Imagine for a second that you are handed a document,
and on paper the stated purpose of this document
is to bring about world peace. This is right
after one of the most devastating, horrific conflicts
in human history. Right, World War I. Exactly,
it's supposed to be the final word. But instead
of peace, the moment the ink dries, this document
instantly sparks a completely new war. fundamentally
tears apart an ancient sprawling empire and it
completely redraws the map of the modern world
in ways that, well, ways that still dominate
global headlines a century later. Welcome to
The Deep Dive. It's great to be here. Today,
we're looking at a truly monumental piece of
history, the Treaty of Sev, signed in 1920. Yeah,
such a critical moment. We have a really fascinating
stack of source material today, drawing specifically
from detailed excerpts of the Wikipedia article
on the treaty. And our mission for this deep
dive is to explore exactly how the victorious
allied powers attempted to carve up the defeated
Ottoman Empire and how this profoundly flawed,
unratified document inadvertently gave birth
to the modern Republic of Turkey. It really is
a watershed moment. I mean, we are talking about
the transition from a multi -ethnic empire that
stood for centuries to the fragmented, often
volatile nation states we recognize today. The
geopolitical stakes could not be higher. But
before we get into the mechanisms of how they
tried to pull this off, we should probably set
some vital ground rules for our discussion. I
am so glad you brought that up because we do
need to be very clear. We are going to be covering
some incredibly complex, historically charred
in politically sensitive events today. Extremely
sensitive. Yeah. Our sources dive into mandates,
border conflicts, forced migrations, and genocides.
So I want to be perfectly transparent with you,
the listener. We are not taking any sides here.
None at all. We are not endorsing any specific
political viewpoints, either left wing, right
wing, or anything in between. Our sole job today
is to impartially report on the content provided
in our source material. We are simply here to
unpack the facts, the differing perspectives,
and the historical records exactly as they are
presented in the text. Precisely. We are just
acting as your guides through the historical
record. Our goal is to synthesize the information
to help you understand the sheer scale of what
was happening in that chaotic aftermath of the
First World War. Without overlaying modern political
judgments onto the text. Exactly. And what a
surreal setting for that aftermath. Yeah. I mean,
let's go to August 10th, 1920. the victorious
allies and the representatives of the defeated
Ottoman Empire meet to formally sign this treaty.
And where do they choose to hold this momentous
event? This is my favorite detail. In an exhibition
room at a porcelain factory in Sevres, France.
It's a porcelain factory. I mean, you really
cannot write a better historical metaphor than
that. They are signing an incredibly fragile
peace treaty in a room. quite literally surrounded
by fragile porcelain. It is a striking image.
And the fragility of the entire situation was
intensely apparent to the Ottoman delegation
from the very beginning. The representatives
of the allied powers had prepared the draft at
the San Remo conference a few months prior. And
when they finally handed it over to the Ottoman
government, it wasn't an invitation for an open
dialogue. They gave Istanbul a strict one month
deadline to respond. A month to decide the fate
of an empire. Yeah. And when the Ottomans formed
a commission, reviewed the devastating terms,
and sent back their recommended edits, the allies
sternly rebuked them. They weren't having it.
Not at all. Istanbul was informed they could
only expect minor unimportant changes. And then
they were handed an ultimatum, just 10 days to
give their final response. OK, let's unpack this
from the Ottoman perspective, because they are
completely backed into a corner. How does a government
even process an ultimatum like that? It's panic.
Complete panic. Right. So before making the final
decision, Sultan Mehmed VI convenes a Sultanate
Council in July 1920. According to our source,
the explicit aim here was to shift the immense
historic responsibility of accepting this treaty
onto a broader group. He didn't want to be the
only one holding the bag. Exactly. So they invite
government members, the Senate, former Grand
Viziers, high ranking officers and the religious
scholars. But they... very notably exclude politicians
affiliated with the growing Turkish national
movement or anyone with a background in the previous
ruling party. Yes, stacking the deck a bit. They
end up with exactly 57 delegates in the room.
And the atmosphere in that room must have been
incredibly grim. The Grand Vizier, Damat Ferit
Pasha, delivered a speech arguing that the country
had arrived at this desperate point due to a
decade of terrible mistakes. Pointing fingers.
Oh, absolutely. He specifically instigated blame
toward the Committee of Union and Progress, the
faction that had previously held power. His core
argument was essentially one of survival. Istanbul
was only remaining in Turkish hands because the
Allies trusted the Sultan. So they had to play
along. Therefore, in his view, they had no choice
but to accept the treaty to keep the capital.
Which leads to an amazing historical quirk during
the actual vote. Out of the 57 delegates present,
everyone votes to sign the treaty, except for
exactly one man. One single guy. A military delegate
named Tapsufariki Rizapasha is the sole person
in the entire room who abstains. Just imagine
the pressure of being that one guy holding out.
It's incredible. Ultimately, three relatively
lower -ranking Ottoman officials are chosen to
actually travel to France and act as the signatories.
Ex -Ambassador Hadi Pasha, Ex -Minister of Education
Riza Tefik Bülükbaşı, and Embassy Secretary Reşat
Hallis. It is worth noting here, as a bit of
historical foreshadowing, that those three men
essentially sacrifice their own futures by putting
their names on that document. Because of the
backlash later. Yeah. The source notes, they
were later stripped of their citizenship by the
Grand National Assembly, which was led by Mustafa
Kemal Pasha, specifically as punishment for signing
away the empire. And when you look at what they
are actually signing away, it is difficult to
comprehend. The territorial laws wasn't just
a concession. It was an eviction notice on a
continental scale. The numbers really reveal
the true severity. In 1914, Ottoman Empire encompassed
roughly 1 ,589 ,540 square kilometers. Huge.
But under the Treaty of Sev, that territory was
slashed to just 453 ,000 square kilometers. They
were losing well over two -thirds of their entire
empire. The treaty was fundamentally designed
to strip away almost all territory not inhabited
directly by Turkish people and cede those lands
to allied administration through a system of
mandates and zones of influence. OK, here's where
it gets really interesting. Let's break down
how that actually works in practice, because
this is where the map gets redrawn. A mandate
wasn't just a suggestion. It was essentially
a system of administrative control granted by
the League of Nations, often functioning very
much like a colony. Basically, colony is an all
but name. Right. Let's start with Britain. Britain
is granted the mandate for Palestine. Crucially,
this incorporated the 1917 Balfour Declaration,
which favored the establishment of a national
home for the Jewish people. But the treaty explicitly
stated that nothing should prejudice the civil
and religious rights of existing non -Jewish
communities in the region. A delicate balance
they were trying to strike. Yeah. Delicate. Britain
also secured the mandate for Iraq. And the negotiations
there were heavily focused on one specific resource.
Oil. Always oil. The oil concession for the Mosul
province was handed straight over to the British
-controlled Turkish petroleum company. Then you
have France, who received the mandate for Syria
and Lebanon. But France also secured a massive
zone of influence directly in southeastern Anatolia,
what is modern -day Turkey. So not even just
the Arab provinces, but Anatolia itself. Exactly.
This covered areas like Antep and Urfa, stretching
far to the north. Italy, meanwhile, was formerly
given possession of the Dodecanese Islands, which
they had actually been occupying since 1912,
and they were granted a large zone of influence
in southern and west -central Anatolia. This
included the historic capital of Konya and the
coastal city of Antalya. And then there's Greece,
which is a really unique piece of this puzzle.
Greece is given eastern Thrace and the administration
of Smyrna, a major city on the Aegean coast.
But the quirk with Smyrna is how they structured
the handover. On paper, the treaty left the region
nominally within the Ottoman Empire. But in reality,
all the day -to -day power and the exercise of
sovereignty was transferred to a local Greek
parliament. Sort of a trial period? Yeah, the
plan was that after five years, there would be
a plebiscite, a public vote overseen by the League
of Nations, so the citizens could simply vote
and choose whether to officially join Greece
or remain Ottoman. And alongside these massive
territorial grabs, the Allies were intently focused
on securing strategic waterways and global trade
routes. They weren't leaving that to chance?
Not at all. The Bosphorus, the Dardanelles, and
the Sea of Marmara were combined into a proposed
Zone of the Straits. Navigation through these
critical waters was to be completely open in
times of both peace and war to all vessels of
commerce and war, regardless of their flag. So
total loss of control for the Ottomans there?
Yes. It was the uncompromising internationalization
of those waters. And they didn't stop at the
waterways either. Certain major ports were declared
to be of international importance, functioning
as free zones. The League of Nations demanded
total freedom and equality in treatment at ports
like Constantinople, Smyrna, and Basra in the
Persian Gulf. Taking all the key economic hubs.
The insight here isn't just who got which piece
of land. It's that the Allies were drawing lines
based heavily on underground oil, maritime choke
points, and European imperial strategy. They
were often completely ignoring the ethnic and
cultural realities on the ground. They were essentially
planting the seeds for a century of conflict.
That becomes especially clear when we look at
what happened to the local populations who had
been promised independence. While the Allies
were very decisive on what they wanted for themselves,
they created a deeply convoluted situation when
it came to establishing entirely new nations
from the ashes of the empire, specifically regarding
Armenia and Kurdistan. So while the European
powers are busy carving out the most lucrative
territories, let's look at those unborn nations.
Section 6 of the treaty recognized Armenia as
a free and independent state, often referred
to as Wilsonian Armenia. Named after the U .S.
president. Exactly. The treaty actually tasked
U .S. President Woodrow Wilson with arbitrating
and drawing the final borders in the eastern
provinces near the Caucasus, like Erzurum and
Van, including granting Armenia an outlet to
the sea. But the political reality back in Washington
made this incredibly complicated. The United
States Senate outright rejected assuming a League
of Nations mandate over Armenia. Just said no.
Pretty much. The United States had decided they
wanted to avoid the heavy responsibility of administering
the region. According to the text, the U .S.
simply wanted a permanent peace as quickly as
possible, along with financial compensation for
its military expenditure. Right. They wanted
out of the partition entirely. Which leaves a
massive geopolitical vacuum right in the middle
of this new map. And the situation was similarly
methy for the Kurdistan region. The treaty scheduled
a referendum for Kurdistan, which included the
Mosul province, to let the local population decide
its fate. But there was a catch. A huge catch.
As our source explains, creating this state hit
a major roadblock. The Kurdish nationalists themselves
couldn't even agree on what the borders of Kurdistan
should look like. The disparity between historical
areas of Kurdish settlement and proposed political
boundaries caused intense internal friction.
You had Sharif Pasha, who represented the Society
for the Elevation of Kurdistan at the Paris Peace
Conference, proposing boundaries that notably
excluded the Van region. But then another prominent
nationalist, Emin Ali Bedir Khan, proposed an
alternative map that deliberately included Van
and an outlet to the sea. Because they couldn't
present a unified front, the diplomatic leverage
weakened. And because of that disagreement, the
treaty ultimately only outlined a truncated Kurdistan
located entirely on what is now Turkish territory.
It completely left out the millions of Kurds
living in neighboring regions like Iran, British
-controlled Iraq, and French -controlled Syria.
It was a compromise that satisfied almost no
one. And left a fractured reality. That theme
of severe restriction and uncompromising control
carries over into the non -territorial provisions
of the treaty as well. The micromanagement by
the Allies was thorough, particularly regarding
the military and finances of whatever was left
of the Ottoman state. Okay, here is where the
logistical absurdity really comes into focus
for me. The military limits in the source material
are wildly specific. How do the Allies plan to
actually enforce this? It's hard to imagine.
Right. The entire Ottoman army wasn't just reduced.
It was capped at exactly 50 ,700 men. For an
empire that recently spanned three continents,
that is not a reduction. That is an abolition.
It's nothing. And the Navy. They were allowed
precisely seven sloops and six torpedo boats.
An empire that used to dominate the Mediterranean
was handed an inventory list for a coast guard.
A small coast guard at that. Furthermore, an
air force was strictly prohibited. The financial
takeover was just as comprehensive. The Allies
designed a system to control the entirety of
the Ottoman Empire's economic engine. They established
a financial commission that was to approve and
supervise the national budget, implement financial
laws, and take total control of the Ottoman Bank.
Total control? Yes. Future changes to the tax
system or customs required the direct consent
of the Allied powers. It's the geopolitical equivalent
of a bank not just foreclosing on your house,
but moving into your living room, taking over
your bank accounts, and telling you what you
you're allowed to buy for dinner. That's a great
way to put it. The treaty even demanded the empire
liquidate all property owned by citizens of former
central powers, like Germany and Austria, living
within its territories, just to ensure no rival
economic influence could take root. The control
extended deeply into social and legal penalties
as well. The treaty mandated that all forced
conversions to Islam that occurred after November
1, 1914 were to be annulled. There was also Article
230, which dealt directly with the concept of
international trials. The treaty formally required
the Ottoman Empire to hand over to the allied
powers the persons responsible for the massacres
committed during the war, specifically addressing
the Armenian Genocide. However, the text notes
the complex reality of how this played out. The
inter -allied tribunal attempt to prosecute these
war criminals was eventually suspended. So they
didn't face trial? No. The men who orchestrated
the genocide ultimately escaped international
prosecution, and the source points out they were
able to travel relatively freely throughout Europe
and Central Asia in the years that followed.
It is a profoundly heavy document. It attempts
to control every single facet of a defeated nation,
from where they draw their borders to how many
torpedo boats they can own. Which leads us to
the inevitable backlash. Naturally. When you
squeeze a country this hard, something is going
to break. Yeah. If we connect this to the broader
historical context, the terms of the Treaty of
Sevres were actually far more severe than those
imposed on the German Empire by the Treaty of
Versailles. Wow, really? Yes. Because it was
so draconian, it was fundamentally impossible
for it to survive on the ground. The open negotiations
had dragged on for over 15 months, delayed constantly
because the Allies couldn't agree among themselves
on how to divide the spoils and because they
were watching a massive resistance movement grow
right under their noses. Exactly. While the Allies
are arguing in European conference rooms, the
Turkish national movement, led by Mustafa Kemal
Pasha, completely splits from the monarchy based
in Istanbul. They set up a rival Turkish Grand
National Assembly in Ankara in April 1920. a
total break in leadership. And on June 7th, they
pass a law declaring that any treaty signed by
the Istanbul government after the formal occupation
of Istanbul on March 16th is completely invalid.
They flatly refuse to recognize the authority
of the men who went to that porcelain factory.
The government in Istanbul even tried to seek
Mustafa Kemal's cooperation to get the treaty
ratified. But he expressed unwavering disdain
for it and launched a military assault instead.
He wasn't having any of it. Not at all. The situation
deteriorated so rapidly that the Turkish government
in Istanbul had to issue a formal note to the
Entente powers saying that ratification of the
treaty was simply impossible at the time. And
that kicks off the Turkish War of Independence.
It is a massive multi -front pushback against
the map drawn itself. The newly formed Turkish
forces are fighting the Greek army in the west,
they are fighting our median forces in the east,
and they are fighting French troops in the south.
It's war in every direction. It is a full -scale
armed rejection of the treaty. At one point during
the Chanak crisis of September 1922, open hostilities
with Britain over the neutral zone of the Straits
are only very narrowly avoided. The resistance
wasn't just contained to Anatolia either. The
source notes that the attempt to enforce these
mandates caused widespread instability. Arabs
in Syria were unwilling to accept French rule,
Turkish forces around Mosul were attacking the
British, and Arabs in Baghdad were rising up
an armed rebellion against British rule. So it
failed everywhere. Yeah. A document intended
to establish a lasting peace was instead causing
immense disorder everywhere its lines were drawn.
So what does this all mean for the history books?
How does this chaotic story actually resolve?
Ultimately, the military success of Mustafa Kemal
and the Turkish War of Independence forced the
former wartime allies to face reality. They had
to abandon the Treaty of Sevres entirely and
return to the negotiating table. They had no
choice. Right. This led to the 1923 Treaty of
Lausanne, which officially established the borders
of the modern Republic of Turkey. Under this
new treaty, France and Italy lost those massive
zones of influence, the internationalization
of Constantinople was dropped, and the Republic
of Turkey secured its sovereignty. The SEV blueprint
was dead. It is incredible to think about how
close the world came to looking entirely different.
I want you the listener. To keep this deep dive
in mind, the next time you look at a map of the
modern Middle East, or the next time you read
the news about border conflicts in Syria or Iraq
or Turkey, it's all connected. You are looking
at the direct lingering fallout of this single
failed document. The Treaty of Sevz was a blueprint
for a world that was violently rejected, but
the scars of where those lines were originally
drawn are still visible today. This raises an
important question and it's something I want
to leave you to mull over as we wrap up. Think
back to the role of the United States in all
of this. The US Senate explicitly rejected assuming
the Armenian mandate because they wanted to avoid
the responsibility of being entangled in the
region, preferring instead to seek quick peace
and financial compensation. Consider how drastically
different the entire history of the 20th century
Middle East and the Caucasus might have been
if the United States had chosen to accept that
mandate and step into the power vacuum rather
than walking away and leaving the region entirely
to European imperial interests. It is a fascinating
what -if of history that really changes how you
view the modern geopolitical landscape. Thank
you so much for joining us on this deep dive.
Keep questioning the history behind the headlines
and we will catch you next time.