HISTORY, GAME THEORY AND CLIODYNAMICS… · HISTORY, GAME THEORY AND CLIODYNAMICS ONUR KÖSE Contact: [email protected]. Purpose: -Determination of historical fact-historical event

HISTORY, GAME THEORY

AND

CLIODYNAMICS

ONUR KÖSE

Contact: [email protected]

Purpose:

-Determination of historical fact-historical event relationship for foreign policy and

social history.

-To analyze the effect of events on the result or fact.

-To analyze the reactions against historical events.

Method:

-The game theorical method.

-Players (governments / newspapers / states / parties), targets (cities / territory /

agreement terms), positions (historical events) and strategies (decisions) were determined.

Abbreviations:

Target: t1, t2…

Position: p1, p2…

Strategy: s1, s2…

Chapters:

1- Turkish Independence War (Strategy Based)

2- Turkish Independence War (Reaction Based)

3- Italian Public Opinion In Turkish Independence War (Social History Based)

Resource Book (Turkish): “Oyun Teorisi Çerçevesinde Tarih Bilimi, Onur KÖSE”

https://www.publitory.com/e_books/1561-oyun-teorisi-cercevesinde-tarih-bilimi-kliometri

https://www.publitory.com/e_books/1561-oyun-teorisi-cercevesinde-tarih-bilimi-kliometri

Examples: “Entry Game”

Date: 19th century

Players: British Empire, German Empire

Arena: Colonialism

Entry Game

Join in Colonization Not Join in Colonization

Not Fight Britain’s colonial gain is reduced. Germany gains new colonies.

The current layout continues: British supremacy in the colonies. German supremacy in the continental Europe.

Fight Britain’s loss is less than the loss of Germany. (Thanks to navy superiority)

If the game is developed;

Example, 1890-1914.

Result; The process of alliance in the First World War is better understood. In

addition;

-Britain’s decisions

-Factors affecting British decisions

-Britain’s gains

-Conditions that change the policies of Britain

-Whether Britain has taken rational decisions

-Britain’s balance policy for Europe

-The colonial policy of Germany

-Allied losses of Germany’s

-Changes in Germany’s policies… mathematically is explained.

If the number of players is increased;

Results:

-German-British dispute

-Italy’s departure from the German axis

-The process leading to the Russia-France alliance

-The bankruptcy of German policy… mathematically is modeled.

A topic for an older history; “Scramble for Africa”

A topic for a wider area; “17th-20th century Colonialism”

For a different topic; “Thirty Years War”

1. TURKISH INDEPENDENCE WAR (STRATEGY BASED)

Date: June 1919 – July 1923

PLAYERS

States following active politics in Turkish Independence War.

Player 1 Britain

Player 2 France

Player 3 Italy

Player 4 USSR

Player 5 Ankara Government (Modern Turkey) and antecedent (Heyet-i Temsiliye)

Player 6 Istanbul Government (Ottoman Empire)

Player 7 Greece

Player 8 Armenia and ASSR

TARGETS

Cities, territory, agreement terms in Turkish Independence War.

Target 1 Ankara Around Ankara

Target 2 İstanbul Around İstanbul

Target 3 Bosporus and Dardanelles management

Target 4 Bosporus and Dardanelles area

Target 5 Mosul Around Mosul

Target 6 Cilicia Urfa, Maraş, Antep, Mersin and Adana.

Target 7 Antalya Antalya, Muğla and Isparta

Target 8 Kars Around Kars

Target 9 İzmir İzmir, Aydın, Manisa and Ayvalık

Target 10 Erzurum Erzurum, Bitlis and Van

Target 11 Trabzon Trabzon, Amasya, Sinop and Samsun

Target 12 Eastern Thrace

Target 13 Western Thrace

Target 14 Batum

Target 15 Bursa Bursa and Balıkesir

Target 16 Uşak Around Uşak

Target 17 Eskişehir Eskişehir, Afyon and Kütahya

Target 18 Diyarbakır Diyarbakır, Elazığ, Mardin and Malatya

Target 19 Sivas Sivas and Tokat

Target 20 Konya Around Konya

Target 21 İskenderun

Target 22 Capitulations (enable or disable)

POSITIONS

Positions occur when players change their decisions.

Positions include not a single event but the process.

Position 1 Congresses period (June 1919 - September 1919)

Position 2 Announcement of Misak-ı Milli (Turkish National Pact) (January 1920 – March 1920)

Position 3 Occupation of İstanbul (March 1920 – April 1920)

Position 4 Grand National Assembly of Turkey (April 1920)

Position 5 Sevr Project (July 1920 – August 1920)

Position 6 Eastern Front and Treaty of Alexandropol (September 1920 – December 1920)

Position 7 Greek forward operation and Conference of London (January 1921 – March 1921)

Position 8 Rejection of London Conference (March 1921 – April 1921)

Position 9 Greek forward operation and Turkish glory (July 1921 – August 1921)

Position 10 Turkish Great Offensive and Treaty of Lausanne (August 1922 – July 1923)

STRATEGIES

Strategies are determined separately for each target by taking into consideration the

objectives of the players in the process. Strategies in Turkish Independence War; Misak-ı

Milli, Megali İdea, Sevr project, secret agreements, great Armenia, Treaty of Ankara etc.

Strategies for Target 1 Ankara:

Strategy 1 “Ankara region must belong to İstanbul government.”

Strategy 2 “Ankara region must belong to Ankara government.”

Strategies for Target 2 İstanbul:

Strategy 1 “İstanbul region must belong to İstanbul government.”

Strategy 2 “İstanbul region must belong to Ankara government.”

Strategy 3 “İstanbul region must belong to Allied (Britain-France-Italy) states.”

Strategy 4 “İstanbul region must belong to Greece.”

Strategies for Target 3 Bosporus and Dardanelles management:

Strategy 1 “Management must belong to Allied (Britain-France-Italy) states.”

Strategy 2 “Management must belong to Ankara government.”

Strategy 3 “Management must belong to Istanbul government.”

Strategy 4 “Management must belong to collective (Turkey-Britain-France-Italy)

states.”

Strategies for Target 4 Bosporus and Dardanelles area:

Strategy 1 “Bosporus and Dardanelles area must belong to İstanbul government.”

Strategy 2 “Bosporus and Dardanelles area must belong to Ankara government.”

Strategy 3 “Bosporus and Dardanelles area must belong to Allied (Britain-France-

Italy) states.”

Strategy 4 “Bosporus and Dardanelles area must belong to Greece.”

Strategies for Target 5 Mosul:

Strategy 1 “Mosul region must belong to Britain.”

Strategy 2 “Mosul region must belong to Istanbul government.”

Strategy 3 “Mosul region must belong to Ankara government.”

Strategies for Target 6 Cilicia:

Strategy 1 “Cilicia region must belong to France.”

Strategy 2 “Cilicia region must belong to Istanbul government.”

Strategy 3 “Cilicia region must belong to Ankara government.”

Strategies for Target 7 Antalya:

Strategy 1 “Antalya region must belong to Italy.”

Strategy 2 “Antalya region must belong to Istanbul government.”

Strategy 3 “Antalya region must belong to Ankara government.”

Strategies for Target 8 Kars:

Strategy 1 “Kars region must belong to Armenia.”

Strategy 2 “Kars region must belong to Istanbul government.”

Strategy 3 “Kars region must belong to Ankara government.”

Strategies for Target 9 İzmir:

Strategy 1 “İzmir region must belong to Greece.”

Strategy 2 “İzmir region must belong to Istanbul government.”

Strategy 3 “İzmir region must belong to Ankara government.”

Strategy 4 “İzmir region must belong to Istanbul government and Greece.”

Strategy 5 “İzmir region must belong to Ankara governmentand Greece.”

Strategies for Target 10 Erzurum:

Strategy 1 “Erzurum region must belong to Armenia.”

Strategy 2 “Erzurum region must belong to Istanbul government.”

Strategy 3 “Erzurum region must belong to Ankara government.”

Strategy 4 “Erzurum region must belong to Ankara government and Armenia.”

Strategies for Target 11 Trabzon:

Strategy 1 “Trabzon region must belong to Istanbul government and Armenia.”

Strategy 2 “Trabzon region must belong to Istanbul government.”

Strategy 3 “Trabzon region must belong to Ankara government.”

Strategies for Target 12 Eastern Thrace:

Strategy 1 “Eastern Thrace region must belong to Greece.”

Strategy 2 “Eastern Thrace region must belong to Istanbul government.”

Strategy 3 “Eastern Thrace region must belong to Ankara government.”

Strategy 4 “Eastern Thrace region must belong to Istanbul government and Greece.”

Strategy 5 “Eastern Thrace region must belong to Ankara government and Greece.”

Strategies for Target 13 Western Thrace:

Strategy 1 “Western Thrace region must belong to Greece.”

Strategy 2 “Plebiscite.”

Strategies for Target 14 Batum:

Strategy 1 “Batum region must belong to Soviet Union.”

Strategy 2 “Batum region must belong to Ankara government.”

Strategy 3 “Batum region must belong to Istanbul government.”

Strategies for Target 15 Bursa:

Strategy 1 “Bursa region must belong to Istanbul government.”

Strategy 2 “Bursa region must belong to Ankara government.”

Strategy 3 “Bursa region must belong to Greece.”

Strategy 4 “Bursa region must belong to Istanbul government and Italy.”

Strategies for Target 16 Uşak:

Strategy 1 “Uşak region must belong to Istanbul government.”

Strategy 2 “Uşak region must belong to Ankara government.”

Strategy 3 “Uşak region must belong to Greece.”

Strategy 4 “Uşak region must belong to Istanbul government and Italy.”

Strategies for Target 17 Eskişehir:

Strategy 1 “Eskişehir region must belong to Istanbul government.”

Strategy 2 “Eskişehir region must belong to Ankara government.”

Strategy 3 “Eskişehir region must belong to Greece.”

Strategy 4 “Eskişehir region must belong to Istanbul government and Italy.”

Strategies for Target 18 Diyarbakır:

Strategy 1 “Diyarbakır region must belong to Armenia.”

Strategy 2 “Diyarbakır region must belong to Istanbul government.”

Strategy 3 “Diyarbakır region must belong to Ankara government.”

Strategy 4 “Diyarbakır region must belong to France.”

Strategies for Target 19 Sivas:

Strategy 1 “Sivas region must belong to Istanbul government.”

Strategy 2 “Sivas region must belong to Ankara government.”

Strategy 3 “Sivas region must belong to France.”

Strategies for Target 20 Konya:

Strategy 1 “Konya region must belong to Italy.”

Strategy 2 “Konya region must belong to Istanbul government.”

Strategy 3 “Konya region must belong to Ankara government.”

Strategies for Target 21 İskenderun:

Strategy 1 “İskenderun region must belong to France.”

Strategy 2 “İskenderun region must belong to Istanbul government.”

Strategy 3 “İskenderun region must belong to Ankara government.”

Strategies for Target 22 Capitulations:

Strategy 1 “The Allied states(Britain-France-Italy) must benefit from capitulations.”

Strategy 2 “Capitulations must be repealed.”

Strategy 3 “France and Italy must benefit from capitulations.”

GAMES

Congresses period (June 1919 - September 1919)

The defeat of the Ottoman Empire in the First World War, the Armistice of Mudros

and the subsequent occupations led to the begining of the independence movement in

Anatolia. On the one hand, there were armed resistance against the occupations, on the

other hand congresses were held fort he common resistance in the regions like Erzurum and

Sivas.

On 21-22 June 1919, a circular was issued in Amasya. Briefly;

“1.The unity and the independence of the nation is at great risk.

2.The government of the Istanbul can't deal with the responsibility they take, the

situation made our nation look like gone.

3.Independence of the nation can be saved only by determination and faith of it.

4.To reach the nations purposes and to defend the people's rights, we must have a

national committee free of restraint and inspection.

5.We will be having congress in the Sivas which is the safest place in any case.

6.For this purpose by the community of Müdafaa-i Hukuk and Redd-i İlhak three

people from every province will be selected as representative.

7. In any case the representatives must not use their real identities on the road and

this circular must be kept as a national secret.

8.For the east side cities at July 10th there will be a congress at Erzurum .Until that

date if the other representatives can reach Sivas the ones in east cities will move to Sivas.”

On 23 July 1919, a congress of fifty-six delegates from the vilayets of Bitlis, Erzurum,

Sivas, Trabzon and Van gathered in Erzurum for the assembly called by Mustafa Kemal and

Kâzım Karabekir:

“1) The motherland is a whole, and cannot be divided.

2) The nation will defend itself and resist against any kind of foreign invasion and

intervention.

3) The basic principle is to do everything with the power of the nation's people and to

hold the people's will above all.

4) Mandate and patronage cannot be accepted.”

After the Erzurum Congress, local congresses were held in various regions. Finally, 4-

11 September 1919, a congress was gathered in Sivas. During the Mudros Armistice, which

was held on 30 October 1918, the lands remaining in the hands of the state were accepted

as an inseparable whole.

In this position, Britain, France, Italy, Greece and Armenia have set the strategy

according to the truce conditions signed in Mondros and the land demands on the Ottoman

State during the First World War. According to this;

Ankara, İstanbul, Bosporus, Bursa, Uşak, Eskişehir, Sivas regions to İstanbul

government,

Bosporus management to Allied States,

Mosul region to Britain,

Cilicia, İskenderun regions to France,

Antalya, Konya regions to Italy,

Kars, Diyarbakır, Erzurum regions to Armenia,

İzmir, Eastern Thrace, Western Thrace regions to Greece.

Batum region to Soviet Union,

Trabzon region to Istanbul government and Armenia,

The Allied states(Britain-France-Italy) must benefit from capitulations.

Anatolian-Rumelia Defense of Rights Society (The Pioneer of the Ankara

government), according to the Sivas Congress decisions determined strategy. According to

the Sivas Congress decisions; On the day when the ceasefire was signed, the majority of the

Muslim Turks were accepted within the national borders.

The Istanbul government has determined its strategy according to its borders before

the Mudros Armistice.

It is assumed that Soviet Russia, which determines strategies in the Batumi region in

line with its own demands, acts in partnership with the Ankara.

The process of this position called circular and congress, lasted from June 1919 to

September 1919.

The strategy table is shown below. (t: target, s: strategy)

t1 t2 t3 t4 t5 t6 t7 t8 t9 t10 t11

Britain s1 s1 s1 s1 s1 s1 s1 s1 s1 s1 s1

France s1 s1 s1 s1 s1 s1 s1 s1 s1 s1 s1

Italy s1 s1 s1 s1 s1 s1 s1 s1 s1 s1 s1

Soviet Russia s2 s2 s2 s2 s3 s3 s3 s3 s3 s3 s3

Ankara s2 s2 s2 s2 s3 s3 s3 s3 s3 s3 s3

İstanbul s1 s1 s1 s1 s2 s2 s2 s2 s2 s2 s2

Greece s1 s1 s1 s1 s1 s1 s1 s1 s1 s1 s1

Armenia s1 s1 s1 s1 s1 s1 s1 s1 s1 s1 s1

t12 t13 t14 t15 t16 t17 t18 t19 t20 t21 t22









Announcement of Misak-ı Milli (Turkish National Pact) (January 1920 – March 1920)

The organization at the Sivas Congress had given birth to a new movement. This

organization, which was newly established in Anatolia, constituted the National Pact

decisions that acted from the principles of full independence.

Decisions in the text of the National Pact:

a. The Arab territories occupied by the Entente States as of the day the Ottoman

Empire signed the Treaty of Mondros, were left to the people's choice. The day of the

signing of the ceasefire unseen land is the land of the homeland.

b. Kars, Ardahan and Batum, that have participated in their homeland with their own

votes, have the right to vote again if necessary.

c. The territory of Western Thrace was left to referendum.

d. The opening of the Straits to trade depends on the joint decision to be taken with

the participation of the respective states.

e. The minority rights designed by the Entente States will be adopted on condition

that the Muslim people in neighboring countries have the same rights.

f. Except for external debts, all records that restrict political, judicial and financial

development are not recognized.

These decisions had spread all over Anatolia and then to Istanbul and changed the

ideas of the Istanbul government.

In this position, Britain, France, Italy, Greece and Armenia have set the strategy

according to the truce conditions signed in Mondros and the land demands on the Ottoman

State during the First World War. According to this;

Ankara, İstanbul, Bosporus, Bursa, Uşak, Eskişehir, Sivas regions to İstanbul

government,

Bosporus management to Allied States,




Kars, Diyarbakır, Erzurum regions to Armenia,

İzmir, Eastern Thrace, Western Thrace regions to Greece.





government), according to the Misak-ı Milli decisions determined strategy.

Istanbul government according to the Misak-ı Milli decisions determined strategy. (as

player 6)

Soviet Russia according to the Misak-ı Milli decisions determined strategy. (except

Batum)

This position, called the proclamation of the National Pact, lasted from January 1920

to March 1920.

In this position, only the strategies of Istanbul government have changed according

to the previous one. The reason for this may be the impact of the National Pact decisions on

Istanbul.

The strategy table is shown below.

t1 t2 t3 t4 t5 t6 t7 t8 t9 t10 t11









t12 t13 t14 t15 t16 t17 t18 t19 t20 t21 t22









Occupation of İstanbul (March 1920 – April 1920)

Istanbul, which approached the National Pact decisions, faced the occupation of the

Entente States and occupation took place on 16 March 1920.

Ankara, Bosporus, Bursa, Uşak, Eskişehir, Sivas regions to İstanbul government,

Bosporus management and Istanbul region to Allied States,




Kars, Erzurum, Diyarbakır regions to Armenia,

İzmir, Eastern Thrace, Western Thrace regions to Greece,





government), according to the Misak-ı Milli decisions determined strategy.

The Istanbul government has moved away from the National Pact decisions during

this occupation period and Damat Ferit government has adopted a strategy in line with allied

demands. According to this; The Istanbul government adopted all the strategies of the

Entente States.

Soviet Russia according to the Misak-ı Milli decisions determined strategy. (except

Batum)

This position, called the occupation of Istanbul, lasted from March 1920 to April

1920.


t1 t2 t3 t4 t5 t6 t7 t8 t9 t10 t11









t12 t13 t14 t15 t16 t17 t18 t19 t20 t21 t22









Grand National Assembly of Turkey (April 1920)

It was decided to establish a new parliament in Anatolia upon the occupation of

Istanbul and the new parliament was opened on 23 April 1920 in Ankara.

From April 1920 to July 1920, there was no change in the strategy according to the

previous one.

The strategy table is the same as the previous one and is shown below.

t1 t2 t3 t4 t5 t6 t7 t8 t9 t10 t11









t12 t13 t14 t15 t16 t17 t18 t19 t20 t21 t22









Sevr Project (July 1920 – August 1920)

The Entente States presented their Sevres project against Ankara and left no other

choice but to fight against Ankara. Important decisions of the Treaty of Sevres:

- The city of Istanbul is the capital of the Ottoman Empire. However, Istanbul will not

be returned if the minority rights designed by the Entente States are not applied.

- The Straits will be managed by the Commission and will be open to all ships.

- If the Kurds' desire to establish a separate state in Eastern Anatolia is accepted by

League of Nations, the Ottoman Empire will accept it.

- Most of Thrace will be given to Greece.

-Izmir will remain in the hands of the Turks but will be governed by Greek

administrators.

-Syria will be left in France.

- Iraq and Arabia will be given to Britain.

-Armenian State will be established in Eastern Anatolia. Boundary detection will be

left to Wilson.

-Minority rights will be expanded.

-All allied countries will benefit from capitulations.

In this process, England, France, Italy, Greece and Armenia have determined the Sevr

project as a strategy. Istanbul government had to accept this project.

Ankara, Istanbul regions to İstanbul government,

Bosporus region and management to Allied States,


Cilicia, Diyarbakır, Sivas, İskenderun regions to France,

Antalya, Konya, Uşak regions to Italy,

Kars, Erzurum regions to Armenia,

İzmir, Eastern Thrace, Western Thrace regions to Greece,



Bursa and Eskişehir regions to Istanbul government and Italy,


Ankara continued the National Pact decisions in this process. But there was a change

in Soviet Russia. The Soviets asked for the joint management of Armenia / Ankara for the

Erzurum region.

The process of this position, called the Sevr project, lasted from July 1920 to August

1920.


t1 t2 t3 t4 t5 t6 t7 t8 t9 t10 t11









t12 t13 t14 t15 t16 t17 t18 t19 t20 t21 t22









Eastern Front and Treaty of Alexandropol (September 1920 – December 1920)

The Ankara government's operation in the Caucasus region has completely changed

the strategy of Armenia. Armenia, first ignoring Sevres, signed the Treaty of Alexandropol

and then turned into the Armenian Soviet Socialist Republic.

In this process, Armenia abandoned all the demands in the list of targets and

recognized the Ankara government. The Soviets changed their strategy on Erzurum and

adopted a strategy in favor of the Ankara government. In Batum, the conflict of interest of

two decision-makers continues. With this move of Armenia, it has been assumed that the

decisions of the Allies have changed in favor of the Istanbul government.

Because Armenia is a Soviet Socialist republic, its next strategy will be assumed to be

exactly the same with Soviet Russia.

The process of this position, called the eastern operation, lasted from September

1920 to December 1920.


t1 t2 t3 t4 t5 t6 t7 t8 t9 t10 t11









t12 t13 t14 t15 t16 t17 t18 t19 t20 t21 t22









Greek forward operation and Conference of London (January 1921 – March 1921)

The Greeks attacked the Inonu positions in order to accept the Sevr and to be

superior to the planned London Conference. In this battle that took place on 6-11 January

1921, the Greeks proceeded in the direction of Eskişehir from the direction of Bursa and

were stopped in the right wing and left wing in the west of İnönü. However, he found a gap

in the area where the railway was passing and continued his offensive from the center. Bu

kırılma üzerine Türk sağ kanadı tamamen geriye çekilerek doğuya mevzilenmişti. Half of the

Turkish left wing remained in place and opposed the Greek attack. The other half had moved

to the center to prevent the siege and turned north. While the Turkish troops were waiting

for the battle in İnönü and the east, the Greeks had not collapsed the Turkish left flank and

completely retreated.

In March 1921 Ankara came to a superior position at the London Conference, but the

agreement could not be achieved. Bekir Sami had signed secret agreements with France and

Italy, with some concessions, he had removed the two states from the allied pole. In the

meantime, the Greeks again attacked and lost again. In addition, the Moscow Treaty with

the Soviets was signed, the Batumi issue was resolved in favor of the Soviets.

The United Kingdom has identified the softened version of Sevres as a strategy and

should be jointly managed by the Greeks and the Istanbul government in the Eastern Thrace

region. Although the government of France, Italy and Ankara agreed on fundamental issues,

there were still differences of opinion among them.

Greece adopted the Megali Idea instead of Sevr.

The Soviet Russia and Armenian SSR agreed with Ankara, a natural ally, and set a

common strategy for Batum. The process, called the Greek forward operation and the

London Conference, lasted from January 1921 to March 1921.


t1 t2 t3 t4 t5 t6 t7 t8 t9 t10 t11









t12 t13 t14 t15 t16 t17 t18 t19 t20 t21 t22









Rejection of London Conference (March 1921 – April 1921)

The secret agreements with France and Italy at the London Conference were rejected

by Ankara due to too much concessions. Allied strategies and Ankara strategies almost

coincided with the strategies in the previous position. In particular, the Moscow Agreement

can be shown as another reason for the deterioration of France's relations with Ankara.

The strategies of England, France and Italy were again the same. On the other hand,

the government of Istanbul adopted the decisions of the Entente States. Greece continued

the Megali Idea. Ankara government and Soviet Russia did not change the Moscow

Agreement.

The process for the denial of the London Conference is from March 1921 to April

1921.


t1 t2 t3 t4 t5 t6 t7 t8 t9 t10 t11









t12 t13 t14 t15 t16 t17 t18 t19 t20 t21 t22









Greek forward operation and Turkish glory (July 1921 – August 1921)

In July 1921, the Greeks started the offensive by two wings as in the Second Inönü

Battle. The first wing was made to the Inonu positions in the north. However, this time the

real forces were not in the north. The second wings were from in south, Uşak to Kütahya.

The Greek forces defeated the Turkish line of defense in Kütahya. The Turkish army was pass

to the east of the Sakarya River without being destroyed. In August, a bloody battle began in

Sakarya. The purpose of the Greeks was to besiege and destroy the Turkish army and

capture Ankara. The Greeks lost it again and they retreated to Afyon Eskişehir line. Ankara

won a great victory.

During this period, when the Turks gained victory, there were big changes. Britain

and Italy adopted the strategies that made concessions from the Sevr project. The Istanbul

government was in line with Britain's strategy. Although Greece was defeated still insisted

on Megali Idea. So much so that Greece even claimed to be on Istanbul despite the Allies.

With the Ankara Agreement signed between France and Ankara, France was

relinquishing its Sevres requests. Ankara was also giving up its demand in Iskenderun region.

France was no longer in agreement with the government of Istanbul, but with the

government of Ankara.

Soviet Russia and Armenia were in line with the decisions of the Ankara government.


t1 t2 t3 t4 t5 t6 t7 t8 t9 t10 t11









t12 t13 t14 t15 t16 t17 t18 t19 t20 t21 t22









Turkish Great Offensive and Treaty of Lausanne (August 1922 – July 1923)

After the victory in Sakarya, the government of Ankara wanted to give the Greeks a

definite defeat. A major Turkish offensive began on August 26, 1922. On August 30, 1922,

the extermination took place and in the following days, Anatolia completely escaped the

Greek occupation. The Mudanya Agreement and then the Lausanne Treaty were signed

between the Ankara government and the Entente Powers. Most of the targets we have set

in the Lausanne Treaty were accepted in accordance with the demands of the Ankara

government.

Together with Lausanne, players have agreed on almost all issues. In the Treaty of

Lausanne, only the decision of the Mosul region was delayed. In addition, all issues were

mostly resolved in favor of the Ankara government.

The process is from August 1922 to July 1923.


t1 t2 t3 t4 t5 t6 t7 t8 t9 t10 t11









t12 t13 t14 t15 t16 t17 t18 t19 t20 t21 t22









ANALYSIS

Deviations of positions according to the previous one

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

p1 p2 p3 p4 p5 p6 p7 p8 p9 p10

Deviations of positions according to the previous one

In the first position (Congresses period (June 1919 - September 1919)) the deviation

is not examined.

A deviation was detected in position 2 (Announcement of Misak-ı Milli (Turkish

National Pact) (January 1920 – March 1920)). The Istanbul government's participation in the

National Pact of Misak-ı Milli, caused a deviation of 2.27%.

In the third position (Occupation of İstanbul (March 1920 – April 1920)), 11.93%

deviation was detected. The reason is that the Allies occupy Istanbul. Then, the Istanbul

government also cooperated with the allies.

There was no change in position 4 (Grand National Assembly of Turkey (April 1920)).

In the fifth position (Sevr Project (July 1920 – August 1920)), 24,43% deviation was

detected.

In the sixth position (Eastern Front and Treaty of Alexandropol (September 1920 –

December 1920)) 21,02% deviation was detected. The reason is that Armenia is transformed

into ASSR.

In the seventh position (Greek forward operation and Conference of London (January

1921 – March 1921)) 27,84% deviation was detected.

In the eighth position (Rejection of London Conference (March 1921 – April 1921))

23,29% deviation was detected.

In the ninth position (Greek forward operation and Turkish glory (July 1921 – August

1921)) 26,7% deviation was detected.

In the tenth position (Turkish Great Offensive and Treaty of Lausanne (August 1922 –

July 1923)) 47,72% deviation was detected.

As a result, the biggest change in the deviation analysis was at the position 10 where

the Great Offensive occurred.

The proximity of the positions to the Lausanne Agreement is shown in the table

below.

When the strategy tables of Position 1 and Position 10 are examined; The strategies

in Position 1 are similar to 32.95% Treaty of Lausanne. Of the 176 strategies in total, only 58

strategies are the same. In other words, there is quite a difference between the strategies

that all players try to implement and the strategies they adopt in Lausanne.

When the strategy tables of Position 2 and Position 10 are examined; Only one

strategy has impacted. The strategies in Position 2 are similar to 32.38% Treaty of Lausanne.

Of the 176 strategies in total, only 57 strategies are the same.


in Position 3 are similar to 34.09% Treaty of Lausanne.







0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

p1 p2 p3 p4 p5 p6 p7 p8 p9

The proximity of the positions to the Lausanne Treaty







The similarity of the positions with the Misak-ı Milli is shown in the table below.

When the strategy tables of Position 1 and Misak-ı Milli (Turkish National Pact) are

examined; The strategies in Position 1 are similar to 24.43% Misak-ı Milli. Of the 176

strategies in total, only 43 strategies are the same.

When the strategy tables of Position 2 and Misak-ı Milli are examined; The strategies

in Position 2 are similar to 26.13% Misak-ı Milli.







0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

p1 p2 p3 p4 p5 p6 p7 p8 p9 p10

The similarity of the positions to the National Pact









When the strategy tables of Position 10 and Misak-ı Milli are examined; The

strategies in Position 10 are similar to 78.97% Misak-ı Milli.

2. TURKISH INDEPENDENCE WAR (REACTION BASED)

INTRODUCTION

Reaction based games, the process from Izmir's occupation to Lausanne will be

examined. Players are the same as players in strategy based games, target concept is not in

the reaction-based game. Positions are also strategies. (and there are 11 positions in this

game.)

What is important in rection-based analysis is the reactio to positions. The reactions

were divided into three classes. The first one can be explained by concepts like

organization/integration/institutionalization. Example: To respond by organizing against an

occupation. The second reaction is military operations, military defenses or militia forces.

The third reaction is the changes in the diplomatic preferences of the players.

The reactions will be analyzed according to their diversity rather than their strength.

Although it is possible to rate the reactions among themselves, it is not preferred in this

study because of the new methodology in the study.

In the game analysis we can divide the strategies applied by the players over the

reaction into three classes. The only negative reaction to a positive position is the standard

reaction strategy. The negative and positive reaction to a positive position is the maxmin

strategy. In other words, countermeasures are minimized as much as possible. Finally, the

only positive reaction to a positive reaction is called the optimal strategy and adapted to the

science of history.

Diplomacy in the reaction-based game is analyzed in bipolar. The cooperation

between the eight players was proportionally determined.

The concept of process has been developed as an additional concept for reaction-

based game analysis. The concept of process is the expression of the positions by common

units as a result of the comparison of the positions. (1 mount – 7 mount -> 1 unit – 7 unit)

GAMES

Occupation of Izmir

The occupation of Izmir is the first position and 1 unit process. With this movement

of the Greeks, the Turkish people who opposed the occupation in Anatolia and Thrace

showed the reactions in the model. The organization work that was determined as the first

class reaction was realized by the Turkish people by laying the foundations of the Kuvayı

Milliye (Turkish militia army) organization. It also ensured the collection of congresses. In

addition, the Istanbul government was constantly making propaganda against the Kuvayı

Milliye and trying to break their influence in the eyes of the public. The armed resistance,

which was the second class reaction, had begun. This resistance, which first started in Urla,

spread to many areas that were occupied by the Greeks in a short time. The Greece, on the

other hand, were using Greek gangs. The Greek gangs were attacking both the Turkish

people in the region and the militia forces. In addition, the Greeks were expanding their

occupations against militia forces in the region.

The player who was identified as the Anatolian movement in his cooperation was left

alone. Soviet Russia has not yet joined the Turkish National Struggle. The rate is six against

one.

The table is shown below.

Position 1 Occupation of Izmir

Process Reactions (-)

May 1919 June 1919

The foundations of the Turkish Militia Army Organization were laid. Circular and Congresses process started. The strength of Turkish legal defense associations increased.

The activities of the Istanbul government against Kuvayı Milliye.

The armed resistance has begun.

The activities of the Greek gangs, the forward operation of the Greece.

Anatolia movement (1) Britain, France, Italy, Istanbul government, Greece, Armenia (6)

1 unit + + (1) - - (6)

Congresses Period

In this position where there are events like Sivas Congress, Erzurum Congress and

Amasya Circular; Ali Galip event is seen as a first-class reaction. Istanbul and Great Britain

reacted with Ali Galip to against the organization in Anatolia. However, this failed, and all

communities in Anatolia were united. In addition, the "Heyet-i Temsiliye" was established

and took over the administration in Anatolia. Against this, the Istanbul government called all

the resistance officers in Anatolia to Istanbul.

In the second class reaction, the armed struggle against the movement in Anatolia

had begun. There have been many conflicts between the Anzavur rebellion and the National

Militia Forces.

In foreign policy, Heyet-i Temsiliye (player 5) and Soviet Russia have established close

relations and collaborated against their common enemies. The Rate is six against two.


Position 2 Congresses Period

Process Reactions (+)

June 1919 January 1920

Ali Galip Event. Calling the resistance officers to Istanbul.

The resistance communities united. (Anadolu ve Rumeli Müdafaai Hukuk Cemiyeti [Anatolian and Rumelia Defense Law Community] ) Heyet-i Temsiliye (Representation Committee) was established.

Anzavur rebellion

Britain, France, Italy, Istanbul government, Greece, Armenia (6)

Heyet-i Temsiliye, Soviet Russia (2)

7 units - - (6) + + (2)

Announement of Misak-ı Milli (Turkish National Pact)

As a result of this position is a positive reaction, counter-reactions have been mostly

carried out by the allies. There is no first-class reaction. In short, there was no change in the

organization.

As a second class reaction, the Allies occupied Istanbul. This occupation, which was

realized as a result of the influence of the Misak-ı Milli decisions on the Istanbul government,

brought about a change of government.

In foreign policy, Heyet-i Temsiliye and Soviet Russia have established close relations

and collaborated against their common enemies. In the process of the National Pact, the

Istanbul government was directed towards the organization in Anatolia. Rate is five against

three.


Position 3 Announcement of Misak-ı Milli


January 1920 March 1920

Istanbul was occupied by the Entente states.

Britain, France, Italy, Greece, Armenia (5)

Heyet-i Temsiliye, Soviet Russia, İstanbul government (3)

2 units - (5) (3)

Occupation of Istanbul

This process was a negative reaction, and the reactions were mostly carried out by

the Turkish people in Anatolia. In a first-class reaction, it was decided to open a parliament

in Anatolia.

As a second-class reaction, the Allies made some arrests in Istanbul. Anatolia, in

response, arrested their allied officers in their region.

In the foreign policy, the Istanbul government has again acted on the Allied axis. Rate

is six against two.


Position 4 Occupation of Istanbul


March 1920 April 1920

Turkey's parliament opened.

Officers of the Entente states in Anatolia were arrested.

The Entente States arrested many people in Istanbul.

Heyet-i Temsiliye, Soviet Rusya Britain, France, Italy, Istanbul government, Greece, Armenia

1 unit + + (2) - (6)

Grand National Assembly of Turkey

This process was a positive reaction, and the counter-reactions were mostly carried

out by allies and Greeks.

Although the Allies do not have a first-class reaction, the Ankara government's

initiation of work for the regular army is a reaction that supports the position.

The second class reaction is that the Greeks carried out operations inside Anatolia,

and there were also riots backed by Istanbul in various parts of Anatolia.

In foreign policy, Ankara and Soviet Russia established close relations and cooperated

against their common enemies. Rate is six against two.


Position 5 Grand National Assembly of Turkey


April 1920 July 1920

The work for the regular army began.

The Greek forward operation began. Rebellions started in various regions in Anatolia.


Ankara government, Soviet Russia (2)

3 units - (6) + (2)

Sevr Project

This process was a negative reaction and the reactions were mostly carried out by

Ankara government. There is no first-class reaction in this process.

In the second class reaction, it was shown that the Greeks carried out operations

inside Anatolia, but Ankara started regular resistance.

In foreign policy, Ankara and Soviet Russia established close relations and cooperated

against their common enemies. Rate is six against two.


Position 6 Sevr Project


July 1920 August 1920

Regular resistance to occupations began.

The Greek forward operation continued.

Ankara government, Soviet Russia (2)


1 unit + (2) - (6)

Eastern Front and Treaty of Alexandropol

This process is a positive response, and the counter reactions have not been realized.

In a first-class reaction, it can be shown that some of the weapons and ammunition in

the east are shifted to the west and the Allies abandon their plans for the east.

In foreign policy, Ankara's close relations with Soviet Russia indirectly included the

Armenian Soviet Socialist Republic in this cooperation. Rate is five against three.


Position 7 Eastern Front and Treaty of Alexandropol


September 1920 December 1920

Arms and ammunition in the east were shifted to the west. Armenia recognized the Turkey National Assembly and the Turkey National Pact.

Britain, France, Italy, Istanbul government, Greece (5)

Ankara government, Soviet Russia, the Armenian Soviet Socialist Republic (3)

3 units (5) + (3)

Greek Forward Operation and Conference of London

This process was a negative reaction and the reactions were mostly carried out by the

Ankara government.

There is no first-class reaction. The second class reaction was the victory of Inonu

against the Greeks.

Many things have changed in foreign policy, and only the Britain and Greece remain

in against Ankara government. Rate is two against six. Here, Bekir Sami Bey has a great role.

Because Bekir Sami Bey made secret agreements with France and Italy during the London

Conference and brought them closer to the axis of the Ankara government.


Position 8 Greek Forward Operation and Conference of London


January 1921 March 1921

Turkish army victory in İnönü

Ankara government, Istanbul government, France, Italy, Soviet

Britain, Greece (2)

Russia, Armenian Soviet Socialist Republic (6)

2 units + (6) (2)

Rejection of London Conference

This process was a positive reaction, and the counter-reactions were mostly carried

out by allies and Greeks. There is no first-class reaction in this process.

The second-class reaction is that the Greeks start the forward operation again.

There are five states against Ankara, Soviet Russia and Armenia in foreign policy. Rate

is five against three.


Position 9 Rejection of London Conference


March 1921 April 1921

The Greeks started to move forward.

Britain, France, Italy, Istanbul government, Greece (5)

Ankara government, Soviet Russia, ASSR (3)

1 unit - (5) (3)

Greek Forward Operation and Turkish Glory

This process was a negative reaction and the reactions were mostly carried out by the

Ankara government.

In the first class response, Tekalif-i Milliye (National Tax) orders were applied, the

army and the people were engaged.

The second class reaction was the Battle of Sakarya against the Greeks.

In foreign policy, England, Italy, Istanbul government and Greece remained against

the Ankara government. Because an agreement was signed between France and Ankara.

Rate is four against four.


Position 10 Greek Forward Operation and Turkish Glory


July 1921 August 1921

National tax orders were accepted. The Law on Commander-in-Chief was adopted.

The Battle of Sakarya was won.

Ankara government, France, Soviet Russia, ASSR (4)

Britain, Italy, Greece, Istanbul government (4)

1 unit + + (4) (4)

Turkish Great Offensive and Treaty of Lausanne

This process was a positive reaction, but the reactions were again in favor of the

Ankara government.

In a first-class reaction, the allies have largely accepted the conditions of Ankara.

The second-class reaction is the complete elimination of the Greek army from

Anatolia.

Collaboration rates disappeared with Lausanne.


Position 11 Turkish Great Offensive and Treaty of Lausanne


August 1922 July 1923

The entente states have largely accepted the demands of the Turkish Grand National Assembly.

The Greeks were defeated and the regions they occupied were taken back.

Ankara government, Britain, France, Italy, Soviet Russia, Greece, Armenian Soviet Socialist Republic

11 units (0) + + (7)

ANALYSIS

Process Reaction Strategy Foreign policy rate

Position 1 1 unit - Maxmin strategy

+ + - - 1/6

Position 2 7 units + Maxmin strategy

+ + - - 2/6

Position 3 2 units + Standard reaction strategy

- 3/5


+ + - 2/6

Position 5 3 units + Maxmin strategy

+ - 2/6


+ - 2/6

Position 7 3 units + Optimal strategy

+ 3/5

Position 8 2 units - Standard reaction strategy

+ 6/2

Position 9 1 unit + Standard reaction strategy

- 3/5

Position 10 1 unit - Standard reaction strategy

+ + 4/4

Position 11 11 units + Optimal strategy

+ + 8/0

In the above table, there are three boxes in the reaction section of each position. The

upper part of these boxes relates to the general character of the position, and the two boxes

below indicate the reaction to the position. Positive responses(+) indicate reactions in favor

of the Ankara government. Negative reactions(-) refer to reactions in favor of allies. Any

reaction below a position may also be the other position itself. This method has been

determined in order not to disturb the cause-effect relationship in history.

When we look at the strategies, we see that the Eastern Operations(P7) and the

Great Offensive(P11) are the optimal strategies. The optimal strategy relates to the presence

of a reaction with the same character as the position. In position 7, where the eastern

operation of the Turkish army and the Alexandropol Treaty were signed, Armenia rejected

the Treaty of Sevres and agreed with the Ankara government. From this point forward,

Armenia would not pursue a more allied-oriented policy. Likewise, in position 11, Greece

and all states which supported it rejected the Treaty of Sèvres and agreed with the Turkish

Grand National Assembly. After this point, the war ended, and naturally, the Allies did not

pursue a policy against the Ankara government. In the table we draw, there is only one

explanation; After the optimal strategy, the coalition-changing players never joined the old

coalition again in the process. Although there were short term changes before the East

operation, there was a 2/6 coalition, but after this position, a third player was added to the

ossified 2-player coalition. After the great attack, the coalition united against Ankara was

completely disbanded.

When we look at the maxmin strategy, which is another type of strategy, P1, P2, P4,

P5, P6 are a maxmin strategy and no changes have taken place in coalitions. Coalitions

continued 2/6 rate. According to the table we draw, the biggest reason for this is that

maxmin strategies keep the reactions in a constant balance. It shows that there is no change

in coalitions if a preventive reaction is established against the reactions that occurred after

the occupation of a place.

The most unpredictable of the reaction types was the standard reaction strategy. This

reaction; it was created against the character of the position, but no measures were taken to

balance it. These reactions have led to large changes in coalitions such as optimal strategies,

but these changes do not have the ability to be permanent as in optimal strategies. A

standard reaction strategy(or occupation movement) with opposing character can transform

the situation in coalitions. For example, position 8, position 9 and position 10 are standard

reaction strategies. Position 8 was a positive standard reaction for the Turkish Grand

National Assembly, and the rate in coalitions was 6/2. Then, after the rejection of the secret

agreements at the London conference, there was a negative standard reaction for Ankara

and the rate was restored. The battle of Sakarya and Ankara agreement, which was

experienced immediately after that, had a positive response to the Turkish Grand National

Assembly and coalitions were four against four.

When we look at the changes in cooperation in the analysis of the reaction-based

game, we see two positions where the Ankara government is located in the dominant pole.

The first is the secret treaties signed at the London Conference, and the second is the

Lausanne Treaty. However, the Lausanne process supported important military victories

such as the Battle of Sakarya and the Great Offensive. The secret treaties in London only

supported the establishment of the regular army and the victory of İnönü. In spite of this, a

superiority of 6/2 was achieved in London process. In the early stages of the Turkish National

Struggle, this is indeed a great success.

No common point has been found on processes. However, different results can be

observed if the processes are equally distributed to the reactions.

3. ITALIAN PUBLIC OPINION IN TURKISH INDEPENDENCE WAR (SOCIAL HISTORY

BASED)

In this model, it is aimed to determine the deviations experienced by the Italian

public opinion as a result of the events in the Turkish National Struggle. The time span in the

study was from the occupation of İzmir until the Treaty of Lausanne. It will take years for a

Turkish researcher to examine the Italian newspapers one by one. For this reason, Fabio

Grassi's work “İtalya ve Türk Sorunu 1919-1923, Kamuoyu ve Dış Politika” was used. (L’Italia

e la questione turca, 1919-1923: Opinione pubblica e politica estera, Fabio L Grassi)

The first study had players, targets, positions and strategies. Second study had

players, positions, reactions and diplomacy. There are players, positions and strategies in

this study.

Players

The players in this game are the Italian newspapers of the time who wrote about the

Turkish National Struggle.

Players

Player 1 Corriere della Sera

Player 2 La Tribuna

Player 3 Il Messaggero

Player 4 Il Giornale d’Italia

Player 5 Corriere d’Italia

Player 6 Avanti

Player 7 Politica

Positions

Positions consist of historical events of the period in which Italian newspapers

focused on and changed their opinions from time to time.

Positions

Position 1 Occupation of Izmir

Position 2 The continuation of the Greek occupation

Position 3 Occupation of Istanbul

Position 4 Sevr process

Position 5 Turkish military achievements

Position 6 London Conference

Position 7 Rejection of London Conference

Position 8 From Battle of Kütahya-Eskişehir to Sakarya Battle.

Position 9 Turkish Great Offensive

Position 10 Treaty of Lausanne

Strategies

Strategies are formed by combining newspaper views in the common denominator.

Analyzes will be made through these strategies. In other words, a newspaper, the round

expressions used in writing articles about the National Struggle and issues that are not

directly related to the issue will not be taken into consideration. The clear ideas of

newspapers about position alone are valuable for this study.

Strategies

Strategy 1 Greek supporter

Strategy 2 Entente supporter

Strategy 3 Nationalist opinion (Italian supporter)

Strategy 4 Neutral

Strategy 5 Turkish supporter

If these strategies are to be established in the Italian center, strategy three and

strategy five will have to be replaced.

GAMES AND ANALYSIS

For the occupation of Izmir, Corriere della Sera, the idea of "security operation only"

prevailed. La Tribuna, Il Giornale d’Italia and Politica had an anti-allied attitude. Il

Messaggero supported the invasion of İzmir by the Greeks. Corriere d’Italia and Avanti

newspapers were totally opposed to the occupation.

Position 1 strategy table

Corriere della Sera Strategy 2

La Tribuna Strategy 5

Il Messaggero Strategy 1

Il Giornale d’Italia Strategy 5

Corriere d’Italia Strategy 5

Avanti Strategy 5

Politica Strategy 5

5 of the Italian newspapers opposed the occupation, one of them acted on the Allied

route, and one supported the Greek occupation.

In total, 6 newspapers wrote about Position 2 (The continuation of the Greek

occupation). Corriere della Sera wrote articles supporting the allied pro-government policies

of the government. La Tribuna, Il Messaggero, Il Giornale d’Italia ve Politica newspapers had

clearly written that they were pro-Turkish. Corriere d’Italia expressed Greek and allied

opposition and advocated the idea of Italian nationalism.







Avanti Strategy 4

Politica Strategy 5

4 out of 7 Italian newspapers expressed anti-Greek policies. 1 of them had moved on

the Allied route again. 1 wrote Italian nationalism. 1 didn't write anything about it.

After the invasion of Istanbul, 5 Italian newspapers wrote articles. All five newspapers

used expressions against the occupation. These newspapers; Corriere della Sera, Il Giornale

d’Italia, Corriere d’Italia, Avanti and Politica.







Avanti Strategy 5

Politica Strategy 5

In this process, La Tribuna and Il Messaggero newspapers from active newspapers did

not comment on the occupation of Istanbul.

Only 3 newspapers wrote about Sevr process.







Avanti Strategy 5

Politica Strategy 4

In this process, we see only the socialist Avanti newspaper as pro-Turkish. 4

newspapers did not declare a clear idea, a newspaper nationalist views and other newspaper

also expressed the views of allies.

In the Turkish military victories, he wrote only 2 newspapers. Corriere della Sera

wrote the allies support, while Avanti continued his Turkish support.







Avanti Strategy 5

Politica Strategy 4

During the London Conference, the Italian newspapers had become interested in the

Anatolian question. A total of 4 newspapers declared their clear opinions on this issue.







Avanti Strategy 5

Politica Strategy 4

A total of 3 newspapers were pro-Turkish, and 1 newspaper expressed their allies.

The remaining newspapers remained neutral.

As it is known, the London Conference did not come to a conclusion and Bekir Sami

Bey had signed secret agreements with Italy and France. However, Ankara did not accept

these agreements. The Italian public opinion, who was expected to react, did not write much

about it. (The Italian newspapers were related to the Fiume problem.) It was Il Messaggero

who declared a clear idea about this issue.







Avanti Strategy 4

Politica Strategy 4

During the battles of Kütahya Eskişehir and the Sakarya Battle of Sakarya, the Italian

public opinion was more active. 5 newspapers expressed their exact opinions on this issue.







Avanti Strategy 5

Politica Strategy 1

During the Great Offensive, the Italian public opinion maintained their interest. A

total of 5 newspapers declared their opinions in this regard.







Avanti Strategy 5

Politica Strategy 3

In total, only 1 newspaper had written a pro-Turk in this Great Offensive. 1

newspaper was pro-Greek, and 3 newspapers included ultra-nationalist ideas. 2 newspapers

were irrelevant.

In the process of Lausanne, pro-Turkish newspapers generally did not write. A total of

4 newspapers declared a clear idea. While Corriere della Sera opposed the unjustified(?)

demands of the Turks, La Tribuna maintained that the Turks should be moderate and

maintained their allies.







Avanti Strategy 4

Politica Strategy 4

If we look at the newspapers according to their strategies in this model;

Corriere della Sera strategy chart

Corriere della Sera draws a bumpy image of the National Struggle. In the National

Struggle, he wrote articles on the pro-allied line, but occasionally pro-Turkish and occasional

Greek views. In addition to these, he was sometimes uninterested in Anatolia.

La Tribuna strategy chart

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Corriere della Sera

Corriere della Sera

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

La Tribuna

La Tribuna

La Tribuna started in a pro-Turkish profile. In the later stages, he did not make any

comments or conveyed his views to the people in the allied line.

Il Messaggero strategy chart

Il Messaggero started in a pro-Greek line. Later on, he wrote generally pro-Turkish

writings. However, it was observed that he remained indifferent to the Anatolian problem

and had only a nationalist view.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Il Messaggero

Il Messaggero

Il Giornale d’Italia strategy chart

Il Giornale d'Italia started as a pro-Turkish and advancing towards a nationalist and

allied pro-march.

Corriere d’Italia strategy chart

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Il Giornale d'Italia

Il Giornale d'Italia

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Corriere d'Italia

Corriere d'Italia

Corriere d'Italia, on the other hand, considered the problem of Anatolia as pro-

Turkish. He was also seen not to comment from time to time and only conveyed his

nationalist ideas to the people in one position.

Avanti strategy chart

The Socialist Avanti newspaper always made a pro-Turkish line during the Turk

National Struggle.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Position1

Position2

Position3

Position4

Position5

Position6

Position7

Position8

Position9

Position10

Avanti

Avanti

Politica strategy chart

The Politica newspaper first entered the issue as a pro-Turk and never mentioned this

problem for a long time. Only in the final stages of the war has moved in a mixed profile.

If we look at the average (neutral strategies are not included, pro-Turkish strategies

are considered to be 4);

Strategy chart of Italian public opinion average

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Position1

Position2

Position3

Position4

Position5

Position6

Position7

Position8

Position9

Position10

Politica

Politica

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

Italian Public Opinion

Italian Public Opinion

As seen in the figure, the Italian public has progressed in line with a pro-Turkish

policy until the Sevres. During the success of the Sevr process and İnönü's successes, the

public opinion had gone away from pro-Turkish writings. However, Turkish sympathy had

increased later. From the battles of Kütahya to the Lausanne process, anti-Turkish writings

gained weight.

CONCLUSION

In this study, where the National Struggle period was examined with game

theoretical concepts, the deviations in the positions were first determined. When we look at

a general picture, it was seen that the process involving the proclamation of the National

Pact and the opening of the Assembly had no effect on the strategy change. In fact, the fact

that this event, which would be considered as very important for the Turkish side, did not

cause major changes, led us to the idea that strategy-based game theory was insufficient.

Therefore, a new approach based on the reaction was adopted and these processes were

also affected.

Contrary to the positions involving the opening of the National Pact and Assembly,

the events such as the occupation of Istanbul, the Sevres project, Greek forward operations,

and the London Conference have caused many ups and downs in the National Struggle

process. The most significant of these was the secret agreements signed at the London

Conference. The secret agreements signed at the London Conference are a position that

breaks the allied coalition, ensures that the parties find a middle way by making mutual

concessions, and at the same time determine the strategies closest to the result. The

dismissal of the secret decisions by the parliament also led to a great deviation and initiated

a process in which the Allies made joint decisions again. Another deviation due to the

Sakarya battlefield caused us to better understand the importance of the decisions. As a

result, according to the modeling and adaptations, the importance of the secret agreements

signed at the London Conference in the National Struggle was much more than the military

victories except the Great Offensive and the agreements signed with states such as France

and Soviet Russia.

In the comparisons made by the Treaty of Lausanne, signed secret agreements at the

London Conference has come to the fore again. This agreement, which represents the

strategic situation most similar to the result, was followed by the Sakarya victory. Even in the

positions where the military situation of Ankara government is very favorable, diplomatic

moves have outweighed. This is the main logic of game theory, which supports the

expression "Savaşarak kazanacağınız, hiçbir zaman anlaşarak kazanacağınızdan fazla

olamaz.”.

When we compare all the strategies implemented or accepted by the Ankara

government with the National Pact, we found a similarity slightly below the comparison. The

most important reason for this is the differences between Lausanne and the National Pact.

Although the overall table is the same, only a small difference has occurred in Position 2.

Since this position also covers the process of declaring the National Pact, the difference is

normal.

In reaction-based games, cooperation, organization and conflict-based reactions

were discussed. Cooperation can be expressed in varying degrees with the change in the

number of players in coalitions. (For example, 2/6 to 3 / 5e pass or 2/6 to 6 / 2ye to pass.)

There are many types of organization, such as the formation of Defense Law groups, the

formation of the National Forces, the establishment of the regular army, the establishment

of a national assembly and dictatorial powers. These were not graded, and the adoption of

the new adaptation as a priority was expected.

However, strategies were also classified. Maxmin, optimal and standard reaction

strategy concepts were introduced. The Maxmin strategy has ensured that both sides

maintain their diplomatic war in a balanced manner. Optimal strategies were seen in two

positions in this game. However, the players joined the counter-coalition and could not

return to their old coalitions. The results of the maxmin strategy, which was not

implemented in a position process, were heavy for the coalition that caused the position,

but also contributed to the organization of the defensive players.

When we look at the positions in which the standard reaction occurs, unforeseen

changes have been observed and have had bad results for the parties who do not implement

the maxmin strategy.

In the game, the concept of equilibrium in game theory could not be found since the

rational movements of the parties did not happen much.

When the first-class reaction in the reaction-based approach is examined carefully, it

should not be missed that the organizations can lead to anti-democratic regimes when they

reach the maximum level. The last stop of organizing for Ankara, though in favor of the

Turkish National Struggle, was the orders of the National tax and the law of commander-in-

chief. In this process, Mustafa Kemal Pasha, with the understanding of the dictatorship

concerns of some of the deputies, used this authority only for national interests. When we

give an example for today; Excessive pressure from the allies on a society anywhere in the

world will enable that society to turn to anti-democratic regimes.

To see the contributions of the reaction and cooperative approach, and to better

understand the above findings, it would not be difficult to look at the current activities of

NATO and to see that the mistakes they have made have similar consequences.

Looking at the Italian public opinion, changes in the statements of seven Italian

newspapers related to historical events in the Turkish National Struggle have been

identified. In this model, it has been clearly seen that the public opinion can act

independently from state policy. In the analysis, it has been determined how a newspaper

acting in a certain ideology or on the line of power reacts differently to what event, changes

its reactions after the event, how far the general public opinion has moved away, and how it

affects the later writings. French newspapers are also very suitable for the game theoretical

model. Because the French in the post-Venizelos Konstantin period, anti-Greek and pro-

Turkish writings began. Maybe the same thing may not apply to British newspapers. But for

British decision-makers, it should definitely be tried. Because the British government has

followed an anti-Turkish policy throughout the war, but it has taken its place in the military

wing and its colonies against imperialist politics. The peoples of the British colonies gathered

aid for the Turkish struggle. The differences between power and people, power and public

opinion can be found in a more understandable manner in this model. The game theoretical

model based on social history can help us: As a criterion of the libertarian - liberal line of a

country, the public opinion - government difference can be determined more clearly in such

studies. The more dominant a single voice in the public opinion or in newspapers, it is clear

that the country is far from free thinking.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

ADA, Serhan, Türk Fransız İlişkilerinde Hatay Sorunu (1918-1939), İstanbul Bilgi Üniversitesi Yayınları, İstanbul 2005.

AKANDERE, Osman, “Damat Ferit Paşa’nın IV. Hükümeti Döneminde

Kuvayı Milliye İleri Gelenleri Hakkında Verilen İdam Kararları”, Ankara Üniversitesi Türk İnkılap Tarihi Enstitüsü Atatürk Yolu Dergisi, Sayı 43, Ankara 2009.

AKARSLAN, Mediha, “1920-1921 Yıllarında Rusya Hariciye Komiserliği

ile Türkiye Büyük Millet Meclisi (T.B.M.M.) Arasında Kurulan İletişim”, Ankara Üniversitesi Türk İnkılap Tarihi Enstitüsü Atatürk Yolu Dergisi, Cilt 4, Say 16, Ankara 1995.

AKGÜN, Seçil, “Yunanistan’da Kurtuluş Savaşı’nı İzleyen Gelişmeler”,

Çağdaş Türkiye Tarihi Araştırmaları Dergisi, Cilt 1, Sayı 3, İzmir 1993. AKTAN, Coşkun Can, Dilek Dileyici, Modern Politik İktisat: Kamu Tercihi,

Seçkin Yayıncılık, Ankara 2007. AUMANN, Robert J. & Maschler, Michael, “Game Theoretic Analysis of

a Bankrupcy Problem From the Talmud” Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 36(2), 1985.

AVCI, Cemal, “Milli Mücadele Döneminde Türk Ermeni ve Gürcü

İlişkileri”, Ankara Üniversitesi TİT Enstitüsü Atatürk Yolu Dergisi, C. IV, S. 13, 1994.

AYIŞIĞI, Metin, “Kuvayı Milliye ve İstanbul Hükümetleri”, Uluslararası

Tarih ve Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi, Cilt 2, Sayı 1, Ordu 2009. BARAN, Tülay Alim, “Kuva-yı Milliye Örgütlenmesine Karşı Damat Ferit

Hükümetleri”, Atatürk Yolu, Yıl 12, Cilt 6, Sayı 23 (2003). BAYKAL, Hülya, “Kurtuluş Savaşı’nda Türk-Fransız İlişkileri ve Bir Fransız

Türk Dostu Albay Mougin”, Ankara Üniversitesi İnkılap Tarihi Enstitüsü Atatürk Yolu Dergisi, Cilt 2, Sayı 7, Ankara 1991.

BENHÜR, Çağatay, “1920’li Yıllarda Türk-Sovyet İlişkileri: Kronolojik Bir

Çalışma”, Türkiyat Araştırmaları Dergisi, Konya 2008.

BILBAO, Jesus Mario, Cooperative Games on Combinatorial Structures,

Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston 2000. ÇAĞLAR, Günay, “Kuvay-ı İnzibatiye”, Ankara Üniversitesi Türk İnkılap

Tarihi Enstitüsü Atatürk Yolu Dergisi, Cilt 4, Sayı 15, Ankara 1995. ÇAKMAK, Haydar, Türk Dış Politikası 1919-2012, Platin Yayınları, 2.

Baskı, Ankara 2012. ÇAKMAK, Zafer, “Mondros Mütarekesi Sonrası Ermeni-Rum-Yunan

İşbirliği”, Fırat Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, Cilt 16, Sayı 2, Elazığ 2006. ÇALIK, Temel, Yönetimde Problem Çözme Teknikleri, Nobel Yayınları,

Ankara 2003. ÇELEBİ, Mevlüt, Milli Mücadele Döneminde Türk-İtalyan İlişkileri,

ATAM, Ankara 2002.

ÇİÇEK, Rahmi, “Erzurum Vilayet Kongresinde Alınan Kararlar ve Etkileri”, Ankara Üniversitesi Türk İnkılap Tarihi Enstitüsü Atatürk Yolu Dergisi, C. 2, S.7, Ankara 1991.

DAVISON, Roderic H., “Mondros’tan Lozan’a Kadar Türk Siyaseti”, Çev.

Mine Erol, DTCF Tarih Araştırmaları Dergisi (1981-1982), C.XIV/25 (Ankara, 1982), s. 102.

DIMAND, Mary Ann & Robert W., The History of Game Theory,

Routlage, London 1996. DOĞANAY, Rahmi, “Misak-ı Milli’ye Göre Lozan”, Fırat Üniversitesi

Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, Cilt 11, Sayı 2, Elazığ 2001. DURU, Orhan, Amerikan Gizli Belgeleriyle Türkiye’nin Kurtuluş Yılları,

Kültür Yayınları, 6. Baskı, İstanbul 2011. EFEGİL, Ertan, Dış Politika Analizi Ders Notları, Nobel Yayınları, Ankara

2012, s.75-79. ERDOĞAN, İrfan, Pozitivist Metodoloji ve Ötesi, 3. Baskı, Erk Yayınları,

Ankara 2012. ERİM, Nihat, Devletlerarası Hukuk ve Siyasi Tarih Metinleri, Cilt 1, TTK

Yayınları, Ankara 1953.

Genelkurmay Başkanlığı Harb Tarihi Dairesi, Türk İstiklal Harbi, C. II Kısım 1, Genelkurmay Başkanlığı Harb Tarihi Dairesi Resmi Yayınları, Ankara 1963.

Genelkurmay ATASE Başkanlığı, Türk İstiklal Harbi Batı Cephesi, C. 2,

Kısım 2, Genelkurmay ATASE Başkanlığı Yayınları, 3. Baskı, Ankara 1999. Genelkurmay Başkanlığı Harp Tarihi Dairesi, Türk İstiklal Harbi Batı

Cephesi, C. 2, Kısım 3, Genelkurmay Başkanlığı Harp Tarihi Dairesi Resmi Yayınları, Ankara 1966.

Genelkurmay Harp Tarihi Başkanlığı, Türk İstiklal Harbi Batı Cephesi, C.

2, Kısım 4, Genelkurmay Harp Tarihi Başkanlığı Resmi Yayınları, Ankara 1974. Genelkurmay Harp Tarihi Başkanlığı, Türk İstiklal Harbi Batı Cephesi, C.

2, Kısım 5, Kitap 1, Genelkurmay Harp Tarihi Başkanlığı Resmi Yayınları, Ankara 1972.

Genelkurmay Başkanlığı Harp Tarihi Dairesi, Türk İstiklal Harbi Batı

Cephesi, C. 2, Kısım 5, Kitap 2, Genelkurmay Başkanlığı Harp Tarihi Dairesi Resmi Yayınları, Ankara 1973.




Cephesi, C. 2, Kısım 6, Kitap 2, Genelkurmay Başkanlığı Harp Tarihi Dairesi Resmi Yayınları, 3. Baskı Ankara 1995.





Genelkurmay Harp Tarihi Başkanlığı, Türk İstiklal Harbi, C. 6, Harp

Tarihi Başkanlığı Resmi Yayınları, Ankara 1974. GÖKIRMAK, Mert, “Beyaz Rusya’nın Denge Stratejisi ve Rus Dış

Politikasına Etkisi”, Stratejik Araştırmalar Enstitüsü Güvenlik Araştırmaları Dergisi, Sayı 12, Aralık 2010.

GRASSİ, Fabio, İtalya ve Türk Sorunu 1919-1923 Kamuoyu ve Dış Politika, Çev: Nevin Özkan-Durdu Kundakçı, Yapı Kredi Yayınları, 2. Baskı, İstanbul 2010.

GUSEINOV, Khalik, Akyar Emrah, Düzce Serkan, Oyun Teorisi: Çatışma

ve Anlaşmanın Matematiksel Modelleri, Seçkin Yayınları, Ankara 2010. GÜLBOY, Burak, Birinci Dünya Savaşı Tarihi, Altın Kitaplar Yayınevi,

İstanbul 2004. GÜRÜN, Kamuran, Türk-Sovyet İlişkileri 1920-1953, TTK Yayınları,

Ankara 1991. HATİPOĞLU, Murat, Türk-Yunan İlişkilerinin 101 Yılı (1821-1922), TÜrk

Kültürünü Araştırma Enstitüsü Yayınları, Ankara 1988. HÜCÜMEN, Murat, Oyun Teorisi ve Firmaların Stratejik Davranışlarının

Modellenmesi, (Yüksek Lisans Tezi), Kocaeli Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Kocaeli 2007.

KARACAKAYA, Recep, “Milli Mücadelede Fransız İşgalleri ve Buna

Tepkiler”, Türk Kamuoyu ve Ermeni Meselesi, Toplumsal Dönüşüm Yayınları, İstanbul 2005.

KARACAN, Ali Naci, Lozan, haz: Hulusi Turgut, Kültür Yayınları, 3. Baskı,

İstanbul 2011. KESKİN, Halil İbrahim, Oyun Kuramının Ekonomide Uygulanması,

(Yüksek Lisans Tezi), Çukurova Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Adana 2009.

KÖYLÜ, Murat, Çılgın Yunanlılar, İleri Yayınları, İzmir 2012. KÜRKÇÜOĞLU, Ömer, Mondros’tan Musul’a Türk-İngiliz İlişkileri, İmaj

Yayınları, Ankara 2006. MUMCU, Cumhur, Kahramaner Y., ”Oyun Teorik Yaklaşımla 1998

Türkiye-Suriye Krizinin Analizi”, İstanbul Ticaret Üniversitesi Dergisi, Sayı 6, İstanbul 2004.

ORAN, Baskın, Türk Dış Politikası Kurtuluş Savaşı’ndan Bugüne Olaylar,

Belgeler, Yorumlar 1919-1980, Cilt 1, İletişim Yayınları, 5. Baskı, İstanbul 2002.

OVALI, Şevket, “Tarihsel Bir Perspektiften Batı-Yunanistan İlişkisinin Siyasal Arka Planı (1821-1945)”, Ankara Üniversitesi Siyasal Bilgiler Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt 62, Sayı 1, Ankara 2007.

ÖRS, Rasim Dirsehan, Rus Basınında Kurtuluş Savaşı ve Atatürk Devrim Yılları, Cumhuriyet Kitapları Yay., 2. Baskı, İstanbul 2010.

PERİNÇEK, Mehmet, Atatürk’ün Sovyetlerle Görüşmeleri, Kaynak

Yayınları, 3. Basım, İstanbul 2011. SAKİN, Serdar, “Misak-ı Milli’nin Hazırlanışı ve İlanıyla İlgili Görüşler”,

Erciyes Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Sayı 13, Kayseri 2012.

SOFUOĞLU, Adnan, “İzmir İşgali Sonrasında Yunanlıların Batı Anadolu’da İşgali Genişletmeleri ve Bölgede Oluşan Milli Direniş”, Ankara Üniversitesi Türk İnkılap Tarihi Enstitüsü Atatürk Yolu Dergisi, Sayı 29-30, Ankara 2002.

SONYEL, Salahi, Türk Kurtuluş Savaşı ve Dış Politika, C. I, TTK, 3. Baskı,

Ankara 1995. SONYEL, Salahi, Türk Kurtuluş Savaşı ve Dış Politika, C. II, TTK, 3. Baskı,

Ankara 2003. SONYEL, Salahi, Türk-Yunan İlişkileri 1821-1923, Remzi Yayınevi,

İstanbul 2011. SÜRGEVİL, Sabri, “Türk-Yunan İlişkileri İçinde İzmir’in İşgali Sorunu”,

Çağdaş Türkiye Tarihi Araştırmaları Dergisi, Cilt 1, Sayı 3, İzmir 1993. ŞAHİN, Nazmi, Oyun Teorisi ve Askeri Alanda Uygulamaları, (Yüksek

Lisans Tezi), Selçuk Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Konya 2004. TAYHANİ, İhsan, “Tarihte Türk-Rus İlişkileri 1878-1923”, Dokuz Eylül

Üniversitesi Buca Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi 22, İzmir 2007. TÜRKMEN, Zekeriya, Mütareke Döneminde Ordunun Durumu ve

Yeniden Yapılanması (1918-1920), TTK Yayınları, Ankara 2001.

VINCENT, Thomas L. and Joel S. Brown, Evolutionary Game Theory, Natural Selection, and Darwinian Dynamics, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2005.

YALÇIN, Durmuş, Akbıyık Yaşar, Akbulut Dursun Ali, Balcıoğlu Mustafa,

Köstüklü Nuri, Süslü Azmi, Turan Refik, Eraslan Cezmi, Tural Mehmet Akif, Türkiye Cumhuriyeti Tarihi I, ATAM, 8. Baskı, Ankara 2008.

YAMAN, Ahmet Emin, “Milli Ordu”, Ankara Üniversitesi Türk İnkılap

Tarihi Enstitüsü Atatürk Yolu Dergisi, Cilt 1, Sayı 2, Ankara 1988.

YAVUZ, Bige, Kurtuluş Savaşı Dönemine Türk-Fransız İlişkileri, TTK Yayınları, Ankara 1994.

YERASİMOS, Stefanos, Kurtuluş Savaşı’nda Türk-Sovyet İlişkileri, Boyut

Yayınları, 2. Baskı, İstanbul 2000.

YILMAZ, Ensar, Oyun Teorisi, Literatür Yayınları, İstanbul 2009. Zafer İslam Han, “Talmud’un Doğuşu ve Yahudiler Üzerindeki Tesiri”,

çev: Mehmet Aydın, Ankara Üniversitesi İlahiyat Fakültesi Dergisi, C. 24, s139-152, Ankara 1981.

Contact: [email protected]

Documents

HISTORY, GAME THEORY AND CLIODYNAMICS… · HISTORY, GAME THEORY AND CLIODYNAMICS ONUR KÖSE Contact: [email protected]. Purpose: -Determination of historical fact-historical event