Tag: World War II
Turkey has always lain between East and West
On 11 February, 2021 the Wilson Center held an event to discuss a new book by Onur Isci, Turkey and the Soviet Union during World War II: Diplomacy, Discord and International Relations. This book is a reinterpretation of Turkish diplomacy in World War II (WWII) and Cold War era and details the deterioration of relations between Turkey and Russia. Co-panelists Suzy Hansen and James Ryan discuss the relevance to the way the West views Turkey today.
Speakers:
Christian F. Ostermann (moderator): Director, History and Public Policy Program, Wilson Center
Onur Isci: Assistant Professor, Bilkent University
Suzy Hansen: Author, New York Times
James Ryan: Assistant Director, Center for Near Eastern Studies, NYU
Turkey abandoned World War II neutrality
Onur Isci discussed Turkey’s role in World War II. Where other scholars have argued that Turkey played and exploited its neutral position, Isci argues otherwise, noting that Turkey pursued survival rather than strategic positioning. The downfall of Turkey’s relationship with Moscow came when Turkey targeted a Soviet reconnaissance plane that crashed in March 1943. Fear of an imminent Soviet threat emerged at the forefront of Turkish politics, shifting Turkey’s focus towards strengthened Transatlantic partnership.
In response to a question that Ryan posed to Isci, he noted that Turkey was constrained by their neutrality and they ultimately paid the price for it. By amplifying their fear of the Soviet Union they chose a path that was no longer neutral in order to position themselves more closely with the West.
Looking to the Past in Discussing the Present
Ryan emphasized that the idea that Turkey has a natural alliance with the West, particularly with the United States, is a myth. This can clearly be seen today and will influence how Turkey’s future political and diplomatic choices play out.
Many Americans view Turkey during the Cold War as an adamant and strong Western ally. Hansen agrees that this is not the case. A focus on Turkey’s historic relationship with Russia is pivotal to the understanding of modern day events. Isci suggests that the recent declassification of many documents has allowed scholars to gain access to government archives from the post-WWII and Cold War era, drastically shifting knowledge on Turkey and it’s foreign policy. The relationship between Turkey and Russia has been tumultuous at many points over the last century, but both countries have been cautious. Even at points when tensions have been at their peak, they have never gone to war.
Isci, Hansen and Ryan all argued that the history of Turkey is neither black nor white. Viewing Turkey as either pro-West or pro-Russia is a mistake that fails to recognize the nuances of Turkish history and its relationship with both the West and Russia.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Stevenson’s army, September 4
– NYT has long article on the US-Israeli conflict over attacking Iran.
– Politico has a neat graphic on the trade wars.
-State admits political reprisals.
– Lawmakers angry over mil con funds shifted to border wall and delays in releasing military aid to Ukraine.
My long Labor Day weekend in Atlanta made me miss a couple of other editions of Stevenson’s army, so here they are:
September 3
– NYT says North Korean missile tests show much improved capabilities, which Trump minimizes. Even SecState Pompeo said to believe DPRK is just stringing US along.
– NYT also says sharp disagreement inside administration over future CIA role in Afghanistan.
– Media have more details about US-Taliban agreement.
– Hill has long potential agenda this month.
– Xi tells Duterte that China rejects international court ruling on South China Sea.
– Iraq imposes new ROEs for US air operations.
September 1
Today marks the 80th anniversary of the start of World War II in Europe — Hitler’s attack on Poland.
It also marks a new round of US tariffs on Chinese goods. NYT has a summary of the where the trade war stands.
WaPo has an interesting story of how the Russians tried to interfere in US politics in Maryland, of all places, in 2016. It reveals their divisive playbook, which they and others are likely to use again next year.
The FT has a fascinating article on the East India Company by the author of a new book on that company. With its own private armies and taxes, bolstered by lobbyists and investors in London, the EIC was the first, but certainly not the last, private company that really functioned as a government.
And now for some reading suggestions. I like revisionist histories that force me to re-think my understanding of the past. Here are four from the past couple of years that I found especially persuasive.
World War I: I’m now persuaded that Russia shares much of the blame for the start of the Great War by its policies to dominate Turkey and by mobilization during the July 1914 crisis. After deep dives into long-hidden Russian archives, Sean McMeekin showed that even Barbara Tuchman got the sequence wrong by relying on the falsified memoirs of the Russian Foreign Minister. McMeekin’s books on Russian diplomacy and the July crisis changed my view of German war guilt, though Austria-Hungary still deserves shared blame with Russia.
FDR’s boldness: I had long admired Franklin Roosevelt’s strategic bravery in maneuvering the United States in support of Britain and against Hitler, believing that he was just ahead of public opinion, skillfully pulling it along. Lynne Olson”s Those Angry Days persuaded me that, much of the time, FDR vacillated, doing less than many of his advisors urged and hoped. He still was a great leader, just not quite as bold as I had thought.
Slave Power’s influence on foreign policy: I never thought that slavery and its perpetuation had much impact on American foreign policy until I read Matthew Karp’s eye-opening history. Karp details how the South dominated key foreign policy posts and consciously advocated policies to protect and even extend slavery in the decades before the War of the Rebellion. Defenders of slavery really had a “deep state.”
The Revolutionary War: I used to have a typical American high school student’s view of our war for independence as a story of brave patriots, toughened at Valley Forge and led by George Washington, who finally triumphed at Yorktown. Two books have changed my understanding of that conflict. One was Andrew Jackson O’Shaunessy’s study of British politics during the conflict, The Men Who Lost America. He argues that the British gave up for broader strategic reasons. Add to this Holger Hoock’s Scars of Independence, which describes the local violence on both sides and the mistreatment of Loyalists during and after the war. The good guys won, but they won dirty.
My SAIS colleague Charlie Stevenson distributes this almost daily news digest of foreign/defense/national security policy to “Stevenson’s army” via Googlegroups. I plan to republish here. If you want to get it directly, To get Stevenson’s army by email, send a blank email (no subject or text in the body) to stevensons-army+subscribe@googlegroups.com. You’ll get an email confirming your join request. Click “Join This Group” and follow the instructions to join. Once you have joined, you can adjust your email delivery preferences (if you want every email or a digest of the emails).
RSS - Posts
