Minister Venizelos acknowledged that

3,000 Greek refugees were expelled from Thrace and were heading to Alexandroupolis in

order to enter Greece. The telegram further stated that Venizelos sent two ships to take in

the refugees and requested that (1) measures be taken not to allow such an event to happen

again; and (2) that the Joint Exchange Commission hasten its operations.26

In a telegram that he sent to Adrianople province on October 22, Talaat Bey cited the

information that had come from both Galip Kemali and from the Greek Embassy, and just

as he began hearing complaints, he ordered that the migrations of the Greeks be stopped.27

Afterward on October 24, in a second telegraph, he asked that the governor of Adrianople

look into the matter and that all migration be prohibited until the joint commission was

assembled. No Greeks were to migrate and no one was to pressure any Greeks to

migrate.28

On December 5, 1914, Talaat Bey sent another telegram in which he touched on the

very issues that he had addressed in the October telegram: The Greek ambassador has

complained that a number of migrants have been sent from the village of Satk or Saltk

the day before yesterday. It causes us a great deal of embarrassment before the embassy

to receive such information and also to confirm that the Greek Embassys complaints

are indeed valid. Talaat Bey once again reiterated his demand that the migrations toGreece be prevented.29 Despite the above-mentioned information, Fuat Dundar

misinterprets the migrations of the Greeks in the Adrianople region to Greece and the

December 5, 1914 telegram from Talaat Bey as evidence that Greeks in Thrace were

deported to inland Anatolia. It is not possible to understand how Dundar arrives at such

a conclusion.

Dundar is so sure that the Greeks in Thrace were deported to inland Anatolia in January

that he uses another two telegrams to buttress his claim: DH.SFR, 49/2 and DH.SFR,

49/29.30 Yet, it is not clear whether Dundar is using these documents as evidence of a new

crisis between the Ottoman Empire and Greece or as evidence of deportation of Greeks in

Thrace to inland Anatolia. If the documents are used as evidence of deportation, then it isimpossible that the two documents, which were sent to the Balikesir district concerning the

25 BOA, DH.SFR, 47/335, Ministry of Interior to Adrianople province, December 5, 1914, No. 85.26 BOA, DH.EUM.3.SB, 2/5, Ottoman ambassador of Athens Galip Kemali to Ministry of Interior, October 16,

1914, No. 835.27 BOA, DH.SFR, 46/66, Talaat to Adrianople province, October 22, 1914.28 BOA, DH.SFR, 46/67, Ministry of Interior to Adrianople province, October 24, 1914.29 BOA, DH.SFR, 47/335. Talaat to Adrianople province, December 5, 1914, No. 85.30 BOA, DH.SFR 49/2, Ministry of Interior to Balikesir district, January 14, 1915; BOA, DH.SFR, 49/29,

Ministry of Interior to the Civil Inspector in Aivali, January 14, 1915.

94 A. Efiloglu


8/19

situation in Aivali, have any relation to the Greeks in Thrace. If the telegrams are used as

evidence of a new diplomatic crisis, they contain no information about such a crisis

between the two states, since they only inform the recipients of the Greek ambassadors

complaints concerning Aivali.

In his analysis of the documents, Dundar struggles to follow the line of events in

Ottoman history and confuses the concepts of migration and deportation:

Nevertheless, the Ottomans deported (sevk) the Greeks in Thrace to inland Anatolia.

Not long after, Greece reacted to the news and a new crisis arose between the two

states. Since Greeces neutrality was important to both the Ottoman Empire and

Germany, these deportations (sevk) were put to a periodic end in February 1915.

Another reason for this decision was to prevent Venizelos, who was using the Greek

migrations (goc) as political leverage, from gaining more power against the Greek

king . . . . Therefore, Berlin stepped in and called on the Ottoman authorities to put

an end to the politics of oppression against the Greeks. Talat Pasa then sentan order

to cease the operations of deporting (sevk) Greeks to the inland regions.31

It is hard to understand whether Dundar means deportation (sevk) or migration (goc).

At first he uses the term deportation (sevk), in other words the deportation of the Greeks

from Thrace to inland Anatolia. However, afterwards he uses the term migration ( goc).

He says that the deportations were halted in February 1915 and the reason for this was

to prevent Venizelos, who was using the Greek migrations (goc) as political leverage,

from gaining more power against the Greek king. After referring to migration, he then

turns again to the term deportation and asserts that Talaat Bey halted the deportations of

the Greeks to inland Anatolia at the behest of Germany. Dundars reasoning remains

unclear on this point.

Deportations from the Coasts: The Deportation of the Greeks of the Marmara

Islands, Gallipoli and Canakkale

Dundars main argument for Ottoman deportations of Greeks is that the CUP sought to

cleanse ethnically the coasts of Greeks. According to the author, the first region in which

the Ottoman state ordered deportations of Greeks were islands in the Marmara Sea: On 7

March 1915, Ottoman authorities began to cleanse the Marmara Islands and, soon after,

the Marmara coasts. They then chose Gallipoli and Canakkale as their next targets on 21

March and 22 May respectively.32 These claims are not true. First, deportations did not

begin on the Marmara Islands but as part of preparations for the Allied Powers operationsagainst the straits. They started in Gallipoli near the battlefields. Moreover these

deportations had started in November 1914, well before March 1915 when the most

violent period of the Gallipoli Campaign began. Once the battle grew more intense,

deportations were expanded. The Ottomans began evacuating areas close to

Constantinople and along the Bosporus. Dundar does not address these matters. While

he claims that the area was emptied in March 1915, the evacuation of the Marmara region

31 Dundar, Modern Turkiyenin Sifresi, pp. 232 233.32 Ibid, p. 233.



9/19

did not take place before June and July 1915.33 Dundars own references contradict his

statements. His claim that Marmara Island was evacuated is based upon a telegram to the

Menteshe district on the Aegean coast. Talaat Bey inquired about the population on the

small Tersane Island near Fethie, which was to be evacuated. A few days later, however,

Talaat Bey abandoned the project. He argued that the island could not be defended by sea

and might become a base for militants or bandits. In other words, the documents in

question are not related in any way to Marmara Island. Moreover, the material contradicts

Dundars claim that the Aegean coast already had been cleansed Greeks before the start of

World War I. In essence, Dundar misinterprets the aims of the CUP. The party had not

sought to evacuate the Aegean coasts entirely. Secondly, Talaat Beys decision in the case

of Tersane Island proves that he opposed the views of local authorities. It shows that it is

incorrect to speak of a deportation policy or a cleansing of Greeks from the coasts. Also,

Dundar confuses the Menteshe district with the distant Marmara region.34 Finally, Dundar

claims that the evacuation of Gallipoli took place on March 21, 1915. The date, however,

is incorrect, as the author has changed the date in the relevant document. Instead, his

references are related to the transfer of Greeks who were evacuated from Gallipoli to

Canakkale and Balikesir.35

The Deportation of the Thrace Greeks

As stated before, Dundar believes the purpose of deporting the Greeks inland was to

cleanse them from the coasts. Greeks removed from Gallipoli, Canakkale, Marmara, and

the Aegean and Black Sea coasts were sent to inland Anatolia. Another area of cleansing

was Thrace, from where the Greeks also were sent inland. For Dundar, it seems impossible

to talk of deportation without mentioning ethnic cleansing. Hence, let us examine the

deportation of the Greeks from the Marmara coasts and Thrace to establish more clearlywhether this indeed constituted an ethnic cleansing. Dundar writes that the Greeks from

the Marmara coasts and Thrace were sent to inland Anatolia via Izmit, Bursa, and

Balkesir:

The Thrace Greeks were deported to Anatolia generally via two routes. Those in

northern Thrace were deported to inland Anatolia via Izmit and those in southern

Thrace via Balikesir. Some were deported inland via Bursa.36

33 Efiloglu,Osmanl Rumlar, pp. 270 271, 279 281; and BOA, DH.EUM.3.SB, 4/27, Constantinople province

to Ministry of Interior, March 9, 1915.34 BOA, DH.SFR, 50/187, Talaat to Menteshe district, March 7, 1915, No. 53; BOA, DH.SFR, 50/236, Talaat to

Menteshe district, March 11, 1915; andDundar,Modern Turkiye Sifresi, pp. 233. Dundar also confuses dates

and contents of his references. In a telegram dated July 1915, the Ottoman government ordered the evacuation

of the islands. Thus, it is clear that these had been emptied a month earlier than Du ndar believes; See DH.

EUM.3.SB, 6/101, Ministry of Interior to Balikesir district, July 2, 1915; BOA, DH.SFR, 54/104, Directorate

for the Settlement of Tribes and Immigrants (hereafter: IAMM) to Bursa province, June 22, 1915; and BOA,

DH.SFR, 54/118, Ministry of Interior to Bursa province, Canakkale, Balikesir districts, June 23, 1915.35 Dundar,Modern Turkiyenin Sifresi, pp. 233; BOA, DH.SFR, 52/75, Ministry of Interior to Balikesir district,

April 21, 1915, No. 7; and BOA, DH.SFR, 52/224, Ministry of Interior to Tchanakkale district, May 4, 1915,

No. 5.36 Dundar, Modern Turkiyenin Sifresi, p. 234.

96 A. Efiloglu


10/19

Although Dundar claims that Greeks were deported to inland Anatolia and settled in

Greek, Armenian, andMuslim villages, he is not always clear as to where exactly they

were sent and settled.37 He sometimes does mention that they were sent to Ertughrul and

Bilecek and settled there, but continually uses the general term inland Anatolia instead

of mentioning specific locations.38 The reason that Dundar does not specify the exact

locations perhaps lies in the fact that the Ottoman documents themselves write interior

(dahil) or inside thevilayet(dahil-i vilayet). But Dundar reads the lack of specificity in

the documents as evidence of an ethnic cleansing. If Dundar had thought the reason for

this over a little more, he would have seen that a large number of the Greeks who were

evacuated from Thrace were settled in a different area of Thrace and that those

evacuated from the Marmara coasts were settled in Bursa, Balikesir, and Izmit. In fact,

nearly all of the Greek evacuees from the Marmara region were settled in the inland

regions of Bursa and Balikesir. Dundars own bias has led him to an erroneous

conclusion.

Even if Dundar claims that Greeks in Thrace were sent to inland Anatolia after the

cleaning operation undertaken there, it can be confirmed from the Unionists own

documents that an important part of the Greeks on the coasts Adrianople province [Thrace]

were settled inside the same province far away from the coast.39 The Ministry of the

Interior ordered Adrianople province to re-settle the Greeks on the coasts and the border

areas in the inland region of Adrianople province.40 Also even the documents that Dundar

references show that a great number of Greeks in Adrianople province were resettled in

inland areas of the same province and that those who remained behind were deported to

Bursa and Balikesir. They also show that Greeks living on the coasts of Gallipoli, Rodosto,

Canakkale, Bursa, and Balikesir were resettled far away from the coasts and inland areas

of Bursa and Balikesir provinces.

Dundar writes that the Greeks of southern Thrace were sent to inland Anatolia via

Balikesir.41 However, in the document that he cites as a reference, it is stated thatnearly 13,000 Greeks were evacuated from Gallipoli (which Dundar refers to as Thrace)

and were transferred to places where other Greeks were found, such as Erdek in the

Balikesir districts on the Marmara Sea coast.42 Yet Dundar claims, using this very same

document, that the Greeks from Gallipoli were sent to inland Anatolia. Another

document that Dundar references to support his claim that Greeks were sent to inland

Anatolia actually says that a number of the Greeks deported from Gallipoli for

Balkesir were sent to Bandirma, a port city on the Marmara coast, because it was too

crowded in Balikesir.43

Elsewhere in the book Dundar claims, Greeks living in southern Thrace [Gallipoli]

were sometimes sent to inland Anatolia via Bursa. However, in the document that he

37 Ibid, p. 235.38 Ibid, pp. 233, 234, 235.39 BOA. DH.EUM. 3.SB, 11/29, Adrianople Governor Zekeriya Bey to Ministry of Interior, January 23, 1916.40 BOA, DH.SFR, 57/324, EUM to Adrianople province, November 7, 1915; BOA, DH.EUM.3.SB, 10/69,

Ministry of Interior to Adrianople province, December 28, 1915; and BOA, DH.SFR, 56/182, Ministry of

Interior to Adrianople province, September 26, 1915.41 Dundar, Modern Turkiyenin Sifresi, p. 234.42 BOA, DH.SFR, 52/75, Ministry of Interior to Balikesir district, April 21, 1915. No. 7.43 BOA, DH.SFR, 53/143, Ministry of Interior to Balikesir district, May 27, 1915. No. 19.



11/19

references, the Ministry of the Interior asks authorities in Bursa province to settle the

Greeks coming from Adrianople somewhere just outside the Marmara coast. In other

words no information is to be found in the document concerning the Greeks being sent to

inland Anatolia.44 The telegram reads as follows:

Encoded Telegram to the Viceregency of Bursa province,

22 Tesrin-i Evvel [1]331. The Greeks coming from Adrianople are to be settled in

appropriate places except for the coasts and those who so desire are to be allowed to

travel to and fro.

25 Tesrin-i Evvel [1]331 [7 November 1915A.E]Minister Talat

On the same page, Dundar writes, instructions were given to send all the Greeks living

within one hours distance from the Thrace coast and the Marmara Sea to inland Anatolia

toward the month of July. He even gives a transcription of the document. But in the

telegram, which is addressed to the Adrianople and Bursa valis and the Balikesir and

Canakkale mutasarrfs, there is no order to send the Greeks living one hours distancefrom the coast to inland Anatolia. Rather the telegraph states that the Greeks in these

regions are to be sent inland, i.e., the inland areas of the same provinces in which the

Greeks originally were living.45 According to the Encoded Telegram:

This note is regarding the villages on the coast of your provinces/districts and is

based on information from the Chief Commandership showing the necessity of

bringing inland the Greeks living on the coast of the Marmara basin and in villages

within one hours distance from the coast.

10 Haziran [1]331 [23 June 1915 A.E] Minister Talaat

Dundar is positive that the Greeks living on the Marmara coasts were deported inland and

cites a number of references to back this claim. However, these following two examples

show that Dundar misinterprets the word interior (dahili). He writes, . . . general

instructions were to settle the Greeks in Greek villages in inland Anatolia. The exact text

of the instruction telegraphed to the Canakkale and Balikesir districts states that the

Ministry of the Interior orders that the Greeks be resettled in inland Greek villages of these

same province:

The Greeks who live in villages within one hours distance from the coast and whoare to be deported inland are to be settled entirely in Greek villages and not be

dispersed among the population.

In footnote 229, the exact text of two documents, DH.SFR, 53/330 and DH.EUM.3.SB,

7/3, is given. The original text of DH.SFR, 53/330 is as follows:

44 BOA, DH.SFR, 57/329, Ministry of Interior to Bursa province, November 7, 1915, No. 151.45 BOA, DH.SFR, 54/118, Talaat to Adrianople, Bursa provinces, Balikesir, Tchanakkale districts, June 23,

1915.

98 A. Efiloglu


12/19

Encoded Telegraph to the Viceregency of the Edirne Vilayet,

The encoded telegraph sent on 27 Mays 1331 [June 9, 1915, A. E.], which shows the

necessity of evacuation, contains a complete notification of the reasons for the

deportation and dispersion of the Greek people in the villages (which have been

specified to the governor) to other Greek-populated villages inside the vilayet

[meaning the Edirne Vilayet].

The text of the other document cannot be fully provided since it is quite long. But it

essentially states that the Greeks who are transferred from the jurisdiction of the

Directorate for the Settlement of Tribes and Immigrants to that of the Directorate for

Public Security and who are sent to Bursa province from Adrianople province and the

Balikesir district are too many. Therefore, a part of them are to be sent to Afion and

Kutahia districts instead.46 The interesting point is that text of the document in the book

and the document originals that are referenced are different. Neither the text of the

untagged document in the book or the text of document referenced as DH.SFR,

53/33047

assert that all of the Thrace Greeks were sent to the inland sections ofAnatolia. Thus, Dundars claim that all Greeks were cleansed from Thrace is far from

the truth.

Strong Reactions from Greece and the Cessation of Deportations in 1915

Dundars interpretation of Ottoman-Greek relations in connection with the deportations is

interesting. For instance, he claims that Greeks sometimes were sent to Muslim villages as

part of the deportation and resettlement policies, and this led to serious problems wi th

Greece. Dundars references, however, do not offer information supporting his thesis.48

He also overemphasizes the Greek embassys complaints at the time. Greece, which had

reacted on numerous occasions to the Greek migrations, reacted strongly only once in June

1914 when the two countries were on the brink of war.49 But Dundar sees the cessation of

the deportations in July 1915 as evidence for Greeces strong reaction. However, Prime

Minister Dimitrios Gounaris maintained relatively amicable relations with the Ottoman

government as well as with the Muslim population of Macedonia. Greek elections in June

1915 brought Venizelos back to power. The latter, however, did not assume the position of

prime minister until the cabinet was formed in August. Gounaris had been against Greece

entering the war. Venizelos, however, had followed a more belligerent policy. He had tried

to rally public support for his position and worked to persuade Anatolian Greeks to join his

efforts by organizing public meetings with Greek migrants from Anatolia. Gounaris and

46 BOA, DH.EUM.3.SB, 7/3, IAMM to EUM, July 13, 1915.47 BOA, DH.SFR, 53/330, Ministry of Interior to Adrianople province, June 12, 1915, No. 53.48 Dundar, Modern Turkiye Sifresi, pp. 235. . . . despite the large numbers of coming Greeks, it is a political

necessity to settle them in Armenian and Greeks villages. This telegram is concerning the obstacles of

dispersing them inland. BOA, DH.SFR, 54/158, Ministry of Interior to Bursa province, June 26, 1915, No. 42.

The second document addressed the transfer of Greeks in the Samsun, Bafra, and Tcharshamba areas. BOA,

DH.SFR,76/243, Ministry of Interior to Angora, Sivas, Kastamonu provinces, Samsun district, May 22, 1917,

No. 1297.49 Soylemezoglu, Hatralar, p. 120.



13/19

Ottoman Ambassador Galip Kemali Bey shared concerns about Venizelos campaign to

stir up public opinion for war. Thus, they asked the CUP to moderate its attitudes toward

Ottoman Greeks. Accordingly, the CUP decided to cease deportations of Greeks in July

and August 1915 in order prevent Venizelos from using the deportations as a pretext for

entering the war against the Ottoman Empire. CUP leaders, too, also dispatched telegrams

to governors throughout the empire urging them not to take any action that might give

cause for complaints.50 Dundar failed to understand the complexity of Ottoman-Greek

relations as well as the CUPs own strategies.

Deportation as an Ethnic Operation

Dundar explains the deportations of Greeks as a form of ethnic engineering that

created a geographic prison for deported Greeks. While Ottoman documents show that

military authorities were hesitant to undertake deportations, he doubts that they

actually were. He bases his skepticism on three main reasons. First, his belief that the

evacuations continued even after the Allied Powers had cleared out of the

Dardanelles; second, his contention that Muslim Turks were settled in evacuated

areas; and third, his assertion that Ottoman authorities periodically conducted secret

censuses.51

Dundar never addresses the Greek deportations during World War I in the context of

Entente attacks on the Turkish Straits. Apparently, he is unaware that hostilities along

the Aegean and Mediterranean coasts did not end with the evacuation of landing troops

from the Gallipoli Peninsula in 1916. Since August 1914, allied warships had

bombarded the Dardanelles and blocked the straits. Attacks on Smyrna [Izmir] harbor

began in September, even though the Ottoman Empire stillwas neutral. Warships also

patrolled the shores and destroyed ships and smaller vessels.52 One aim was to weaken

Ottoman defense of the straits and adjacent regions. Following the assault on theDardanelles, their attacks on Smyrna and its environs increased. Smyrna, Aivadjik,

Edremit, and Aivali were among the most heavily shelled regions. The Entente attacked

residential centers, factories, and watch houses with ship and submarine artillery as well

50 Efiloglu,Osmanl Rumlar, p. 273; BOA, DH.EUM.3.SB, 10/25, Foreign Ministry to Ministry of Interior, July

29, 1915; BOA, DH.EUM.3.SB, 28/20, Foreign Ministry to Ministry of Interior, August 21, 1915; BOA, DH.

SFR, 54-A/109, Talaat to all provinces and districts, July 16, 1915.51 Dundar, Modern Turkiyenin Sifresi, pp. 236 240.52 BOA, DH.EUM.5.SB, 1/11, Tchanakkale to Ministry of Interior, August 12, 1914; BOA, DH.EUM.5.SB,

1/12, Edirne to Ministry of Interior, August 13, 1914; BOA, DH.EUM.5.SB, 1/29, Tchanakkale to Ministry of

Interior, September 5, 1914; BOA, DH.EUM.5.SB, 1/43, Tchanakkale to Ministry of Interior, September 15,

1914; BOA, DH.EUM.5.SB, 1/58, Tchanakkale to Ministry of Interior, September 22, 1914; BOA, DH.

EUM.5.SB, 2/1, Tchanakkale to Ministry of Interior, September 30, 1914; BOA, DH.EUM.5.SB, 1/29,

Tchanakkale to Ministry of Interior, September 5, 1914; BOA, DH.EUM.3.SB, 2/70, Rahmi Bey to Ministry

of Interior, November 16, 1914; Sabri Surgevil, Itilaf Devletlerinin I. Dunya Savas Baslarnda Osmanl

Devletine Baks Ac larna Iliskin BelgelerCagdas Turkiye Tarihi Arastrma Dergisi 3, no 8, (1998), pp. 301

302; BOA, DH.EUM.3.SB, 2/45, Balikesir to Ministry of Interior, November 1, 1914; BOA, DH.EUM.3.SB,

3/31, Balikesir to Ministry of Interior, January 6, 1915; BOA, DH.EUM.3.SB, 3/7, Menteshe to Ministry of

Interior, October 26, 1914; BOA, DH.EUM.3.SB, 2/73, Antalia to Ministry of Interior, November 17, 1914;

and BOA, DH.EUM.3.SB, 2/44, Commander of the Old Fotsha Port to Ministry of Navy, November 1, 1914.

100 A. Efiloglu


14/19

as from the air.53 The heavy bombardment of the Aegean and Mediterranean coast

continued in 1916.54

Greeks from islands close to the Ottoman shore, including those who had migrated from

Anatolia in 1914, attacked the Aegean and Mediterranean coasts either individually or as

organized bands. These raids at times were coordinated with Allied forces. On January 26,

1916, for instance, 500 Greeks from Kastelorizo Island raided Andikli village in Kash sub-

district. They were accompanied by about 200 French soldiers who joined in plundering

dwellings and shops. Many of these Greeks were deserters who had fled from Antalya

district. The attack was not an isolated incident.Many more occurred before the end of the

war. Dundar does not address these activities.55

Dundar sees the settlement of Muslim Turks in emptied Greek villages as the second

major proof that the Greek deportations qualified as ethnic engineering. According to him,

this settlement policy aimed at creating a geographic prison for Greeks. In order to evaluate

his claim, one needs to take a closer look at relevant government policies. The example of

Albanian immigrants is a good case to elucidate actual settlement projects. The Ottoman

wartime settlement efforts were a continuation of policy implemented since the Balkan

Wars. At the time, the government placed migrants arriving from the Balkans in locationsthat were closest to the regions they had come from, namely, Thrace and Western Anatolia.

The decision to direct Muslim immigrants to these regions also can be explained as due to

local Ottoman Greek support for Greece during the wars. Dundar observes that the Turks

who were driven from Europe, the Balkans, and Crimea and who were the main element of

the empire, were settled in areas where they had a strategic importance in defending the

nation, increasing the Turkish population, and inhabiting critical areas.56 In essence, he

claims that securing Anatolia was the main reason for settling the migrants. Yet the

government settled migrants during the Balkan Wars in Thrace and Western Anatolia in

53 BOA, DH.EUM.3.SB, 4/47, Nazm Bey to Ministry of Interior, March 5, 1915; and BOA, DH.EUM.3.SB,

4/46, Balikesir to Ministry of Interior, April 1, 1915. Balikesir reported that a cruiser had fired 157 shells on a

factory, a police station, and on other locations in Edremit causing losses. Three days later the district reported

that planes had dropped 21 bombs on Tuzla and four on Sarimsak in the Edremit region. Moreover, a warship

had destroyed a surveillance post along the coast. See BOA, DH.EUM.3.SB, 7/65, Balikesir district to

Ministry of Interior; and BOA, DH.EUM.3.SB, 7/65, Balikesir to Ministry of Interior, July 7, 1915.54 The governor of Menteshe reported, for instance, that an enemy ship had bombarded and damaged or

destroyed a pier, a number of houses, a windmill, and the watch house at Bodrum in BOA, DH.EUM.3.SB,

10/72, Menteshe to Ministry of Interior, January 1, 1916; and in BOA, DH.EUM.3.SB, 11/16, Antalia to

Ministry of Interior, January 14, 1916, it was reported that a warship fired 3035 shells on farmland located

about 10 km west of Antalia; it also destroyed gasworks in a village. See also BOA, DH.EUM.3.SB, 12/32,

Rahmi Bey to Ministry of Interior, March 7, 1916; BOA, DH.EUM.3.SB 13/75, Ministry of Post, Telegraph,

and Telephone to Ministry of Interior, May 21, 1916; BOA, DH.EUM.3.SB, 12/13, Ministry of Interior to

Aydin province, February 29, 1916; and BOA, DH.SFR, 61/58, EUM to Aydin province, February 29, 1916.55 BOA, DH.EUM.3.SB, 14/7, Report of the governor of Aydin Rahmi Bey, May 14, 1916; BOA, DH.EUM.3.

SB, 14/60, Canakkale to Ministry of Interior, July 25 26, 1916; BOA, DH.EUM.3.SB, 41/53, Enver Pasha to

Ministry of Interior, December 10, 1916; and BOA, DH.EUM.3.SB, 41/53, Menteshe to Ministry of Interior,

October 26, 1916. The district governor of Menteshe reported that a total of 23 people had been killed or

wounded in an attack on the coast of Mughla. By 1917, 30 Ottoman officials either had been captured or killed

in Kash sub-district alone; see BOA, DH.EUM.3.SB, 52/9, Kash sub-district governor to Ministry of Interior,

November 30, 1917; and BOA, DH.EUM.3.SB, 13/85, Antalia district to Ministry of Interior, February 16,

1916.56 Dundar, Ittihat ve Terakkinin Muslumanlar Iskan Politikas (19131918) (Istanbul: Iletisim Yaynlar,

2001), p. 165.



15/19

much the same way they settled them in the same regions during World War I, at a time when

those regions were much more vulnerable to attack.

According to Dundar, the Ottoman government selected Turkish immigrants for

settlement close to the coast. Immigrants of non-Turkish ethnic background, however, had

to move on to inland areas. HenceAlbanians were settled in Sivas province and Bosniaks

in Angora [Ankara] province.57 He cites documents that referred to Turks and

Muslims. Here Dundar misses an important point. Nearly all of the Balkan immigrants

were Muslims or Turks. They were not exactly sifted out from the non-Muslims and non-

Turks. In the document that Dundar references to back his claim, the word Turk is used

particularly in relation to people whom the government sought to settle.58 Why was Turk

used in a telegram when the terms Muslim or immigrant were used to characterize the

people who already were Muslim and Turk in almost all of the documents concerning the

migrants?

The first reason why the government settled particularly Turkish migrants on the

Marmara coasts was that the Albanian migrants were forbidden to settle there. The

second reason were the clashes during the Balkan Wars. The central government

opposed settling Albanian and Bosniak migrants in such areas. Consequently theydecided to move them to inland Anatolia until the end of the war. During the war, the

Ottoman government was preoccupied with providing security for migrants rather than

conducting some sort of ethnic engineering. In Ittihat ve Terakkinin Muslumanlar

Iskan Politikas (19131918) [The Settlement Policy of the Committee of Union and

Progress toward Muslims (19131918)], Dundar asserts that Constantinople, Aydin,

Adrianople, and Bursa provinces, as well as the Gallipoli, Izmit, Cataldja, and

Canakkale districts were designated forbidden areas for settling Albanians. The

reason, according to Dundar, was that the Albanians recently had revolted against

Ottoman rule. Thus, the Ottoman government did not want them to concentrate in a

single area but moved them further away from the Balkans. However, the CUP did notvictimize Albanian immigrants before or during World War I. The Ottoman state rather

pursued a policy that would not expose its territorialintegrity to any sort of threat and

sought to settle Albanians far from the frontlines.59 Dundar views the governments

decision to send the Albanians to inland Anatolia as ethnic discrimination. To

understand, however, why the government deemed it necessary to engage in

engineering in this region it is necessary to take a look at the actions of Greeks in the

Marmara Sea region during the Balkan Wars and World War I. Moreover, one has to

consider that the Marmara Sea became a theatre of war. Therefore, it is crucial to

analyze the context in which deportations and settlement efforts took place. During the

Balkan Wars, smuggling had been widespread. Greeks living on the islands in theMarmara Sea and along the Aegean coast had smuggled food for the Bulgarian army,

which was occupying Thrace and experienced food shortages. Thus, Greeks living

between Cekmedje and Silivri supplied the Bulgarian army with food. Lack of

Ottoman security facilitated these activities and the islands in the Marmara Seas as

well as coastal towns like Erdek, Kapidagh, and Bandirma turned into centers for

57 Dundar, Modern Turkiyenin Sifresi, p. 237.58 BOA, DH.SFR, 54-A/203, IAMM to Bursa province, Balikesir district, July 31, 1915.59 Dundar, Ittihat ve Terakkinin Muslumanlar Iskan Politikas (1913 1918), pp. 109114.

102 A. Efiloglu


16/19

smuggling.60 During World War I, local Greeks along the Marmara Sea supplied

enemy submarines. The submarines tried to disrupt military supplies for Ottoman

armies operating near Gallipoli. They caused significant damage by sinking Ottoman

ships, attacking railway lines, and even were threatening shipping at Constantinople.

The submarines sank a number of ships in the Sea of Marmara, caused significant

damage along the coastline, and also posed a threat to Constantinople. Thus, at a time

when the Ottoman state was doing whatever it could to try to defend the straits, local

Greeks were supplying the enemy with food and intelligence.61 Not surprisingly, the

Ottoman government considered these activities as a threat. The settlement of Muslim

immigrants appeared to be a measure that could improve security in coastal regions. On

February 21, 1916, the Ottoman government provided the following guidance to

provincial authorities:

The immobile property belonging to the second group [of deportees] is to be

preserved and not distributed. However, it is not permissible for villages that are left

empty on the coast to be left in an abandoned state. From now on Muslim migrants

are to be settled on the Ottoman coasts since they are already concentrated there and

since it has become a political necessity to have them settled there.62

Dundar claims that the Ottoman government undertook secret counts of the local

population and of property like houses and land in preparation for the planned settlement

of immigrants along the coasts of Bursa province and Balikesir district, and on the

evacuated Marmara Islands.63 He claims that all the information on population, which the

central government requested from local authorities, was for a census. Dundar asserts that

such censuses were conducted on a monthly basis. These counts, however, were not a

census. They constituted rather computations of basic information on local population. But

Dundar bases himself on a document that neither concerned the deportation nor the

settlement of immigrants. Instead the telegram concerns how many Greeks were sent to

certain regions by local authorities, how many migrants were helped, and how many were

in need of help. Dundar wrongly claims that the document was evidence that the

government was undertaking a census to inform itself better about the ethnic composition

60 Yusuf Hikmet Bayur,Turk Inklab Tarihi, II -II(Ankara: Turk Tarihi Kurumu Yaynlar, 1991), p. 117; BOA,

DH.SYS, 112-19/34-1, Ministry of War to Ministry of Interior, December 21, 1912; BOA, DH.SYS, 112-

19/34-6, Nevshehir Battleship, December 31, 1912; and BOA, DH.SYS, 112-19/32-1, Ministry of War to

Ministry of Interior, January 12, 1913.61 Mustafa Selcuk,Hedef Sehir Istanbul, Canakkale Gecildi mi?(Istanbul: Emre Yaynlar, 2005), pp. 110 113;

BOA, DH.EUM.3.SB, 10/30, Constantinople to Ministry of Interior, December 5, 1915; BOA, DH.EUM. 3.

SB, 10/47, Constantinople to Ministry of Interior, December 12, 1915. Mehmet Ali Ayni, Ulusc uluk

(Milliyetc ilik)(Istanbul: Pera Yaynlar, 1997), pp. 305; BOA, DH.EUM.3.SB, 15/6, Ministry of Interior to

Ministry of War, August 24, 1916; BOA, DHSFR, 54-A/34, Directorate of General Security to Bursa province,

July 18, 1915; BOA, DH.EUM.3.SB, 12/66, Chiefs of Staff to Ministry of Interior, December 27, 1915; and

BOA, DH.SFR, 61-2/193, Ministry of Interior to Balikesir district, March 6, 1916.62 BOA, DH.HMS, 12/82, Ordinance and Appendix regarding the Preservation and Administration of Greek

Abandoned Properties, February 21, 1916. In February 1916, Trebizond province reported that 80,000

refugees had been placed in abandoned Greek houses, in BOA, DH.EUM.VRK, 16/34, Trebizond province to

Ministry of Interior, Trebizond; for more information see, Efiloglu, Osmanl Rumlar, p. 315.63 Dundar, Modern Turkiyenin Sifresi, p. 237.



17/19

of the population. The document does not confirm that the government deliberately sought

to cleanse the area of Greeks, but rather appears to state that it actually was trying to assist

them.64

Dundar also cites documents that are unrelated to deportations or resettlement. For

instance, he presents documents as evidence that the local government was undertaking a

population count in Afion district. But no evacuations or settlement of immigrants took

place in the area. Moreover, that district is far from the Aegean coast. Furthermore, the

documents did not concern Afion district but rather the Canakkale district. It appears that

Dundar is unfamiliar with his own references.65

Deportation of the Greeks on the Black Sea and Places of Deportation

The authors analysis of Greek deportations from the Black Sea coast is highly

problematic. Dundar writes: The CUP had a clear plan to cleanse Thrace and the coasts.

In May 1916, they started to cleanse the Black Sea region and commenced deportations of

people on the Black Sea shores. However, because of the negative reverberation that thiscaused in Greece, Talaat Bey had these deportations stopped. He adds: the main

deportations in the Black Sea region started after Greece entered WWI.66 This, however,

is incorrect. These deportations began on March 9, 1916, in Kerrasund and not at

Trebizond or Samsun. At the time, the Russian army had advanced on the Ottoman Black

Sea port of Rize. Perhaps not surprisingly, the first deportees were supporters of the

Russians who had hid deserters fromthe army or draft dodgers. Some of them had been

involved in forming armed gangs.67

Dundars statement on repercussions in Greece and their impact on the CUP lacks

adequate documentation. While it is true that the CUP closely followed political

developments in Greece, his sources do not concern debates in the Greek National

Assembly or Greek diplomatic representations. Moreover, these documents date from

November 1915. In other words, they precede the deportations by about five months.68

There is also no indication that Talaat Bey stopped the deportations shortly after their start.

On the contrary, Talaat Bey believed that Greeks had to l eave certain areas for military

reasons. Thus, evacuations continued until mid-July 1916.69

64 BOA, DH.SFR, 55/215, Talaat to Bursa province and Ismid, Balikesir districts, August 25, 1915.Dundar,

Modern Turkiyenin Sifresi, pp. 237.65 BOA, DH.SFR, 66/158, Ministry of Interior to Tchanakkale district, General no. 7716, Special no. 20, August

6, 1916; BOA, DH.SFR, 66/161, Ministry of Interior to Tchanakkale district, General no. 7736, Special no. 21,

August 7, 1916.66 Dundar, Modern Turkiyenin Sifresi, pp. 238 239, 241 242.67 BOA, DH.KMS, 43/45, Djemal Azmi Bey to Ministry of Interior, March 14, 1916.68 Dundar, Modern Turkiyenin Sifresi, p. 249, note 247; BOA, DH.SFR, 57/366, Ministry of Interior to all

provinces and districts, November 9, 1915, No. 6312. One document reads: [it is desired that] the claims

published in Greece newspapers that armed Muslim bands in Nighde, Nevshehir, and Cesarea [region] have

attacked Greek villages and killed some Greeks be investigated; See BOA, DH.SFR, 58/90, Ministry of

Interior to Cesarea and Nighde districts, November 22, 1915.69 BOA, DH.SFR, 64/260, Talaat to the Trebizond province, June 8, 1916; BOA, DH.SFR, 65/121, Talaat to

Trebizond province, June 29, 1916; BOA, DH.SFR, 65/126, Talaat to Sivas province, June 29, 1916; BOA,

DH.SFR, 65/136, Talaat to Kastamonu province, July 1, 1916; BOA, DH.EUM.3.SB, 17/52, Talaat to

Kastamonu province, August 15, 1916; BOA, DH.SFR, 65/166, Talaat to Sivas province, July 8, 1916.

104 A. Efiloglu


18/19

Dundar links the Black Sea evacuations to Greece entering the war. Thus, he ignores

Russias pivotal role in the region. He only mentions Russia once in the case of some

Greeks seeking refuge there before and during the war. Dundar leaves out that Russian

troops advanced along the Black Sea and occupied Trebizond and other places. Dundar

does not mention that the Russian navy blocked and bombarded almost the entire Ottoman

Black Sea coastline. It also armed local Greeks who tried to assist the Russian army in its

westward advance. In other words, Dundar excludes the war in the Black Sea region in

order to link the evacuation of local Greeks exclusively to Greeces entry in the war. The

Ottoman archives contain abundant material on these aspects, yet Dundar chose to ignore

them.70 His statements on the destinations for deported Black Sea Greeks are imprecise.

He claims that they were deported to Sivas, Angora, Kastamonu, Tchorum, Tchankiri,

Afion, Konia, and Kutahia.71 But this is wrong. Instead, his references show that local

Greeks were not deported to places far from the Black Sea coast. Greeks sent to the above-

mentioned inland cities were notregistered local residents but had come to the Black Sea

region from Western Anatolia.72 However, these documents do not specify to where the

Greeks are being sent.

Conclusion

Modern Turkiyenin Sifresi looks at the cases of deportation and resettlement between

1913 and 1918 and argues that these serve as evidence that the CUP was undertaking a

policy of Turkification. However, the questions that we have raised in relation to the

books argument about the deportation and settlement of the Greeks cast doubt on the

quality of Dundars analysis.73 He claims Ottoman documents support the CUPs

deportation and settlement policy. However, by analyzing only one part of his book, I

found a number of serious problemsin the way he has used the documents. Dundar has

replied to one critique of his work,

74

claiming that it does not undermine his mainthesis.75 However, even if he believes the validity of his own thesis, it does not make it

right. In both his replies to critiques and critiques that he has made of others, Dundar

believes this all to be a matter of scholastic historiography.76 He especially blames

scholarly works in Turkey for not using rigorous methodology, lacking objectivity, and

70 Dundar,Modern Turkiyenin Sifresi, p. 239;Sabahattin Ozel,Milli Mucadelede Trabzon(Ankara: Turk Tarihi

Kurumu Yaynlar, 1991), pp. 6; and Efiloglu, Osmanl Rumlar, pp. 288297.71 Dundar,Modern Turkiyenin Sifresi, p. 242; BOA, DH.SFR, 75/113, IAMM to Afion district, April 12, 1917;

BOA, DH.SFR, 75/114, IAMM to Konya province, April 12, 1917; BOA, DH.SFR, 75/120, IAMM to

Eskishehir district, April 12, 1917. Dundar incorrectly attributes the last telegram to Kutahya district; the

number of Greeks mentioned in the telegram was 1,000, not 1,500.72 BOA, DH.EUM.3.SB, 7/3, IAMM to Ministry of Interior, July 13, 1915, No. 261.73 I look at just how problematic Dundars argument is in relation to the migrations of Greeks to Greece after the

Balkan Wars in Ahmet Efiloglu, Fuat Dundarn Osmanl Belgelerinde Kaybolan Modern Turkiyenin

Sifresi, Belleten, 270 (August, 2010), pp. 531 570.74 Ayhan Aktar, Abdulhamit Krmz, Bon pour lOrient: Fuat Dundarn Kitabn de Sifre Ederken . . . ,Tarih

ve Toplum Yeni Yaklasmlar8 (Spring, 2009), pp. 157 186.75 Fuat Dundar, Aktar ve Krmznn lestirisi Vesilesiyle: Alglama ve Olcuyu Tutturma Sorunu, Tarih ve

Toplum Yeni Yaklasmlar9 (Fall, 2009), pp. 227246.76 Dundar, Taner Akc amn Son Kitab Vesilesiyle %10 Katliam Sorunu Ermeni Meselesi Hallolunmus

mudur? Toplumsal Tarih, 174, June 2008; Dundar, Hacsalihogluna Cevap ITC Doneminde Nufus

Cetvellerinde Etnik Kimlikler,Toplumsal Tarihi, 185, May 2009, p. 185.



19/19

copying each other.77 Yet he himself appears not to care to be rigorous or to present any

sort of scientific historiography. It is not possible to explain his book as a scientific

analysis given its problems.

References

Aktar, A. & Krmz, A. (2009) Bon pour lOrient: Fuat Dundarn Kitabn de Sifre Ederken [For the good East:

Fuat Dundars book. . . . . . ], Tarih ve Toplum Yeni Yaklasmlar, 8(Spring), pp. 157 186.

Ayni, M. A. (1997) Ulusc uluk (Milliyetc ilik)(Istanbul: Pera Yaynlar).

Bayraktar, B. (1998)Osmanldan Cumhuriyete Ayvalk Tarihi (Ankara: Ataturk Arastrma Merkezi Yaynlar).

Bayur, Y. H. (1991)Turk Inklab Tarihi, Cilt II Ksm II (Ankara: Turk Tarih Kurumu Yaynlar).

Dundar, F. (2001) Ittihat ve Terakkinin Muslumanlar Iskan Politikas (1913 1918) (Istanbul: Iletisim

Yaynlar).

Dundar, F. (2008) Taner Akc amn Son Kitab Vesilesiyle %10 Katliam Sorunu Ermeni Meselesi Hallolunmus

mudur?, Toplumsal Tarih, 174(June), pp. 7983.

Dundar, F. (2008)Modern Turkiyenin Sifresi: Ittihat ve Terakkinin Etnisite Muhendisligi, 19131918 (Istanbul:

Iletisim Yaynlar).

Dundar, F. (2009) Hacsalihogluna Cevap ITC Doneminde Nufus Cetvellerinde Etnik Kimlikler, Toplumsal

Tarih, 185(May), pp. 9496.Dundar, F. (2009) Aktar ve Krmznn Elestirisi Vesilesiyle: Alglama ve OlcuyuTutturma Sorunu, Tarih ve

Toplum Yeni Yaklasmlar, 9(Fall), pp. 227246.

Efiloglu, A. (2010) Fuat Dundarn Osmanl Belgelerinde Kaybolan Modern Turkiyenin Sifresi, Belleten,

270(August), pp. 531570.

Efiloglu, A. (2011) Osmanl Rumlar Goc ve Tehcir 19121916(Istanbul: Bayrak Yaynlar).

Mehmetefendioglu, A. (1993) Rahmi Beyin Izmir Valiligi, Cagdas Turkiye Tarihi Arastrmalar Dergisi, 1(3),

pp. 347370.

Ozdemir, Z. I. (1994) Dunya Savasnda Amele Taburlar, Master Thesis, Gazi University Social Sciences

Institute, Ankara.

Ozel, S. (1991) Milli Mucadelede Trabzon (Ankara: Turk Tarih Kurumu Yaynlar).

Rodas, M. (2011) Almanya Turkiyedeki Rumlar Nasl Mahvetti (Istanbul: Belge Yaynlar).

Selc uk, M. (2005)Hedef Sehir Istanbul, Canakkale Gecildi mi? (Istanbul: Emre Yaynlar).

Soylemezoglu, G. K. (1946) Hatralar, Atina Sefareti (19131916) (Istanbul: Turkiye Yaynevi).

Surgevil, S. (1998) Itilaf Devletlerinin I. Dunya Savas Baslarnda Osmanl Devletine Baks Aclarna Iliskin

Belgeler,Cagdas Turkiye Tarihi Arastrmalar Dergisi, 3(8), pp. 293314.

77 Dundar, Modern Turkiyenin Sifresi, p. 39.

106 A. Efiloglu

ahmet efiloğlu - fuat dündar and the deportation of the greeks

Documents