Military Review

Circumstances of the conclusion of the Soviet-Turkish treaty 1921 of the year

(Excerpt from the book: “Soviet diplomacy in the Muslim East in 1917 – 1921”. Saarbrücken, 2014)

The establishment of Soviet power in Armenia meant for the Turkish side the need for new negotiations with the government of Soviet Russia in order to clarify the latter’s positions on the Turkish-Armenian border and, if possible, to confirm the effectiveness of the Alexandropol [1] treaty [2]. Therefore, at the end of November 1920, the Ankara government turned to the Soviet side with a proposal to convene a Soviet-Turkish conference, which met with a positive response from the RSFSR government. December 7 1920. The Plenum of the Central Committee of the RCP (B.) Considered the proposal of the People's Commissar for Foreign Affairs G.V. Chicherin on a treaty with Turkey and instructed the NKID to work out a draft treaty and submit it for approval by the Central Committee. [3]

G.V. Chicherin

Thanks to the activity of Soviet diplomacy and the realistic position taken by the chairman of the Grand National Assembly and Turkish Prime Minister Mustafa Kemal, difficulties in Soviet-Turkish relations were successfully overcome. In early December, 1920 was generally agreed to the question of convening a Soviet-Turkish conference to develop and sign a political treaty. The venue of the conference was Moscow, where the Turkish delegation arrived on February 18 1921. The negotiating instructions received from the Chairman of the Council of People's Commissars V.I. Lenin, it was said that it is necessary to put "the beginning of rapprochement and friendship extremely firmly." [4]

M. Kemal (Ataturk)

The Treaty of Friendship and Brotherhood between the RSFSR and Turkey concluded 16 in March 1921. [5] Russia and Turkey emerged from World War I, in which they were opponents, other states than they were in 1914. The basis of the relations of the young republics was “ the solidarity existing between them in the struggle against imperialism ”[6]. The royal treaties imposed on Turkey were eliminated. The Soviet government refused to surrender regime. All debts of Turkey to the tsarist government were canceled. [7] Turkey was transferred to the Karsk region and some other regions of Armenia, which from a political point of view cannot be called a justified step. However, at the request of the Russian side, the Turkish troops left the Alexandropol district and the Nakhchivan region. The principal role was played by the articles of the treaty, which proclaimed the refusal of the Soviet government from all the old unequal treaties and formulated full equality of the parties, support for Turkish sovereignty and the national rights of the Turkish people. [8]

The Moscow Treaty defined the borders between Turkey and the Soviet republics of Transcaucasia. Chicherin in the letter of L.B. Krasin [9] from 20 in March 1921 noted that the main content of the Soviet-Turkish treaty is the territorial delimitation. [10]

L.B. Krasin

By analogy with the Moscow Treaty with the participation of representatives of the RSFSR 13 in October 1921 in Kars, an agreement was signed between the Armenian, Azerbaijani and Georgian Soviet Socialist Republics on the one hand, and Turkey on the other. [11] His provisions repeated the main points of the Russian-Turkish treaty from 16 March. Thus, a new distinction in the Transcaucasus received a full international design. [12] Visiting Turkey from December 2 1921 to January 14 January 1922 commander M.V. Frunze January 2 signed a friendship agreement with Turkey on behalf of Ukraine. [13]

Mv Frunze

The Soviet-Turkish treaties were of enormous political importance. Soviet envoy in Ankara S.I. Aralov told 1922 in April of the opinion of Turkish Foreign Affairs Commissioner Yusuf Kemal Bey after a trip to Europe: “The prestige and importance of Anatolian Turkey in Europe are held solely thanks to Russia and our friendship.” [14]

S.I. Aralov

When solving border and other issues of Soviet-Turkish relations, not only the situation in the Caucasus, but also the general prospects of Soviet policy in the East were taken into account. [15] <(Excerpt from the book: "Soviet diplomacy in the Muslim East in 1917-1921." Saarbrücken, 2014)

[1] In Soviet times, Alexandropol was called Leninakan, now Gyumri.
[2] Peace treaty between the Turks and Dashnaks (Armenian nationalists) from 2 December 1920, according to which Armenia became, in fact, the satellite of Turkey.
[3] A. Kheyfets Soviet diplomacy and the peoples of the East (1921 – 1927). M., 1968, p. 83.
[4] S. Kuznetsova The establishment of the Soviet-Turkish relations. M., 1961, p. 47.
[5] Diplomatic dictionary. T. III. M., 1986, p. 312 – 313. See: S.I. Kuznetsova. The establishment of the Soviet-Turkish relations. M., 1961.
[6] Documents of the USSR foreign policy. T. III, M., 1959, p. 597.
[7] History diplomacy. T. III. M., 1965, p. 225.
[8] A. Kheyfets Soviet diplomacy and ..., p. 115 – 116.
[9] At that time, the Plenipotentiary and Trade Representative of the RSFSR in Great Britain, at the same time, Commissar for Foreign Trade.
[10] Documents of the USSR foreign policy. T. IV. M., 1960, p. 11.
[11] Chicherin GV. Articles and speeches on international cooperation. M., 1961, p. 198.
[12] System history of international relations. T. 1. M., 2007, p. 121.
[13] Chicherin GV, p. 197; Kireev N.G. History of Turkey: XX century. M., 2007, p. 142 – 143. See also: Frunze M.V. Report on the trip to Angora. Collected cit. in xnumx's tt. T. 3. M. —L., 1.
[14] History of international relations and foreign policy of the USSR. T. 1. M., 1986, p. 93. See: S.Aralov Memories of a Soviet diplomat. 1922 – 1923. M., 1960.
[15] A. Kheyfets Soviet diplomacy and ..., p. 116.
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. aszzz888
    aszzz888 13 February 2016 08: 15
    Useful article to refresh your memory. +
    1. Megatron
      Megatron 13 February 2016 22: 04
      Generously, the Bolsheviks scattered lands. Poland and Finland were separated, Svalbard was given, here the Kara region, debts are forgiven, and much more.
  2. Nicola Bari
    Nicola Bari 13 February 2016 10: 50
    Now it’s easy to (b) judge the diplomats of those years, but at the same time, the young state categorically did not need another active enemy, and there were more than enough others. But the Turks very successfully took advantage of the situation, for them it was more luck than for Russia.
    1. avt
      avt 13 February 2016 11: 37
      Quote: Nicola Bari
      Now it’s easy to (b) judge the diplomats of those years,

      So CONDEMN, or DISCUSS ??? If we still discuss it, then in addition to simply listing the facts, by the way, Batum also appeared in the treaty with Turkey, which seceded to Soviet Georgia with the right of free trade and cargo transportation of Turkey, then the then logic of the leadership of the world-dreaming world revolution and for which the nations themselves and the call to them for their self-determination, there was a momentary and technical moment, and self-determination again implied only the class struggle and the building of communism throughout the world. So, in order to achieve this highest goal, the interests of any nation were not taken into account long and the Armenians were no exception.
      Quote: Nicola Bari
      . But the Turks very successfully took advantage of the situation, for them it was more luck than for Russia.

      Well, you can’t argue that Atatürk actually created from the Ottoman Empire on its central fragment, that is, he created secular Turkey, which Erdogan now exchanges without looking for his ambitions. Good article good , I would even say - a historical reference. Written easily and may well interest the curious to dig deeper. At least for the period after the Ottomans lost the war in the Balkans in 1912 and the intricacies of entering the "Sick Man of Europe" into the First World War on the side of Germany ..... The Entente, which rejected the Ottoman proposals. Do you know very much like the current situation.
  3. Nicola Bari
    Nicola Bari 13 February 2016 10: 53
    Although for Armenia, whatever its name, this treaty will remain one of the hardest pages in history, the bitter loss of Ararat is especially bitter, especially since the Turks did not own this territory, the Surmalinsky district.
  4. King, just king
    King, just king 13 February 2016 12: 08
    From the article: "Thanks to the activeness of Soviet diplomacy and the realistic position taken by the chairman of the Grand National Assembly and Prime Minister of Turkey Mustafa Kemal, difficulties in Soviet-Turkish relations were successfully overcome." ...

    Of course, taking into account the given territory, heaps of military junk and, like (but I will not say for sure) even gold, were overcome. The 22nd year, not the 19th, could be ours and more economical with the territory.
  5. Nicola Bari
    Nicola Bari 13 February 2016 12: 24
    Interesting enough article on the topic.
  6. chunga-changa
    chunga-changa 13 February 2016 15: 12
    Then they traded their homeland for the sake of the world revolution, now they are just distributing it like that.
  7. Xent
    Xent 13 February 2016 15: 52
    Probably it would be necessary to present the essence of the agreement, what exactly and at whose expense I was to accept ... even Wikipedia has it all ...
    Under the Moscow Treaty, the RSFSR recognized Turkey within the boundaries proclaimed by the "National Turkish Pact" (Turkish Misak-ı Millo; "national agreement") adopted by the Ottoman parliament on January 28, 1920, that is, in accordance with the provisions of the Mudros Armistice. The treaty summed up the international legal outcome section of the declared territory of the Republic of Armenia between the Azerbaijan SSR and Turkey.
    I think everything has been said ...
  8. 23424636
    23424636 13 February 2016 16: 03
    Look at the flag of the USSR and Turkey and you will understand a lot. Kars’s concession in the German agent’s agreement Ulyanov to the Turks in the Brest Treaty of Lithuania allowed the latter to gain territory for which Russia paid thousands of its soldiers for free. But this is not enough, after that the so-called the Turks ’brotherhood agreement, not being afraid of complications with Russia, began a bloody war for Greece in the years 23-25 ​​that led to the extermination of ancient Greek settlements on the Anatolian Peninsula. Why were the authorities of Soviet Russia very loyal to ancient enemies? the answer is not only in the Semist love of the Turks for the fact that the Sultan Bayezet allowed the Jews to live in his country after the expulsion from Spain, But the version published in the New York Times that the Turks came to power in Russia (Stalin).
    1. Pancho
      Pancho 13 February 2016 16: 27
      Quote: 23424636
      But that version published in the New York Times that the Turks came to power in Russia (Stalin).

      Well, this is so far-fetched that it’s not even funny. Stalin didn’t have full power by 38. Well, do you believe that about the “Turk” of Stalin?
    SANITAR LESA 14 February 2016 20: 41
    The Bolsheviks and the Turks paid with the original Armenian territory for financing by Parvus of the revolutions of 1905 and 1917 (or for some kind of compromising evidence) ... There is no further explanation that the country that only defeated the counter-revolutionaries and foreign troops on its territory for no reason lost to another country mired in post-war devastation and with the occupied part of the country (Greeks and British), territories not inhabited by Turks ... Thus, seeds of great-power pan-Turkism were sown, which has now come back to us ....
    1. ivanov17
      ivanov17 20 November 2016 17: 26
      Where there were originally Armenian lands. They pissed them off. They thought at the expense of the Turks to make money. Let them now sit on the rocks and rejoice. That it at least got