SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Türkiyat Mecmuası / 2024 / Cilt: 34 Sayı: 2

From Lausanne to Montreux: Türkiye's Diplomatic Struggle for the Reconsideration of the Straits Regime

Lozan'dan Montrö'ye: Türkiye'nin Boğazlar Rejiminin Yeniden Gözden Geçirilmesi Konusundaki Diplomatik Mücadelesi

Coşkun Topal(KARADENIZ TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY, FACULTY OF ECONOMICS AND ADMINISTRATIVE SCIENCES, DEPARTMENT OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS)0000-0002-3627-6805
Yücel Bulut(KARADENIZ TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY, FACULTY OF ECONOMICS AND ADMINISTRATIVE SCIENCES, DEPARTMENT OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS)0000-0003-1225-5249
Pages
951–971
Publication Date
2025-01-13
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The study evaluates the correspondence of the embassies of the United States, Türkiye the United Kingdom, Switzerland, France, Italy, and Russia, which closely followed the Straits issue, and the correspondence of Turkish diplomatic missions in Europe as primary sources within the framework of the historicism methodology.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The Turkish Straits, whose regime was determined by the Montreux Convention in 1936, have held significant importance in global geopolitics during the periods of the First and Second World Wars, the Cold War, and the subsequent eras.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The management regime of the Straits was decided by the Lausanne Treaty in 1923; however, within less than a decade, significant changes in European politics, increased armament, and the threats posed by German Nazism and Italian Fascism forced Türkiye to reconsider the control of the Straits, which were managed by an international commission.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The study evaluates the correspondence of the embassies of the United States, Türkiye the United Kingdom, Switzerland, France, Italy, and Russia, which closely followed the Straits issue, and the correspondence of Turkish diplomatic missions in Europe as primary sources within the framework of the historicism methodology.
🔬Design:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Türk Boğazları · Boğazlar · Montrö Sözleşmesi

Abstract

The Turkish Straits, whose regime was determined by the Montreux Convention in 1936, have held significant importance in global geopolitics during the periods of the First and Second World Wars, the Cold War, and the subsequent eras. Today, the security of the Straits is brought to the forefront by both Türkiye and the countries bordering the Black Sea due to military, commercial, and humanitarian reasons whenever East-West oriented crises and conflicts arise. The management regime of the Straits was decided by the Lausanne Treaty in 1923; however, within less than a decade, significant changes in European politics, increased armament, and the threats posed by German Nazism and Italian Fascism forced Türkiye to reconsider the control of the Straits, which were managed by an international commission. This issue became one of the main topics of Turkish diplomacy from the early 1930s, particularly in various international forums, including the League of Nations. During this period, the Turkish Foreign Ministry conducted a patient diplomacy, aiming for Türkiye to independently manage the Straits, while considering the sensitive international balances. As a result, Türkiye convinced the countries that signed the Lausanne Treaty and the major powers of the time to reevaluate the regime of the Straits. Diplomatic correspondence showing how this process progressed is concentrated between the years 1933 and 1936. This study aims to explain how Türkiye’s efforts to convince the relevant parties to reevaluate the regime of the Straits took place within the historical flow. The study evaluates the correspondence of the embassies of the United States, Türkiye the United Kingdom, Switzerland, France, Italy, and Russia, which closely followed the Straits issue, and the correspondence of Turkish diplomatic missions in Europe as primary sources within the framework of the historicism methodology.

Özet

Montrö Boğazlar Sözleşmesi ile 1936 yılında rejimi belirlenen Türk Boğazları; I. ve II. Dünya Savaşları, Soğuk Savaş ve sonrasındaki dönemlerde küresel jeopolitika açısından önemli yer tutmuştur. Günümüzde de Doğu-Batı eksenli kriz ve çatışmalar söz konusu olduğunda, Boğazların güvenliği; askeri, ticari ve insani sebeplerle hem ülkemiz hem de Karadeniz'e kıyısı olan ülkeler tarafından gündeme getirilmektedir. Boğazların yönetim rejimi 1923'te Lozan Antlaşması ile kararlaştırılmıştı; ancak, aradan geçen 10 yıldan kısa sürede Avrupa siyasetinde meydana gelen önemli değişimler, silahlanmanın artışı, Alman Nazizmi ile İtalyan Faşizminin oluşturduğu tehditler Türkiye'yi uluslararası bir komisyon tarafından yönetilmekte olan Boğazlar'ın kontrolü konusunu yeniden değerlendirmeye zorlamıştır. Bu konu, Milletler Cemiyeti başta olmak üzere çeşitli uluslararası forumlarda 1930'ların başından itibaren Türk diplomasisinin ana meselelerinden biri olmuştur. Bu dönemde Türk Dışişleri, uluslararası hassas dengeleri gözeterek Türkiye’nin Boğazların yönetimini tek başına yürütme hedefine doğru sabırlı bir diplomasi yürütmüştür. Bunun sonucunda, Lozan Antlaşması'nı imzalayan ülkeler ve dönemin büyük güçlerini Boğazların rejimini yeniden değerlendirmeye ikna etmiştir. Bu sürecin nasıl ilerlediğini gösteren diplomatik yazışmalar 1933-1936 yılları arasında yoğunlaşmaktadır. Bu çalışma; Türkiye'nin ilgili tarafları, Boğazların rejiminin yeniden değerlendirilmesi için ikna çabalarını tarihsel akış içerisinde nasıl gerçekleştirdiğini açıklamayı hedeflemektedir. Çalışmada, Amerika Birleşik Devletleri'nin Boğazlar meselesini yakından takip eden Türkiye, Birleşik Krallık, İsviçre, Fransa, İtalya ve Rusya'daki büyükelçiliklerinin yazışmaları ve Avrupa'daki Türk diplomatik misyonlarının yazışmaları ana kaynakların büyük kısmını oluşturup tarihselcilik metodolojisi çerçevesinde değerlendirilmiştir.

🔖

Cite This Article

Topal, C., Bulut, Y. (2025). From Lausanne to Montreux: Türkiye's Diplomatic Struggle for the Reconsideration of the Straits Regime. Türkiyat Mecmuası, Cilt: 34 Sayı: 2, 951–971. https://doi.org/10.26650/iuturkiyat.1518538

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (53)

  1. Cumhurbaşkanlığı Devlet Arşivleri Başkanlığı Osmanlı Arşivi (Presidency of the Republic of Türkiye Directorate of State Archives Ottoman Archives) (BOA), Hariciye Vekaleti Umumi Katiblik (HVUKK), 541/ 44144 - 209528 - 13. google scholar
  2. Cumhurbaşkanlığı Devlet Arşivleri Başkanlığı Osmanlı Arşivi (Presidency of the Republic of Türkiye Directorate of State Archives Ottoman Archives) (BOA), Hariciye Vekaleti Umumi Katiblik (HVUKK) 501/31438-124378-3. google scholar
  3. Cumhurbaşkanlığı Devlet Arşivleri Başkanlığı Osmanlı Arşivi (Presidency of the Republic of Türkiye Directorate of State Archives Ottoman Archives) (BOA), Hariciye Vekaleti Umumi Katiblik (HVUKK) 534/ 37176 - 149204-59. google scholar
  4. Cumhurbaşkanlığı Devlet Arşivleri Başkanlığı Cumhuriyet Arşivi (Presidency of the Republic of Türkiye Directorate of State Archives Republican Archives) (BCA) Muamelat Genel Müdürlüğü, 30-10-0-0 / 221- 491 - 33. google scholar
  5. Hansard UK Parliament. “Foreign Office”, Accessed 22 May 2024.https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/ commons/1935/jul/11/foreign-office#S5CV0304P0_19350711_HOC_302 google scholar
  6. Hansard UK Parliament. “Turkiye (Straits Convention). “ Accessed 11 June 2024. https://hansard.parliament. uk/Commons/1934-06-11/debates/b4fe2860-eae2-4ffc-b2f2-906edc6016d4/Turkiye(StraitsConvention) google scholar
  7. Office of the Historian. “Historical Documents.” Accessed 11 June 2024. https://history.state.gov/ historicaldocuments/frus1934v02/pg_979 google scholar
  8. Office of the Historian. “Historical Documents.” Accessed 11 June 2024. https://history.state.gov/ historicaldocuments/frus1934v02/pg_972 google scholar
  9. Office of the Historian. “Historical Documents.” Accessed 11 June 2024. https://history.state.gov/ historicaldocuments/frus1934v02/pg_975 google scholar
  10. Office of the Historian. “Historical Documents.” Accessed 11 June 2024. https://history.state.gov/ historicaldocuments/frus1934v02/pg_976 google scholar
  11. Office of the Historian. “Historical Documents.” Accessed 11 June 2024. https://history.state.gov/ historicaldocuments/frus1935v01/d887#fnref:1.7.4.10.32.8.8.16.2 google scholar
  12. Office of the Historian. “Historical Documents.” Accessed 11 June 2024. https://history.state.gov/ historicaldocuments/frus1935v01/d888 google scholar
  13. Office of the Historian. “Historical Documents.” Accessed 11 June 2024. https://history.state.gov/ historicaldocuments/frus1935v01/d889 google scholar
  14. Office of the Historian. “Historical Documents.” Accessed 12 June 2024. https://history.state.gov/ historicaldocuments/frus1935v01/d890 google scholar
  15. Office of the Historian. “Historical Documents.” Accessed 14 June 2024. https://history.state.gov/ historicaldocuments/frus193501/d891 google scholar
  16. Office of the Historian. “Historical Documents.” Accessed 14 June 2024. https://history.state.gov/ historicaldocuments/frus1935v01/d892#fn:1.7.4.10.32.8.22.14.4 google scholar
  17. Office of the Historian. “Historical Documents.” Accessed 14 June 2024. https://history.state.gov/ historicaldocuments/frus1935v01/d893 google scholar
  18. Office of the Historian. “Historical Documents.” Accessed 14 June 2024. https://history.state.gov/ historicaldocuments/frus1935v01/d894 google scholar
  19. Office of the Historian. “Historical Documents.” Accessed 14 June 2024. https://history.state.gov/ historicaldocuments/frus1936v03/d564 google scholar
  20. Office of the Historian. “Historical Documents.” Accessed 14 June 2024. https://history.state.gov/ historicaldocuments/frus1936v03/d565 google scholar
  21. Office of the Historian. “Historical Documents.” Accessed 14 June 2024. https://history.state.gov/ historicaldocuments/frus1936v03/d568 google scholar
  22. Office of the Historian. “Historical Documents.” Accessed 14 June 2024. https://history.state.gov/ historicaldocuments/frus1935v01/d891 google scholar
  23. Office of the Historian. “Historical Documents.” Accessed 14 June 2024. https://history.state.gov/ historicaldocuments/frus1935v01/ch3 google scholar
  24. Office of the Historian. “Historical Documents.” Accessed 14 June 2024. https://history.state.gov/ historicaldocuments/frus1935v01/d780 google scholar
  25. Anne Frank House. “Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy Become Friends. “ Accessed 16 May 2024. https://www. annefrank.org/en/anne-frank/the-timeline/entire-timeline/#199. google scholar
  26. Atatürk Ansiklopedisi. “Türk-Rus Ortak Deklarasyonu (24 Mart 1941).” Accessed 13 October 5 May 2024. https://ataturkansiklopedisi.gov.tr/bilgi/turk-rus-ortak-deklarasyonu-24-mart-1941/. google scholar
  27. Best, Antony, Jussi M. Hanhimaki, Joseph A. Maiolo, and Kirşten E. Schulze. ““The path to European war, 1930-39.” International History of the Twentieth Century and Beyond. London: Routledge, 2014 Accessed 15 May 2024 https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315739717. google scholar
  28. Best, Richard A.Jr. “The Anglo-German Naval Agreement of 1935 and Aspect of Appeasement.” Naval War College Review 34/2 (1981): 68-85. google scholar
  29. Britannica, “World Disarmament Conference.” Accessed 2 April 2024. https://www.britannica.com/topic/ World-Disarmament-Conference. google scholar
  30. Britannica.”Italo-Ethiopian War (1935-1936.” Accessed 19 April 2024. https://www.britannica.com/event/ Italo-Ethiopian-War-1935-1936. google scholar
  31. Catterall, Pippa and Carolyn, J. Kitching."Britain and the Geneva Disarmament Conference: A Study in International History.” The American Historical Review 109 (1 February 2004): 154-55. https://doi. org/10.1086/ ahr/109.1.154 google scholar
  32. CIA Foia. “The Problem of the Turkish Straits. “ Accessed 14 June 2024. https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/ document/cia-rdp08c01297r000500030004-2 google scholar
  33. Davies, Thomas. “France and the World Disarmament Conference of 1932-34”, Diplomacy & Statecraft 15/4 (2004): 765-780. Accessed 17 May 2024. https://doi.org/10.1080/09592290490886838. google scholar
  34. Güçlü, Yücel. “Fascist Italy’s “Mare Nostrum” Policy and Turkiye”, Belleten 63/238 (1999): 813-846. Accessed 19 May 2024.https://doi.org/10.37879/belleten.1999.813. google scholar
  35. Hale, William. Türk Dış Politikası 1774-2000. İstanbul: Mozaik, 2003. google scholar
  36. Kitching, Caroline J. Britain and the Geneva Disarmament Conference. New York: Palgrave Macmillan: 2002. google scholar
  37. L., H. “Herr Hitler’s Speech of May 21st” Bulletin of International News. 11/24 (1935): 3-7. google scholar
  38. McDougall, Walter A. "World Disarmament Conference" Encyclopedia Britannica, https://www.britannica. com/topic/World-Disarmament-Conference. 2023. google scholar
  39. Merriman, John M. and John M. Winter, Europe since 1914: Encyclopedia of the Age of War and Reconstruction Detroit: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 2006. google scholar
  40. National Geographic.”How Mussolini Led Italy to Fascism and Why His Legacy Looms Today.” Accessed 18 May 2024. https://www.nationalgeographic.com/history/article/benito-mussolini-rise-of-fascism-in-italy. google scholar
  41. Politico. “Geneva Disarmament Conference Collapses, June 10, 1934.” Accessed 18 May 2024. https://www. politico.com/story/2013/06/this-day-in-politics-092520. google scholar
  42. Republic of Türkiye Ministry of Foreign Affairs. “Lausanne Peace Treaty.”Accessed 16 May 2024. https:// www.mfa.gov.tr/lausanne-peace-treaty-part-i_-political-clauses.en.mfa. google scholar
  43. Republic of Türkiye Ministry of Foreign Affairs.”II. Convention Relating to the Regime of the Straits”. Accessed 16 May 2024. https://www.mfa.gov.tr/ii_-convention-relating-to-the-regime-of-the-straits.en.mfa. google scholar
  44. Royal Airforce Museum. “The Rise of the Nazi Party History of the Battle of Britain Exhibitions & Displays ResearchThe Rise of the Nazi Party.” Accessed 18 May 2024. https://www.rafmuseum.org.uk/research/ online-exhibitions/history-of-the-battle-of-britain/the-rise-of-the-nazi-party/. google scholar
  45. Şen, Zeynep. “Türk Çağdaşlaşma Hareketinde (Cumhuriyet Döneminde) Gerçekleştirilen Atılımlar”, Anadolu Bil Meslek Yüksekokulu Dergisi 45/1 (2017): 147-64. google scholar
  46. Tanrıverdi, Mustafa. “The Effect of Russo-Turkish Wars on The Martial Arrangement of Russia (1696-1878)”, In Contemporary Turkish - Russian Relations From Past to Future, 239-253. ed. Ilyas Topsakal and Ali Askerov Istanbul University Press, 2021. Accessed 20 May 2024. https://doi.org/10.26650/B/SS52.2021.011.12. google scholar
  47. TDV İslâm Ansiklopedisi “Montrö Boğazlar Sözleşmesi”. Accessed 15 June 2024. https://islamansiklopedisi. org.tr/montro-bogazlar-sozlesmesi. google scholar
  48. The National WWII Museum New Orleans. “Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, and the Anti-Comintern Pact.” Accessed 19 May 2024. https://www.nationalww2museum.org/war/articles/nazi-germany-imperial-japan-anti-comintern-pact. google scholar
  49. The United Nations Office at Geneva. “The League of Nations.” Accessed 18 May 2024. https://www.ungeneva. org/en/about/league-of-nations/overview. google scholar
  50. Türk Tarih Kurumu Başkanlığı. “İstiklal Harbi”. Accessed 18 May 2024. https://www.ttk.gov.tr/belgelerle-tarih/istiklal-harbi/. google scholar
  51. United States Department of State, Foreign Relations Of The United States Diplomatic Papers 1935; Volume I General The Near East And Afrıca. Vol. 1. Washington: United States Government Printing Office, 1953. Accessed 13 May 2024. https://digital.library.wisc.edu/1711.dl/G5OAT7XT7HRHX84. google scholar
  52. Yücel, Kurtuluş. “The Legal Regime of the Turkish Straits: Regulation of the Montreux Convention and Its Importance on the International Relations after the Conflict of Ukraine”. PhD Thesis, Johann Wolfgang Goethe-University, 2019. google scholar
  53. Güçlü, Yücel. “Fascist Italy’s “Mare Nostrum” Policy and Turkiye”, Belleten 63/238 (1999): 813-846. Accessed 19 May 2024.https://doi.org/10.37879/belleten.1999.813. google scholar