| Turkish Straits crisis | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Part of theCold War (from 1947) | |||||||
 The location of theBosphorus (red) andDardanelles (yellow) straits. | |||||||
| |||||||
| Belligerents | |||||||
| Supported by: |  Soviet Union | ||||||
| Commanders and leaders | |||||||
| Strength | |||||||
|
| ||||||
TheTurkish Straits crisis was aCold War–eraterritorial conflict between theSoviet Union andTurkey. Turkey had remained officiallyneutral throughout most of theSecond World War.[a] After the war ended, Turkey was pressured by the Soviet government to institute joint military control of passage through theTurkish Straits, which connected theBlack Sea to theMediterranean.[2] When the Turkish government refused, tensions in the region rose, leading to a Soviet show of force and demands for territorial concessions along theGeorgia–Turkey border.[3]
This intimidation campaign was intended to preempt American influence or naval presence in the Black Sea, as well as to weaken Turkey's government and pull it into theSoviet sphere of influence.[4] The Straits crisis was a catalyst, along with theGreek Civil War, for the creation of theTruman Doctrine.[2] At its climax, the dispute would motivate Turkey to turn to the United States for protection throughNATO membership.
The two sequential gateways between the Black Sea and Mediterranean, theDardanelles andBosporus, were important as atrade route from the Black Sea into ports all over the world for Turkey and its other Black Sea neighbors: the USSR, theRomanian People's Republic, and thePeople's Republic of Bulgaria, which were militarily aligned with one another.[5] The straits also served as an important component ofmilitary strategy; whoever wielded control of traffic through the straits could use them as an exit or entry point for naval forces to navigate the Black Sea while preventing rival powers from doing so.[6]
Before the crisis, Russia—and then the Soviet Union—had historically desired control of the Turkish straits, as part of its striving forice-free ports. The value of the Russian Black Sea ports was directly related to their access to the ocean, which entirely depended on passage through the Turkish Straits, the only waterway connecting the two. This was one of the main reasons for most of theRusso-Turkish wars.[citation needed]
Until the latter half of the 1930s,Soviet–Turkish relations were cordial and somewhat fraternal. At the request ofMustafa Kemal Atatürk,Vladimir Lenin provided crucial military and financial aid to theTurkish National Movement in itsstruggle against the Ottoman monarchy and Western occupiers; two million goldImperial rubles, 60,000 rifles, and 100 artillery pieces were sent in the summer of 1920.[7] Before they had even established official governments, the countries' revolutionary movements – theTurkish Government of the Grand National Assembly and theBolsheviks of theRussian SFSR – recognized each other and pledged cooperation in the 1921Treaty of Moscow.[8] The parties agreed to defer the final settlement on the status of the Black Sea and the Turkish Straits to a future conference.[9] The Straits resolution atLausanne, signed on 24 July 1923 by the United Kingdom,France, Italy, and Turkey, called for demilitarizing the Straits Zone and forming an international commission to control them.[10] The Soviets were never satisfied with this. In 1925, Turkey and the Soviet Union committed to abstain from participating in alliances or coalitions directed against each other. This "treaty of friendship and neutrality" was extended in 1935 for a ten-year term, with optional renewal intervals of two years scheduled after 1945.[11]
In 1934, Soviet diplomats secretly urged their counterparts to assent to bases on the Straits, a demand which British AmbassadorPercy Loraine credited with helping strengthenTurkey-United Kingdom relations in theinterwar period.[11] TheMontreux Convention Regarding the Regime of the Straits was convened in 1936, with the governments of Australia,Bulgaria, France, Germany,Greece, Japan,Romania theSoviet Union, Turkey, the United Kingdom andYugoslavia represented, to determine both military and regulatory policy for the Turkish straits.[12] The issue regained relevance due to the expansionist ambitions ofFascist Italy andNazi Germany, as well as a fear thatBulgaria would take it upon itself to remilitarize the straits.[13] Under the terms of the treaty, signed on 20 July 1936, Turkey was given sole responsibility for regulating passages through the straits.[14] The Montreux Convention instituted rules for both merchant and military vessels which are stricter thaninternational law typically allows, such as mandatory sanitation inspections and Turkish discretion to impose general fees on non-stopover voyages.[15] The treaty required all states to give prior notice to Turkish authorities before their warships transited the straits, while imposing limits on the size, quantity and type of warships eligible for entry to the Black Sea. Such blanket provisions contravene prevailing norms ofinnocent passage andtransit passage.[15]
Joseph Stalin repeatedly challenged the agreements reached by the 1936 convention, asking as early as 1939 for an alternative arrangement. He proposed joint Turkish and Soviet control of the straits.[16] Upon signing theMolotov–Ribbentrop Pact withNazi Germany, Soviet Foreign MinisterVyacheslav Molotov informed his German colleagues of his desire to forcefully take control of the straits and establish a military base in their proximity.[17]
Shortly after theinvasion of Poland began in September 1939, Turkish Foreign MinisterŞükrü Saracoğlu traveled to Moscow, where he was snubbed by Stalin and pressured by Kremlin authorities to allow a Soviet military installation on the shore of the straits.[14][18]
Tensions between the USSR and Turkey grew over Turkey not allowing the Soviet Fleet, with civilian crews to traverse the straits duringWWII. After the Allieddefeat of Nazi Germany, the Soviets returned to the issue in 1945 and 1946. Throughout 1946, American and Turkish diplomats frequently conversed on the issue. The 6 April 1946 visit of the AmericanbattleshipUSSMissouri further angered the Soviets. The ship had come to the region under the explanation that it was delivering the mortuary urn of the late Turkish Ambassador home, a claim which was dismissed by the Soviets as coincidental.[19]
On 7 August 1946, the Soviets presented a note to theTurkish Foreign Ministry which stated that the way Turkey was handling the straits no longer represented the security interests of its fellow Black Sea nations. This drew attention to the occasions in which Italian and German warships had passed through the straits without conflict. (The German ships were only detained by Turkish forces once the country declared war on Germany on 23 February 1945.) The note concluded that the regime of the straits was no longer reliable and demanded that the Montreux Treaty be re-examined and rewritten in a new international conference.[20]
When the issue was brought up at thePotsdam Conference, the President of the United States,Harry S. Truman, said the question of the straits was a domestic political issue pertaining to Turkey and the USSR, and should be solved by the two involved parties.[21] As the argument heated up in the days preceding Potsdam, the United States decided it firmly did not want the straits to fall into Soviet hands, as it would give them a major strategic gateway between the Black Sea and Mediterranean and possibly lead to a Communist Turkey. In a secret telegram sent by USUnder Secretary of StateDean Acheson to diplomats in Paris, he explained the American position on the matter.[22]
In our opinion the primary objective of the Soviet Union is to obtain control over Turkey. We believe that if the Soviet Union succeeds in introducing into Turkey armed forces with the ostensible purpose of enforcing the joint control of the Straits, the Soviet Union will use these forces to obtain control over Turkey…. In our opinion, therefore, the time has come when we must decide that we shall resist with all means at our disposal any Soviet aggression and in particular, because the case of Turkey would be so clear, any Soviet aggression against Turkey. In carrying this policy our words and acts will only carry conviction to the Soviet Union if they are formulated against the background of an inner conviction and determination on our part that we cannot permit Turkey to become the object of Soviet aggression.
— Dean Acheson, Telegram to the Secretary of State at Paris – August 8, 1946
On 20 August 1946, Undersecretary Acheson met with fifteen journalists to explain the urgency of the situation and make the opinions of theUnited States Government known.[23]
In the summer and autumn of 1946, the Soviet Union increased its naval presence in the Black Sea, having Soviet vessels perform maneuvers near Turkish shores. A substantial number of ground troops were dispatched to theBalkans. Buckling under the mounting pressure from the Soviets, in a matter of days Turkey appealed to the United States for aid. After consulting his administration, President Truman sent a naval task force to Turkey.[24] On 9 October 1946, the respective governments of the United States and United Kingdom reaffirmed their support for Turkey.[25] On 26 October, the Soviet Union withdrew its specific request for a new summit on the control of the Turkish Straits (but not its opinions) and sometime shortly thereafter pulled out most of theintimidatory military forces from the region. Turkey abandoned its policy of neutrality and accepted USD $100 million in economic and defence aid from the US in 1947 under theTruman Doctrine's plan of ceasing the spread of Soviet influence into Turkey and Greece. The two aforementioned nations joinedNATO in 1952.[26]
The Turkish government appointed a new ambassador to Moscow, Faik Akdur, in November 1946.Turkish President İnönü instructed Akdur to focus solely on further development of relations with the Soviet Union. Akdur was also specifically forbidden to engage in talks regarding the straits if they did occur.[27]
The United States proposed that an international conference be held to decide the fate of the Dardanelles and Bosphorus once and for all. Then-Soviet Ambassador to Turkey, Sergei Vinogradov, responded in the form of a memorandum sent to the Soviet capital on 10 December 1946, asserting that a conference held in such a climate as described by the United States was unacceptable, in that the Soviet Union was certain to be outvoted. He predicted that, instead of a regime change, which was the steadfast and undying goal of theSoviet Foreign Ministry, the current infrastructure with which the straits were regulated would survive, albeit with some changes.[28]
The Soviet ambassador to Turkey during the first year and a half of the crisis, Sergei Vinogradov, was replaced by theSoviet Politburo in 1948. His successor, Aleksandr Lavrishev, came with a set of instructions from the Soviet Foreign Ministry which would prove to be the last momentous Soviet document on the straits.
If the Turks want to know our stand on the straits, an answer would be as follows: the Soviet position has been thoroughly stated in the notes dated August 7 and September 24, 1946.
— Soviet Foreign Ministry, Point No. 4 of the "Instructions for the Ambassador to Turkey" – March 29, 1948[29]
The Soviet Union wished for its border with Turkey to be re-negotiated so as to benefit theArmenian andGeorgian SSRs. Deputy premierLavrentiy Beria asserted to Stalin that a strip of Turkish-controlled territory stretching southwest from Georgia toGiresun (includingLazistan) had been stolen from the Georgians by the Turks under theOttoman Empire.[31] In 1945, the Soviets declined to extend the 1925 non-aggression treaty, as Molotov conditioned its renewal on negotiations over Turkish-controlled territory.[32]
After thedeath of Joseph Stalin, commitment to seek a change in the arrangements governing the straits declined within the Soviet government. On 30 May 1953, Soviet Foreign Minister Molotov discontinued the Russian claims over the Bosphorus and Dardanelles, as well as the other territorial disputes along the Turkish–Armenian–Georgian border.[33]
When Turkey joined Western-aligned NATO in 1952, Soviet hopes for a substantive thaw in relations were dashed.[34] TheMontreux Treaty of 1936, with revisions, is still in place in the present day between the successor states of the USSR and Turkey.[35]
| Countries bordering the Black Sea | |
|---|---|
| Cities | |
1 Disputed statehood/Occupied territory —partial international recognition, but considered by most countries to be part ofGeorgia. | |
