Military administration Occupation of Constantinople

1 military administration

1.1 somerset calthorpe, december 1918 – august 1919

1.1.1 establishing authority
1.1.2 conflict resolution
1.1.3 new movement


1.2 john de robeck, august 1919–1922

military administration

the armored cruiser averof of greek navy in bosphorus, 1919



british occupation forces @ port of karaköy, in front of coastal tram line. art nouveau style building in background turkish maritime lines (türkiye denizcilik İşletmeleri) headquarters.

the allies did not wait peace treaty claiming ottoman territory. 13 days after armistice of mudros, french brigade entered constantinople on november 12, 1918. first british troops entered city on november 13, 1918. in december 1918, allied troops occupied sections of constantinople , set allied military administration.

on february 7, 1919, italian bataillon 19 officers , 740 soldiers landed @ galata pier; 1 day later joined 283 carabinieri, commanded colonel balduino caprini. carabinieri assumed police tasks.

on february 8, 1919, french general franchet d espèrey entered city on horse led 2 of soldiers. reportedly intended emulate mehmed ii s entrance in 1453 after fall of constantinople, , signify ottoman sovereignty on imperial city over.

on february 10, 1919, commission divided police matter city in 3 zones: stambul (the old city) assigned french, pera-galata british , kadiköy , scutari italians.

somerset calthorpe, december 1918 – august 1919

after armistice, high commissioner admiral somerset gough-calthorpe assigned military adviser constantinople. first task arrest between 160 , 200 persons government of tevfik pasha in january 1919. among group, sent thirty malta (malta exiles).

establishing authority

the british rounded number of members of old establishment , interned them in malta, awaiting trial alleged crimes during world war i. calthorpe included turkish members of government of tevfik pasha , military/political personalities. wanted send message military occupation in effect , failure comply end harsh punishment. position not shared other partners. french government s response accused distinction disadvantage of muslim-turks while bulgarian, austrian , german offenders yet neither arrested nor molested . however, government , sultan understood message. in february 1919, allies informed ottoman empire in compliance full apparatus occupation forces. source of conflict (including armenian questions) investigated commission neutral governments can attach 2 legal superintendents. calthorpe s correspondence foreign office action undertaken arrests satisfactory, , has, think, intimidated committee of union , progress of constantinople .

conflict resolution


constantinople, may 23, 1919: protests against occupation

the message of calthorpe noted sultan. there eastern tradition of presenting gifts authority during serious conflicts; falling of heads . there no higher goal preserving integrity of ottoman institution. if anger of calthorpe calmed down foisting blame on few members of committee of union , progress, ottoman empire thereby receive more lenient treatment @ paris peace conference. trials began in istanbul on april 28, 1919. prosecution presented forty-two authenticated documents substantiating charges therein, many bearing dates, identification of senders of cipher telegrams , letters, , names of recipients. on july 22, court-martial found several defendants guilty of subverting constitutionalism force , found them responsible massacres. during whole existence april 28, 1919 march 29, 1920, ottoman trials performed poorly , increasing inefficiency, presumed guilty people intended sacrifice save empire. however, occupation authority, historical rightfulness of allies @ stake. calthorpe wrote london; proving farce , injurious our own prestige , of turkish government. . allies considered ottoman trials travesty of justice, ottoman justice had replaced western justice moving trials malta international trials. international trials declined use evidence developed ottoman tribunals. when international trials staged, calthorpe replaced john de robeck. john de robeck said regarding trials; findings cannot held of account @ all. of malta exiles released.

a new movement


allied occupation troops marching along grande rue de péra.

calthorpe alarmed when learned winner of gallipoli had become inspector general anatolia , mustafa kemal s behavior during period did nothing improve matters. calthorpe urged kemal recalled. friends , sympathizers of mustafa kemal s in government circles, compromise developed whereby power of inspector general curbed, @ least on paper. inspector general became title had no power command. on june 23, 1919, somerset arthur gough-calthorpe began understand kemal , role in establishment of turkish national movement. sent report mustafa kemal foreign office. remarks downplayed george kidson of eastern department. captain hurst (british army) in samsun warned calthorpe 1 more time turkish national movement, units replaced brigade of gurkhas.

hms m1 in constantinople.

arthur gough-calthorpe assigned position on august 5, 1919 , left constantinople.

death of turkish soldier during british raid against mızıka watchhouse @ Şehzadebaşı on march 16, 1920.


john de robeck, august 1919–1922

in august 1919 john de robeck replaced somerset arthur gough-calthorpe title of commander-in-chief, mediterranean, , high commissioner @ constantinople . responsible activities regarding russia , turkey (ottoman empire-turkish national movement).

john de robeck worried defiant mood of ottoman parliament. when 1920 arrived, concerned reports substantial stocks of arms reaching turkish revolutionaries, french , italian sources. in 1 of letters london, asked: against whom these sources employed?

in london, conference of london (february 1920) took place; featured discussions settling treaty terms offered in san remo. john de robeck reminded participants anatolia moving resistance stage. there arguments of national pact (misak-ı milli) circulating, , if these solidified, take longer time , more resources handle case (partitioning of ottoman empire). tried persuade leaders take quick action , control sultan , pressure rebels (from both directions). request posed awkward problems @ highest level: promises national sovereignty on table , united states fast withdrawing isolation.