|
|
Arthur
Tremaine Chester, son of Rear Admiral Colby M. Chester, was the rare American
of the period who got the chance to get up close and personal with the Turks.
The representative of the U.S. Shipping Board in Istanbul, he would go on to
build railroads for the newly formed Republic, and to head the "Chester
Project," developing natural resources.
Like his
father, Chester was one of the few Westerners who saw through the thick
smokescreen of propaganda so effectively deployed by the Armenians and the
Greeks who played to the very basic racist prejudices of the western world.
This
article provides an exciting perspective of the Republic in the days of its
infancy, and says volumes about the Armenian and Greek mythmakers of the day.
Chester's words of outrage unfortunately ring no less true today as they did
some four generations ago.
(From ATA-USA)
|
|
|
| Angora
and the Turks |
(The New York Times Current History)
Feb., 1923; pgs. 758-764
Views
of the son of Rear Admiral Colby M. Chester, on the basis of many years’ residence in
Constantinople, of the Turkey of today—A spirited defense of the Turks against charge of
atrocities.
My first visit to Angora was to me a memorial
occasion. Our party had driven from Ineboli over a nerve-racking road cut in the
mountainside, with twists, turns, ruts and mud ditches beggaring description. After a
complete breakdown, we finally reached Angora after dark.
The following day the city
stretched before us, and it was apparent that neither its size nor its attractiveness had
made it the temporary capital of Turkey. One can understand why it was selected for
housing the Government only by referring to the map. It is central, and, while near enough
to the war in progress at that time, it was comparatively safe from attack, as the Sakaria
River and desert of Touz-Tchul gave it a natural and formidable line of defense.
Back of the city and
overshadowing it is a hill from 200 to 300 feet high, surmounted by an old Turkish fort
covering twenty or twenty-five acres of ground. The interior is completely filled with a
mass of houses separated by narrow alleys. On the
side of the hill facing the city is the burned section usually found in Turkish cities and
villages, the disastrous fire, in this case, having occurred four years ago. Beyond this
and on the gradual slope into the plain below the main part of Angora is situated. The
railway is located on the other side of the low land from the city, and is about
three-quarters of a mile distant.
We visited the fort the first
day, and, in spite of the fact being mentioned in the guidebooks, were surprised to see
throughout its construction old Roman blocks of marble and granite, many of them faced
with statues, carvings and inscriptions. The first impression was one of disgust that old
Roman buildings or ruins had been demolished for fort construction, but in those days the
urgent necessity of self-preservation may have made it obligatory As I looked at it with
this thought in mind, I seemed to feel that the old fort symbolized the spirit of Turkey
since the armistice, a spirit which has subordinated and sacrificed all—wealth, ease,
beauty, even life itself—to the all-absorbing and imperative necessity of defending
homes and country against the invader.
For a few minutes, as I
stood there, I considered myself a Turk and reviewed the wrongs that had been perpetrated
upon my country since throwing off the yoke of absolutism in t908, with less bloodshed and
more self-restraint than the history of any other country has recorded. I remembered Italy’s
unprovoked attack upon us in Tripoli
I saw the Balkan States,
greedy for expansion, take advantage of our army’s absence in Tripoli and make an
unwarranted invasion of our western territory. I saw our successful counter- attack, when
troops could be withdrawn from the South, and the sacred city of Adrianople and our
Turkish people rescued from subjection. I pictured our efforts to keep from being involved
in the great war and our being forced in on the side of
Germany, not by the hopes of territorial expansion that animated the others, but by
the sure knowledge that my country would be the fruit of victory in case the Allies won.
This was not guess work, as has been subsequently proved. I remembered the collapse of
Germany, and the great joy that went through our country when Wilson insisted on the
principle of self-determination at the Versailles conference, as this was all we had been
fighting for. Then our despair when, in spite of this principle, we found ourselves cut up
to satisfy the greed of the Allies. We were to be a subject race and exploited by nations
who throughout their histories had administered subject peoples, for their own selfish
ends. I saw the cringing subserviences of our Sultan and Ministry in Constantinople, and
their acceptance of terms that enslaved millions of people whom they were supposed to
represent; the collection of a few patriots in Sivas to repudiate such action, the arrival
of Mustapha Kemal, after leaving Constantinople for Anatolia by a ruse, the organization
of the National Government and the army, and the patriots leaving comfortable houses in
Constantinople for an easy life in Europe to join the great movement for freedom.
I saw the new Government raise
money where apparently none existed, suppress lawlessness without means of modern
communication, when every mountain (and mountains cover most of Anatolia) was a refuge,
inspire old men and women to do young men’s work and equip an army and build up a
marvelous artillery corps where, for a long time, the greater part of the guns used were
dismantled and obsolete ordnance, our army equipment having been taken by the Allies. This
with no factories and only country blacksmith shop equipment.
As I came down the hill I was an
American again, but I was filled with resentment for the way the Turks had been misjudged,
misrepresented and unjustly treated, and felt the greatest admiration for what they had
accomplished against staggering odds.
|
It has been the custom of those who wish to condemn the Turk to
give religious intolerance as the cause of all disturbances in Turkey. I have never
heard one of these people admit that politics, treachery, or any other similar cause
had any connection with them. If an Armenian or Greek is killed,
it is always referred to as the massacre of a Christian.
|
A Strong
Government
My work brought me in contact with the
different officials of the Government. I wish some of the broad-minded people in
America could meet personally and have a heart-to-heart talk with those at the head
of the Nationalist Government. A country may be fairly well judged by the class of
people it elects to govern it, and, if so, Turkey stands high among the nations.
Turkish Deputies are paid
$120 a month and Cabinet officers get $150; so these men, who have given up their
personal affairs and comfortable homes, are not animated by mercenary motives in
accepting positions under the Government. Raouf Bey, the Premier, a naval officer by
profession, has lived in America and England, and, besides being a man of broad
ideas and energetic and patriotic character, has a remarkable personality. I have
never heard any one, no matter what his nationality, say a word of criticism about
him. Feizi Bey, the Minister of Public Works, with whom I have been thrown more
intimately than the rest, is a man who would stand out prominently in any country
and any company. He has neglected large personal interests to work for his country,
is keen, extremely human and has a rare personal magnetism. Adnan Bey, Vice
President of the Angora Parliament and practically head of that body, as Mustapha
Kemal Pasha only takes the active Presidency on special occasions, is exceptionally
well fitted for such a position. His quiet, even temper harmonizes the different
elements of Parliament Although in poor health, he sticks to his post where an
ordinary man, less patriotic, would leave for a more healthful climate. His wife,
Halide Edib Hanoum, is a graduate of the American College in Constantinople and the
leading woman in Turkey. Between them they have a marked influence for good in their
country.
In this vein I could
continue down the list. There is not a weak link in the chain. These men work
together harmoniously and patriotically with two cardinal aims—first, that the
Turks shall be ruled by the Turks, and second, that their country shall prosper by
every modern and progressive means obtainable. The first they have practically
accomplished, against the greatest odds imaginable, and the second they will
accomplish in just as decisive a manner.
It is remarkable that
Turkey, of all the nations on both sides of the struggle that were down to the
bitter end of their resources during the World War and as a result of it, was the
only one to withstand the temptation to issue unsecured paper money. The
Nationalists had the power and every excuse for doing so, more than any other
country, due to their dire need of money, facing an invading nation backed by all
the power of England. They did not issue one pound in Anatolia, and the finances of
the country are just as they were when the armistice was signed. Economists consider
this result, under the circumstances, as almost unparalleled.
Two weeks after our
arrival Mustapha Kemal Pasha returned to the capital for the first time since the
Greek’s disastrous defeat. He alone had promised the ejection of the enemy. Many
of the Nationalist Deputies were skeptical, though they hoped that the Greeks would
be driven back to Smyrna. By his personality and perfect faith that right would win,
Mustapha Kemal carried the weaker characters with him. He returned triumphant. Three
temporary triumphal arches were erected over the road from the station to the
Parliament Building. An automobile was ready to carry him the three-quarters of a
mile he had to travel, but, refusing the conveyance, he walked up the road,
surrounded by the Cabinet and the Parliament’s reception committee and followed by
a mob of delirious admirers.
I stood on the edge of the
Parliament grounds and watched the slow-moving mass coming from the station with
Mustapha Kemal hardly discernable from the rest, saluting the enthusiastic crowds
that lined both sides of the road. As they slowly approached I tried to picture his
thoughts. The recent victory was due to his inspiration, and he was returning after
fulfilling his promises. Would he, as history has recorded in the case of most of
the great conquerors, with a great trained army back of him, take unto himself the
powers of a dictator, or let Turkey retain a constitutional Government? I answered
my own question subsequently.
Two days later Kemal Pasha
made his report to the Parliament personally. I was fortunate in obtaining a front
seat in the gallery. For the first time I saw the Great National Assembly of Turkey.
The assembly room is so relatively small that the Deputies must crowd three on a
seat designed to accommodate two, in order to permit the attendance of all.
Regular parliamentary
business was carried on under the chairmanship of Adnan Bey. During the proceedings
Mustapha Kemal Pasha came in quietly and squeezed into a seat with two other
Deputies in the rear. Routine business having been finished, Kemal Pasha’s report
was announced. Every one stood as he made his way through the narrow aisle to the
speakers’ platform, below and in front of the Chairman’s desk perched six or
eight feet above the floor level.
|
| Reflections
on Ataturk |
A Great Personality
Unfortunately, I could not understand Turkish, and
only scraps here and there were translated to me. My time, therefore, was spent in
studying the man himself. Although a Marshal and the ranking officer in Turkey, he wears
the ordinary kalpak used throughout Turkey, while many of his subordinates have quite
elaborate head coverings. His uniform is the simplest imaginable, and the only insignia of
any kind is a piece of maroon velvet two inches square, sewed on the two corners of his
collar and surrounded by a narrow gold band with a small star in the centre. In appearance
he is tall, probably six feet, well proportioned, lithe and active. He is only 37 [Holdwater: In 1923, Ataturk was 42], and from the platform
he looked younger. His hair is light, as is also his close-trimmed mustache. Every line of
his face denotes strength. When he is animated his eyes flash fire. His hands are almost
as delicately chiseled as those of a woman, and he uses them with exceptional grace. The
Turk in his gestures observes a mean between the calisthenic motions of the Latin races
and the utter lack of gesture of the average American. Kemal Pasha has the ability to
express a shade of meaning by a simple motion of his hand better than any one I have ever
seen.
The victorious leader started
his speech by thanking Parliament for its support of the army and himself. He had promised
that the Greeks would be forced out of Anatolia, and this had been accomplished. He
regretted the blood that had been shed, and to avoid it he had used every means known to
diplomacy to stop the war, but all his efforts had been misconstrued by the enemy as signs
of weakness. He gave the whole credit for the plan of campaign to his Chief of Staff,
Feizi Pasha, and his praise for the army and its officers was unstinted. With great
emotion he described the spirit that animated the officers and men, citing the case of his
devoted friend, Colonel Rechad Bey. It seems that Rechad Bey was assigned to take a
certain hill in the action against the Greeks, and at the time this was scheduled to be
accomplished, Mustapha Kemal called him on the telephone to learn of his progress. He
replied that the hill had not been taken, as he had not received the expected support of
the artillery, but that he would take it within half an hour. At the end of that time
Kemal Pasha again called up, and a note, written a few minutes before by Rechad Bey, was
read to him. The note stated that as he had been unable to keep his promise by taking the
hill in half an hour he considered it necessary to kill himself. Rechad Bey had shot
himself immediately after signing the note. The Pasha then described in detail the plan
and progress of the campaign, referring constantly to maps in front of him.
All this was enunciated in a
quiet, clear, penetrating voice. Toward the end, as he suggested plans and hopes for the
future, his true oratorical powers became evident, and the personality that had made him
one of the leading characters of the present day was inspiring, even to those of us who
could not understand the words he uttered. At the close, and at his suggestion, every one
arose and, in unison, a solemn prayer for the dead was raised to Allah. I left Parliament
assured that Turkey had at last developed a leader in every sense of the word, and that
her Constitution was as safe in his hands as ours was in those of Lincoln.
A few days later Soubhy Zia Bey
and I had an hour and a half joint meeting with Mustapha Kemal Pasha and Youssouf Kemal
Bey. I cannot give the details or even the purport of our discourse, except to say that
the Turkish Government wants America to know Turkey and the Turks as they really are, and
not as represented by those who capitalize any and every thing said against them. It wants
American cooperation in developing the natural resources of the country. It wants, above
everything else, to keep out of intriguing and hypocritical international politics.
I have known the Turks since the
constitutional revolution, fourteen years ago, and before closing, I wish to add a few
facts that I believe, in justice, should be recorded. In the first place, condemnation
without hearing both sides is unjust and un-American, and yet many Americans have shown
this injustice in regard to the Turks. In the second place, it is unfair to judge and
condemn a nation on account of the acts of one or a few unscrupulous individuals of that
nation, just as it would be unfair to claim that all Americans are lawless because a few
unprincipled people lynch negroes in the South.
|
. . . but the Armenians were not satisfied
with this form of treachery. The provinces in the rear of the army had a large
Armenian population, and these people, feeling that there was an excellent chance of
the Russians defeating the Turks, decided to make it a certainty by rising up in the
rear of the army and cutting it off from its base
of supplies.
|
No Religious Intolerance in Turkey
It has been the custom of those who wish to
condemn the Turk to give religious intolerance as the cause of all disturbances in
Turkey. I have never heard one of these people admit that politics, treachery, or
any other similar cause had any connection with them. If an Armenian or Greek is
killed, it is always referred to as the massacre of a Christian.
As a matter of cold,
indisputable fact, there is more religious freedom in Turkey than in any other
country in the world, more than has ever been recorded in history. There are two
classes of laws in Turkey—the civil law, based on the Napoleon Code, and to which
all Ottoman subjects must conform, and the Moslem or Sheri law, by which only Moslem
subjects must be governed. The Sheri law covers all personal laws, such as those
relating to marriage, divorce, inheritance and dower. Religious organizations, other
than Moslem, are allowed to administer hospitals, homes for the destitute, and
schools, as well as their churches. They make their own personal laws, and try cases
coming under that classification. Only in cases where one or both parties prefer to
have the case tried by the Sheri law courts do such courts have jurisdiction, and it
is significant that in from 40 to 50 per cent of the cases involving Christians this
provision is taken advantage of and these are cases tried by the Sheri courts. Can
any one point to any other country that allows, or ever has allowed, numerous
different religious organizations to make and administer laws relating to matters
other than religious?
In 1909 I visited the
Turkish Parliament in session. At that time the Bulgarians separated from the Greek
Church, and the rival religious factions in Macedonia were continually fighting, the
conflict resulting in many deaths. The Turkish police were overworked trying to
prevent these sanguinary conflicts between Christians. In Parliament there were
representatives of all the different nationalities in the country, and the Bulgarian
and Greek Deputies were continually wrangling, and almost came to blows on several
occasions. The Bulgarians contended that if they had a majority in the church they
had a right to take the church; to this the Greeks strenuously objected. One of
these discussions was in progress on the occasion of my visit. The din was
deafening, and apparently a free fight was imminent. Finally the Turks could stand
it no longer, and Halil Bey, the floor leader of the Turks, after insisting that
order be restored, proposed that where the majority in a church was Greek the
minority Bulgarians should have no rights if they wished to leave, but if the
majority was Bulgarian, the church should become Bulgarian, and the Turkish Treasury
should pay the minority Greeks a sum equal to their proportional ownership in the
church with which to build a new one.
The Turks had absolute
control of Parliament by a large majority, and yet these so-called Christian-hating
people appropriated, from their depleted Government funds, money with which to build
Christian churches in order to keep the Christians in their country from fighting
among themselves. This depicts a characteristic of the Turk entirely at variance
with the idea many Americans have of his character, based on the report of those who
received or receive pecuniary benefits from painting it as black as possible, and of
those fanatical Christians who can see no good in a Moslem and no evil in a
Christian .
|
| A
Parallel Scenario |
Armenians Deported for Treachery
We hear a great deal about the deportation
of Armenians from the Northeast of Turkey during the World War. The facts are that
the Turks sent an army to the Russian border to defend their country against the
threatened Russian invasion. The army consisted of Turkish subjects of all
nationalities, being drafted just as ours are drafted. At the front the Armenians
used blank cartridges and deserted in droves. This was bad enough, but the Armenians
were not satisfied with this form of treachery. The provinces in the rear of the
army had a large Armenian population, and these people, feeling that there was an
excellent chance of the Russians defeating the Turks, decided to make it a certainty
by rising up in the rear of the army and cutting it off from its base of supplies.
Let me draw a parallel imaginary case. Suppose that Mexico was a powerful and rival
country with which we were at war, and suppose that we sent an army to the Mexican
border to hold back the invading enemy; suppose further that not only the negroes in
our army deserted to the enemy but those left at home organized and cut off our line
of communication. What do you think we as a people, especially the Southerners, would do to the negroes? Our
Negroes have ten times the excuse for hating the whites that the Armenians have for
their attitude toward the Turks. They have no representation, although they have an
overwhelming majority in large sections of the South, and have nothing to say in the
making or administration of the laws under which they are governed. South of the
Mason and Dixon line they are practically a subject race, while the Armenians in
Turkey have not only full representation but special privileges not accorded by any
other country.
The Turkish Government
ordered the Armenians deported from the districts they menaced That they did not
have railways and other means of transportation was not their fault, and the
deportation had to be carried out on foot. That this was not done in the most humane
manner possible is undoubtedly a fact, and the Turkish Government has condemned the
unnecessary cruelties that occurred; but I feel confident that if America had been
put in the hypothetical situation above referred to, it would have stopped that
insurrection if it had had to kill every negro in the South, and would not have gone
to the tedious and laborious defensive act of deportation, in spite of our extensive
means of transportation.
I chanced to meet, not
long ago, an American who was, in 1899, the consular representative of Turkey in New
York. He told me that at that time there was an “Armenian massacre.” There was
the usual hue and cry against the wholesale killing of Christians in Turkey. It
became so intense that the Turkish Government decided to submit proofs that the “massacre”
was the direct result of traitorous and revolutionary acts by the Armenians
themselves. The consular agent, in his official capacity, submitted these proofs to
the State Department, and the evidence so overwhelmingly vindicated the Turks that
the matter was immediately dropped. These records are on file at the State
Department.
In the reactionary
movement of 1909 the soldiers in Constantinople revolted and killed two hundred of
their officers. Parliament, police and, in fact, every restraining force left the
capital. For ten days the city was in the hands of unofficered, unrestrained and
irresponsible troops. They were free to do anything they desired, and yet during
that time not a woman was insulted nor a store looted. I can imagine no other race
showing such such self-restraint under similar lawless conditions.
There is no question that
there have been instances where cruel individuals have done things against the
Armenians and Greeks without provocation, and they should be condemned in the
strongest terms; but it is safe to say that no massacre of any importance has
occurred that was not the direct result of traitorous or threatening acts by the
victims. It is a known fact that on several occasions Armenian leaders have
intentionally instigated these massacres for the sole purpose of obtaining foreign
sympathy and political aid.
It must be noted that in
almost every case the massacres have been confined to either Armenians or Greeks,
according to which race did the overt act that caused the massacre. No members of
either of these two races were killed because they were Christians any more than
negroes are lynched because they are Methodists.
Our papers refuse to
publish the account of the barbarities and atrocities committed by the Greeks upon
the Turks, although authenticated by unbiased foreign officials, including our own,
and yet they are as inhuman and blood-curdling as any recorded in history.
I have yet to meet a foreigner living in
this part of the world and unbiased by politics, religion or pecuniary benefits
derived from condemning the Turks, who has not most emphatically stated that of all
the races represented in the population of the old Turkish Empire, the Turks are by
far the best people.
|
| |
Arthur Tremaine Chester's father, Rear Admiral Colby M.
Chester, also defended Turks the previous year, in an article entitled, "Turkey Reinterpreted" (The New York Times
Current History); he was viciously attacked by solidly established pro-Armenian forces.
|
|
