Marjorie Housepian Dobkin's "Smyrna 1922"

Smyrna 1922, by Marjorie Housepian

Marjorie Housepian Dobkin's work, "Smyrna 1922: The Destruction of a City" is recognized as authoritative, but the author shows her bias repeatedly. Lord Kinross settled on the number of Smyrna deaths at a couple of thousand (so did another author Housepian refers to, Michael Llewellyn Smith, one who lays the blame for the fire on the Turks), but Housepian reportedly prefers to go with perhaps 100,000.

The author had already made up her mind on the guilt of her accused, and was strictly interested in finding sources to prove her case, Dadrian-style. She gives profuse thanks to those such as Dadrian and Hovannisian. It's amusing the way she tries to play innocent by writing (in the updated edition) that she was "puzzled... a few" critics had found her book "highly charged" or "subjective."

The city's fire chief, a foreigner (Paul Grescovich) who was in the best position to know the goings on found genuine evidence that at least the Armenians were behind the fire. Housepian de-emphasizes sources as this one that goes against her agenda. As another example, she flatly reveals in her introduction: "I have taken American Consul George Horton's view of the atrocities committed by Greek troops as they fled towards Smyrna, rather than Arnold J. Toynbee's. [Because] The latter did an about-face..." While Toynbee himself was an "extreme Christian," even at his propagandistic peak he came across as a secular humanist, next to the blazing George Horton; Horton went out of his way, in his book, to make the Greek troops appear as angels. It speaks volumes that Housepian preferred to give overriding credence to Horton. (What true scholar could give credence to one the likes of George Horton? Referring to Horton for a picture of the Turks is like referring to the KKK for a picture of blacks and Jews.)

She also complains about "the missionaries who had discredited their own eyewitness testimonies," along with others as the aforementioned Arnold Toynbee who had done an about-face from their former propagandistic views. Housepian does not even consider the possibility that the former tellings of these partisans could have been false. (Toynbee was part of the British war propaganda division, for example.)

"Miss Mills Blames Turks for the Fire"

She tells us the British complained about Mark Bristol's being "carefully spoon fed by the Turks," as if Bristol were an idiot. (That's how Housepian practically sums up Bristol, by pointing to his "naiveté and ignorance.") Of course the British, who were practically at war with the Turks, did not appreciate Bristol's sense of fairness, when it was expected of Western diplomats to look at these matters from the traditional "Turks are not human" perspective. Bristol received missionaries constantly [a 1919 example, just before he became high commissioner, may be seen here], and he had plenty of exposure to the anti-Turkish views the British were more in line with. What distinguished Bristol was his ability to sort through the goop and to analyze these matters without overriding prejudice. This fairness and integrity is what has earned him the label of being "pro-Turk." (Bristol was only guilty of being "pro-Truth.") In short: why does Housepian expect us to accept the word of the British, who were the Turks' enemy, instead of an American ambassador?

The New York Times article at above right ("Miss Mills Blames Turks for the Fire") is one of many examples where Western publications published anti-Turkish blather at face value. Housepian certainly utilizes the witness said to be behind these words, Miss Minnie Mills, a missionary. Note the hysterical claims, such as all the Christians (i.e., the remainder of the "small proportion of the population [who had] escaped") having been massacred. The report originated from the Turk-unfriendly Near East Relief. (ADDENDUM, 10-07: From the Portsmonth Daily Times, Sept. 15, 1922, "Turks Massacre Thousands of Christians": "Miss Mills, matron of the American Girls' College, declares she saw an officer or non-commissioned officer of the Turkish regular army enter a house carrying several cans of petroleum soon after he came out the house burst into flames.")

The Turks Tried to Stop the Fire

 The London Times, Sep 16, 1922; pg. 8

THE FATE OF SMYRNA.

ARCHBISHOP SHOT.
(From Our Correspondent In the Near East.)

CONSTANTINOPLE, Sept 15.
Whatever was the cause of the Smyrna fire, the results are catastrophic. The greater part of the town has been destroyed and thousands of inhabitants and refugees are believed to have perished, while property valued at many millions has been wiped out.

There were ghastly scenes on the quays where thousands of refugees were huddled at the water’s edge, under a rain of sparks and cinders. The Turks failed to get the fire under, in spite of the employment of large numbers of troops, but they are not reported to have shown any sympathy with incendiaries or looters, whether Turk or non-Turk, who were shot at sight. The irregulars who are reported to have entered Smyrna before the fire may have caused it.

Looting certainly took place in the Armenian quarter prior to the outbreak. The richest seaport of Turkey has thus perished. Years must elapse before its trade recovers, and British merchants and residents have been among the greatest sufferers.

It is reported here that the Orthodox Archbishop of Smyrna, Mgr. Chrysostomos, has been tried by summary Court-martial and shot, and that the leading local Greek journalist, M. Lascaris, has been murdered.

 

 

The London Times, Sep 25?, 1922

ORIGINS OF SMYRNA FIRE

CONSTANTINOPLE, Sept. 24 — The correspondent of the Havas Agency declares that he is in a position to announce that the French High Commissioner in Constantinople and the French Consul-General at Smyrna, as well as Admiral Dumesnil, are convinced that the Smyrna fire can in no way be attributed to the Turks. This conviction is mainly based on the statements of salvage workers and trustworthy French witnesses who took part in the fight against the fire.

The French naval authorities immediately took steps to control the statements of certain witnesses who declared that they had seen Turkish soldiers sprinkling the streets and houses with petrol. As a result of this investigation these statements have now been proved to be without foundation. The correspondent goes on to declare that the fire originated in the Armenian quarter. — Reuter.

=====================

In addition:

From a New York Times editorial ("Responsibility at Smyrna," September 30, 1922) that unsurprisingly appears to (at least in the way it starts out; the entire piece was unavailable for me to read) blame the Turks: the French Foreign Office reported that the Turks did not set fire to the buildings and that there was "no evidence that the Turks were in any way responsible for the damage [at Smyrna]."

Pro-Armenians attempt to discredit the French and Italians, because they were at odds with the British by this time. For example, George Horton printed the statement of a French officer who praised the Turks, especially in the face of what he knew of the less-noble characteristics of the Ottoman Christians, and Horton claimed this attitude was representative of most of the French. [Click here]

French sentiments, especially as regards England, are revealed in a work by the French writer, Michel Paillares, entitled Le Khemalism devant Les Allies, published in 1922. Monsieur Paillares is one of the editors of the journal L’Eclaire of Paris.

The following quotation is from one of the conversations held by Paillares with French officers at Constantinople, showing their strong pro-Turk, anti-Christian and anti-English feelings:

“I am introduced to an officer in command. He is a man all of one piece. He does not mince his words. He is like a man carved out of rock, for he is unmovable in his sympathies and his antipathies. Like the lieutenant of the Navy whom we have already heard, but more furiously still, he is the enemy of the Armenians, the Greeks, the Jews and—the English.”

“ ‘As for me,’ he snaps, ‘there is not even room for discussion! We ought to be completely, absolutely Turkophiles—I will say more, Turko-enthusiasts (Turcomanes). I love the Mussulmans and I hate their non-Mussulman subjects, who are rubbish. Assure these brave men their independence and their territorial integrity and we shall have in them the most faithful and the most loyal of allies. What do we seek here! A rampart against Russia and British imperialism! The maintenance of our prestige! The free development of our commerce, the expansion of our language! The respect of our schools and colleges! The safeguarding of our financial interests! We shall have all that by means of a French-Turkish collaboration. We ought no longer to hear the Jeremiads of the Armenians and the Greeks and the Jews. We must no longer play the game, neither of England nor of Russia. Russia, although split up by Bolshevism, must always be watched. She has intentions with regard to this country, which we must not encourage. But I do not think that she is an immediate danger. It is Great Britain, which, above all, is becoming troublesome. We are, nearly all of us (French officers) for the Khemalists and against the British and the Greeks.”

Though this is the opinion of a single individual, it expresses pretty clearly the general French attitude of mind as shown by French policy since the Armistice. It is evident that the sentiments of this French officer and of his colleagues, for whom he speaks, display a keen note of discord among the Allies, helpful to the Turk even in his gruesome work of massacring Christians.

The Frenchman sure was correct in his assessment that the Turks would be the "most faithful and the most loyal of allies," as Turkey would prove to be in the coming years, to the West. And his notion of recognizing Turkish honor in the face of the deception and dishonesty of the Ottoman Christians (a notion that cropped up time and again among Western travellers) had nothing to do with being "anti-Christian." (The French... "anti-Christian"? Oh, that George Horton, lovable religious fanatic..!)

[Close]

The implication here is that the French simply must have lied. But once again, just because pro-Armenians have no problem with bending the truth, we can't assume every single individual who testified for the Turks must have suffered from a lack of conscience; we can't assume they all must have blindly followed this alleged directive, and lied through their teeth. I hope the accounts of these "trustworthy French witnesses" that the above article tells us about are available somewhere, as each testimony would need to be evaluated separately. Remember: the French were not raised with a fondness for the Turks, constantly having been exposed to "Turkish atrocity" propaganda. This attitude is certainly demonstrated in current times, with the general hostility of modern France toward Turkey.

Another point to bear in mind is that if the French were not to be believed, why would the word of the British be credible? The British have become notorious for their WWI propaganda, and were not known for telling truth. (Note Churchill's shameful statement at the top of this page.) Moreover, they were still occupying part of the Turks' country, brought in the Greeks and bore partial responsibility for the horrible crimes the Greeks committed, and were the "enemy." The British did all they could to make the progress of Kemal's forces as difficult as possible because, once again, the British were the "enemy." Those who prefer to value the word of the British over the French during this period show their own "enemy" stripes.

Reportedly, an article (written by Orhan Kologlu) from a Turkish history journal called Populer Tarih ("Popular History"), on the anniversary of Izmir’s liberation (September 2003 issue), examined the fire from Italian, French, American and British newspapers. An argument was put forth that the British press felt obliged to give a little equal time (in marked contrast to totally biased Turkish-related coverage in the past) because the opposition in Britain was becoming suspicious of Prime Minister Lloyd George. The New York Times also followed suit. Certainly the heavy foreign presence in the city must have also played a role; the western press did not have carte blanche to put up their typical, unverified horror stories, with other westerners around.

--------------------

ADDENDUM, 10-07: The following appeared in The New York Times, September 27, 1922; note the insinuation that the burning of Izmir fell in line with Greek policy. This article was preceded by one written by Mark Prentiss, entitled, HASTEN EVACUATION OF SMYRNA HORDES, where he wrote, "The Turkish officials displayed remarkable forbearance and toleration, the soldiers having every provocation to resort to extreme measures of restraint, as the panic in this vast multitude was unparalleled and indescribable." Turkish soldiers, Prentiss added (once Prentiss brought the matter to the attention of the officers), were even beaten and threatened with shooting by their officers, unless the soldiers stopped accepting money from those who hoped for special privileges. In addition, "A remarkable contrast appeared hundreds of times when officers and soldiers tenderly escorted the enfeebled and injured through the passage. While from above the scene it appeared that the soldiers were beating refugees with rifle butts and clubs, a close-up observation showed that mostly the blows fell on bundles. I am absolutely certain no refugees were seriously hurt by the soldiers, though hundreds were bruised and trampled." (Thanks to Gokalp.)


FRENCH EXONERATE TURKS

Foreign Office Denies Kemalists Set Fire to Smyrna.

PARIS, Sept. 26 (Associated Press).-- The French Foreign Office in an official statement published today confirmed the news from Constantinople that General Pelle, the French High Commissioner in that city, and Admiral Dumesnil, the commander of the French forces in Near East waters , had satisified themselves that there was nothing to justify the holding of the Turks responsible for the burning of Smyrna.

Admiral Dumesnil also investigated the charges that the Turks poured kerosene on the houses and streets, and found them false. Both General Pelle and the Admiral found that there had been much excitement in the Greek and Armenian quarters of Smyrna and that a number of Turk officers and men had been wounded by bombs and hand grenades thrown from the houses.

The two French commanders found that fires were started in widely-separated spots in foreign quarters of the city. They learned that French sailors, who were fighting the flames, were fired upon. Turkish authorities tried to put out the fires, but the wind fanned the flames.

"The French Government, if it found nothing showing Turkish responsibility for the fire," said the statement, "on the other hand, has in its possession most damaging testimony of misdeeds of which the Greek Army is guilty and perpetrated during the retreat."

The statement declared that Eski-Shehir was not molested during the Turk retreat, but it was burned when the Greeks were routed. Brusa, which was destined for fire, was saved only by the French Consul and two Italian officers, who induced General Somilas, the Greek commander, to countermand an order for the burning of the town, it stated. The Foreign Office said that most of the neighboring villages were burned and pillaged by Greek soldiers.

Fire Chief Paul Grescovich

 The report of Paul Grescovich, Chief of the "Smyrna" Fire Department (1910-1922), is part of the collection of the Bristol Papers, within the Library of Congress. I am hoping to get a hold of it, to present in this section. This is the one that Housepian ignored (for all intents and purposes) in her book. (ADDENDUM, 10-07: I was likely mistaken for thinking there was such a report; what is in the Bristol collection, relating to Grescovich, must have been Prentiss' report. An article based on this report has been uncovered, and may now be accessed; see links at bottom.)

Until that time, let's review highlights from Mark Prentiss' private report that he sent to Admiral Bristol on January 11, 1923. I don't believe this was published anywhere, and especially if so, it can't be construed as propaganda. This report can be read in its entirety on TAT's first "Izmir" page.

Grescovich impressed Prentiss as a "thoroughly reliable witness." (Makes sense; why would the chief have purposely lied for the Turks? He left the job in the weeks that followed, in case anyone feels he would have broken the Ninth Commandment for the sake of maintaining his position.) Communication was clear, without the need for translators, since the Austrian spoke fluent English.

Prentiss arrived on Sept. 8, as the Greek Army was leaving. Prentiss met with Grescovich on at least the 10th and the 13th (Wednesday), when the fires had started.

"During the first week of September there had been an average of five fires per day with which his crippled department had to cope." Grescovich believed that while most were caused by carelessness, some were deliberately started.

"The average number of fires in a normal year, he said, would be one in ten days, and the increase to five a day seemed significant."

(As the approach of the Turkish Army became imminent, in the week before the Turks arrived, the fact that fires radically increased serves as a tremendous clue.)

"Sunday night, Monday and Monday night, and Tuesday, so many fires were reported at such widely separated points that the fire department was absolutely unable to deal with them." (Compounded by the Turkish military governor's [Kiazim Pasha] ordering the arrest of the Greeks in the fire department, reducing the force to only 37. These days would correspond to Sept. 10, 11 and 12, respectively. Remember, the fire "started" on Sept. 13.)

Because the fire department was unable to cope, these pre-Sept. 13 fires "were extinguished by Turkish soldiers."

On the morning of Sept. 13, Paul Grescovich personally found evidence: he "had seen two Armenian priests escorting several thousand men, women, children from the Armenian schools and Dominican churches where they had taken refuge down to the quays."

 "When he presently went into these institutions he found petroleum-soaked refuse ready for the torch."

The chief was undoubtedly certain, according to Prentiss, that "his own firemen, as well as Turkish guards, had shot down many Armenian young men disguised either as women or as Turkish irregular soldiers, who were caught setting fires Tuesday night and Wednesday morning." (Sept. 12 and Sept. 13.)

On the first day of the fire, Sept. 13, "At 11:20 Wednesday morning , at least half a dozen fires were reported almost simultaneously around the freight terminal warehouses and the passenger station of the Aidine Railroad."

"It is noteworthy that these fires broke out in buildings which it was greatly to the advantage of Turks to preserve, and to the advantage of enemies to destroy."

 

Unfriendly Britons Lay Blame on Greeks & Armenians

 

BRITISH REFUGEES FROM SMYRNA

FIRING OF THE TOWN

(FROM OUR CORRESPONDENT)

PLYMOUTH, OCT. 6 (The London Times, 1922)

Thirty-six refugees from Smyrna arrived at Plymouth to-day, having been sent home from Malta.
(...)
Mr. L. R. Whittall, barrister-at-law, who has been in Smyrna for some years said there was no evidence as to who set fire to the town, but the consensus of opinion was that it was Greek and Armenian incendiaries. It was on September 8 that the Greek Army administration and police evacuated the town. The following day a detachment of Turkish cavalry entered the town, and after that the Turkish Army poured in, followed by large numbers of irregular troops, all armed. The first house to be looted was one occupied by Mr. La Fontaine. The Greeks fired at the advancing Turkish cavalry, and then took refuge in Mr. La Fontaine's house. The Turks entered, shot the men concerned, and then started looting the English houses. Twenty or thirty houses were immediately looted by marauders.

Mr. Whittall contrasted the treatment meted out to British subjects with that extended to French and Italians. It was manifest, he said, that the Turks respected the Italians and French, while the British were stopped and robbed in the main streets.
(...)

Earlier in the brief article, we were told that all were in good health, "in spite of the suffering which they underwent when they were forced to leave their homes at the shortest possible notice." These British were understandably peeved: "They possess practically nothing but the clothes they were wearing and they complained bitterly that they were given no time to save their money and effects. The first warning they received of the seriousness of the situation was a notice issued by the British Vice-Consul on September 4..." (Note: an earlier Times account ["Smyrna Burning. Massacre Fears"], dated Sept. 14, reported, "The British inhabitants, with few exceptions, were safely evacuated last evening on board the warships.")

The last paragraph offers the testimony of "Mrs. Marty, who was probably the last Englishwoman to leave Smyrna." She tells a story about twelve Greek girls who were dragged away by Turks, to be found mutilated in the streets the next morning, "murdered after being ravished." Not to say such a crime could not have occurred [this was probably the same crime related in the Times' "LAST DAYS OF SMYRNA. How the Turks Rode In. Sept. 18," with the difference that the victims numbered three, and Kiazim Pasha was reported to have taken "great trouble next day to restore order... reprimanding the newly appointed Turkish Town Major"], but it is safe to assume Mrs. Marty was not "on the spot," and was repeating yet another "Turkish atrocity" story of hearsay. It's obvious these outraged British refugees did not regard the Turks in the highest light, and therefore it is especially significant that their "consensus" was to lay the blame for Izmir's fire on Greeks and Armenians.

From Halide Edip's "THE TURKISH ORDEAL" (1928)

Halide Edip, the famous Turkish author and humanitarian, sheds light on the "Smyrna" happenings, and save for the nastiest propagandists, is regarded as a truth-teller. As Reader Cihan points out: "A lot of people think that when the Turkish army entered the city all the enemy had escaped. So, they claim if the city was burned down, it cannot (have been) Greeks. But the excerpt I am sending... states that there were still resistance from the Greeks and Armenians who were in the city even after the Greek soldiers escaped."

We get further insight on Noureddin, made out to be the villain of the fire by propagandists, and further insight from the spunky officer who got wounded as the Turks entered. If the assailant threw his bomb from a window (sensible; this way he would have escaped unharmed), then he was not going to get shot on the spot, as some biased foreign "witnesses" reported. The account of houses having been set up with bombs also makes a lot of sense, to pre-plan a fire raging out of control. Here, the blame rests with the Greeks.


CHAPTER XIII

IN SMYRNA

SEPTEMBER 9 (pp. 383-84):

"Soldiers, your goal is the Mediterranean," was the opening line of Mustafa Kemal Pasha's order of the day at the beginning of the campaign. It was a dramatic proclamation with a Napoleonic touch in it, although it was written in the effective but simple style of Ismet Pasha. I thought of it as I caught sight of the blue waters when our procession reached the quay of Smyrna. It was a goal to die for — but the goal of the Turkish soldier was far deeper and more significant than that-it had nothing to do with particular lands and sea. It was an assertion of a people's will to live.

The stately mirrors of the hall of the konak reflected a dusty, khaki-clad group of individuals sitting in the arm-chairs in a silent mood. From a smaller room which opened on the hall one heard the loud voices of Mustafa Kemal Pasha and Noureddine Pasha discussing military matters. There was skirmishing still at Kadife Kale between the Greeks and the Turks, and street fighting in the Armenian quarter, where the Turkish army had been bombed from the windows. Among the crowds in the streets there were queer-looking individuals who made patriotic speeches. They were the usual mushroom heroes who rise up immediately after the success of any cause and show an excess of zeal that seems to leave the other workers quite in the shade.

Halide Edib Hanum (cr.: Underwood & Underwood, NY)

On the table lay a sword sent by an Eastern country to be given to whoever should first enter Smyrna. Several units had entered the city simultaneously from different parts, so there were several claimants. But there was the commander of a cavalry unit, Lieutenant Sheraffedine, who had reached the quay first. He was standing in the middle of the hall, a little dapper figure: legs of a cowboy, head and one arm in bandages, but tingling allover with adventure, and telling his story with a boyish lisp.

"The quay was deserted as we rode," he began. "The first person who came in view was a French admiral. He began making a speech, advising me to be good to the Christian population — it was rather a long speech. I told his Excellency that the quay was not a safe place for him. My remark was prophetic, for before the words were out of my mouth a bomb fell from one of the windows and some one started rifle-firing. The next moment we were busy protecting the admiral from fire and getting him away from the scene. My bandages are souvenirs of that scene."

An English officer was standing by the door. He had brought a message from the English admiral, who asked for appointment with Noureddine Pasha. "You speak to him, Corporal; none of us speak English," said some one.

We drove away to Karshi Yaka. Two houses were picked out for headquarters. The two hostesses, elderly Turkish women, had charming manners. They dined with us and took care of Mustafa Kemal Pasha in their motherly way. I went to bed early. I had a great longing for home.

p. 386:

Fire had broken out in the Armenian quarter. People with bundles and household goods were crowding the quay. The fire was spreading, and the ruddy glow over the city lit the anxious and frightened faces of the people on the quay. In Ismet Pasha's headquarters the commander in charge of the city was telling how he found all the rubber pipes of the fire brigade completely cut to pieces, obviously by intention. He said the Greeks had made every preparation to burn the city.

As the night advanced, the crowd on the quay increased; the fire approached the headquarters. The faces of the people on the quay became more and more tragic as the glow became ruddier, and the disorder increased. When our headquarters caught fire we drove to Karshi Yaka. After finding conveyance for the press representatives, I left with Yoldash. Something in the expression of his eyes made me feel more akin to him than to any human person I spoke to at this moment.

Three long days the fire lasted. After the first few hours it became impossible to approach it. The dynamite and the explosives hoarded by the Greeks under the churches of Aya Triada and Foti, as well as in a number of private houses, were exploding. The sight and noise of it all was ominous. The crimson days in Smyrna evoked other crimson scenes over other fair cities. When would the ordeal by fire and sword of every people cease ? When will the peoples prevent their politicians from gambling with their lives and homes ?


(Thanks to reader Cihan)