Revisiting the Fire of Izmir

31 Journal of South Asian and Middle Eastern Studies Vol. XLI, No.1, Fall 2017 Revisiting the Fire of Izmir Maxime Gauin* Introduction The burning of İzmir (called Smyrna by the Christians at that time), in September 1922, after the final defeat of the Greek forces by the Turkish national movement, is one of the most controversial subjects of the late Ottoman history. There are fewer publications on this subject than about the Armenian issue1 or about the Greco–Turkish war, however the controversy has been virulent since the very beginning—1922.2 Beyond the purely polemical—and political—dimension, the destruction of İzmir seriously undermined the capacity of Turkish economy’s recovery during *Maxime Gauin has been AV M’s scholar in residence since August 2012. He is currently pursuing a Ph.D. degree in History at the Middle East Technical University. Previously, Gauin worked as a researcher at the International Strategic Research Organization (USAK). He has published articles in various academic journals including the European Journal of International Law, the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs, the International Review of Turkish Studies. He also contributes to different dailies such as Hürriyet Daily News, Daily Sabah, Haaretz, The Jerusalem Post, and Cumhuriyet. Maxime Gauin’s research focuses on contemporary aspects of the Armenian question and Franco-Turkish relations. 1 A discussion of this particularly sensitive topic is beyond the scope of the present paper. For historiographical perspectives, see, among others, Stanford J. Shaw and Ezel Kural Shaw, “The Authors Respond,” International Journal of Middle East Studies, IX-3, October 1978, pp. 388-400; Andrew Mango, “Historiography by Political Committee and Committed Historians: Review Article,” Middle Eastern Studies, XXV-4, October 1989, pp. 531-562; Jeremy Salt, “The Narrative Gap in Ottoman Armenian History,” Middle Eastern Studies, XXXIX-1, January 2003, pp. 19-36; Guenter Lewy, The Armenian Massacres in Ottoman Turkey, (Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 2005); Maxime Gauin, “‘Proving’ a ‘Crime against Humanity’?,” Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs, XXXV-1, March 2015, pp. 141-157; Hakan Yavuz, “A Topography of Positions in the Turkish-Armenian Debate,” in Hakan Yavuz and Feroz Ahmad (ed.), War and Collapse, (Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 2016), pp. 541-568. 2 For example: Türkkaya Ataöv, Armenian Falsifications, (New York: Okey, 2008), pp. 109–123; Engin Berber, The İzmir Fire, (İzmir: Ödemi Belediyesi, 2013); Berthe Georges–Gaulis, La Question turque, (Paris: Berger–Levrault, 1931), pp. 244–245 and 292; Marjorie Housepian, Smyrna 1922: The Destruction of a City, (New York: Newmark Press, 1998); Lysimachos Œconomos, The Martyrdom of Smyrna and Eastern Christendom, (London: George Allen & Uwin, 1922). 32 Atatürk’s period. Atatürk’s speech of February 1923 on the economic challenges of Turkey was delivered in İzmir instead of Ankara. Reciprocally, specialists randomly produced detailed and clear accounts of the event. Vamık D. Volkan and Norman Itzkowitz, as well as journalist Willy Sperco, rejected a responsibility of Atatürk or of the Turkish high command, but are neutral for the rest.3 Distinguished scholars such as Bernard Lewis and Xavier de Planhol prefer to be silent.4 According to Jeremy Salt, “if the fire was not accidentally started (as the great fire of that devastated Salonica in 1917 had been), those leaving Izmir had far greater reason to burn it down than those arriving.”5 And remarkably, in his huge history of the Turkish war of independence, Stanford Jay Shaw does not present any new data on the origins of the fire and does not present any clear conclusion—except one: the Turkish side is not responsible.6 Until now, there is no definitive account of the event. The best monograph in a Western language is still Heath Lowry’s paper,7 published in 1989 and frequently cited during the last quarter century. Indeed, the paper offers very interesting data but is based only on U.S. sources, does not analyse the context of the burning (the Turkish war of independence) and does not provide a definitive conclusion, even if it suggests a primarily Armenian responsibility. The goal of the present article is to propose a global explanation of the fire and its causes. I) Background...