“SULH-İ MÜNFERİT”TEN “BİTARAFLARIN TAVASSUTU”NA: BİRİNCİ DÜNYA SAVAŞINDA ALMANYA VE MÜTTEFİKLERİNİN SULH STRATEJİLERİ

Öz

Bu makalede, barışın bir savaş stratejisi, savaşın da bir barış stratejisi olduğu kabulünden hareketle, I. Dünya Savaşı sırasında Almanya ve müttefiklerinin literatürde ihmal edilen barış stratejileri ele alınmıştır. Savaşın başından 1916 yılı sonuna dek geçen dönemde münferit bir sulh stratejisinin izlendiği öne sürülmektedir. İtilaf devletleri arası anlaşmazlıklar ve savaşın gidişatına göre itilaf devletlerinin her biri müttefiklerinden kopabilecek ve münferit sulh yapılabilecek bir düşman olarak değerlendirilmiştir. 1916 yılı önce kamuoyu sonra diplomatik kanallar üzerinden müttefiklerin sonuçsuz kalan müzakere ve sulh tekliflerine sahne olmuştur. Nihayet savaşın iki blok arasında cereyan etmesi ve iki blok arasında diplomatik ilişkilerin yokluğu üçüncü tarafların aracılığı stratejisini gerekli kılmıştır. Başta ABD olmak üzere bitaraf devletler, ruhani otorite olarak papa ve muharip ülkelerden sosyalistler muharip taraflarca farklı biçimlerde yorumlanan ve karşılanan sulha aracılık girişimlerinde bulunmuşlardır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• I. Dünya Savaşı, Münferit Sulh, Sulh Teklifleri, Bitaraflar, Arabuluculuk

From “The Separate Peace” to “The Mediation of The Neutrals”: Peace Strategies of The Germany and Its Allies During The World War I according to The Journal of Servet-i Fünun

Öz

In this article, starting from the assumption that peace is the strategy of war and also war is the strategy of peace; peace strategies of Germany and its allies during the World War I neglected in the literature are discussed in three categories. From the beginning of the war until the end of 1916, it is suggested that the strategy of separate peace was followed. Because of the disputes between the Entente states and according to the course of the war, each of the allies was considered as an enemy which can be detached from the Entente and make separate peace. The year of 1916 has been the scene of the inconclusive negotiation and peace proposals of the Allies in the public discussions first and then through diplomatic channels. Finally, the occurrence of the war between the two blocks and the absence of diplomatic relations between them necessitated the strategy of third parties’ mediation. Neutral states including USA, the pope as a spiritual authority and socialist representatives from combatant countries have attempted to mediate for peace which was interpreted in different ways by the belligerent parties.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• World War I, The Separate Peace, Peace Offerings, Neutrals, Mediation

Kaynakça

1. Servet-i Fünun, 1231-1414. sayılar arası (Ocak 1915- Ekim 1918)
2. CLAUSEWITZ, Carl von (1976). On War, (Çev. M. Howard–P. Paret), Prin- ceton: Princeton University Press.
3. FERRO, Marc (2006). The Great War 1914-1918, London and New York: Ro- utledge.
4. GREENHALGH, Elizabeth (2005). Victory through Coalition / Britain and France during the First World War, New York: Cambridge University Press.
5. KERNEK, Sterling J. (1975). Distractions of Peace during War: The Lloyd George Government's Reactions to Woodrow Wilson, December, 1916 - November, 1918, Philedelphia: American Philosophical Society.
6. LEE, Stephen J. (2010). Avrupa Tarihinden Kesitler 1789-1980, Ankara: Dost Kitabevi.
7. STONE, Norman (2012). Birinci Dünya Savaşı, (Çev. A. F. Yıldırım), İstan- bul: Doğan Kitap.
8. TUCKER, Spencer C. (1997). The Great War 1914-18, New York: UCL Press.

9. ANDI, Kübra (2006). “Servet-i Fünun Mecmuası”, Türkiye Araştırmaları Lite- ratür Dergisi, C. IV (7): 533-544.
10. ARMSTRONG, Helen Byrne (April 1934). “International Socialism: The End of an Era”, Foreign Affairs, C. XII (3): 436-447.
11. BENEDICT XV, Pope (Dec.ember 1915). “The Pope’s Appeal for Peace”, The Advocate of Peace, C. LXXVII (11): 262
12. BRUNAUER, Esther Caukin (December 1932). “The Peace Proposals of De- cember, 1916-January, 1917”, The Journal of Modern History, C. IV (4): 544-571.
13. FARRAR, L. L. (Summer 1976a). “Carrot and Stick: German Efforts to Conc- lude a Separate Peace with Russia, November 1914-December 1915”, East European Quarterly, C. X (2): 153-179.
14. FARRAR, L. L. (January 1976b). “Separate Peace General Peace - Total War. The Crisis in German Policy during the Spring of 1917”, Militaergesc- hichtliche Zeitschrift, C. XX (2): 51-80.
15. FEST, W. B. (June 1972). “British War Aims and German Peace Feelers du- ring the First World War (December1916-November 1918)”, The Histori- cal Journal, C. XV (2): 285-308.
16. HERBER, Charles J. (January 1979). “Eugenio Pacelli's Mission to Germany and the Papal Peace Proposals of 1917”, The Catholic Historical Review, C. LXV (1): 20-48.
17. PARLATIR, İsmail (2009). “Servet-i Fünun”, TDV İslam Ansiklopedisi, C. XXXVII, İstanbul: TDV.
18. SACKS, Benjamin (June 1936). “The Independent Labor Party and World War Peace Objectives”, Pacific Historical Review, C. V (2): 161-173.
19. SNELL, John L. (September 1951). “Wilson's Peace Program and German Socialism, January-March 1918”, The Mississippi Valley Historical Review, C. XXXVIII (2): 187-214.
20. WOODWARD, David R. (April 1971). “Britain's ‘Brass-Hats’ and the Ques- tion of a Compromise Peace, 1916-1918”, Military Affairs, C. XXXV (2): 63-68.
21. WRIGHT, Quincy (November 1970). “How Hostilities Have Ended: Peace Treaties and Alternatives”, Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, C. CCCXCII: 51-61. ; (October 1917). “The Pope’s Terms of Peace”, The Advocate of Peace, C. LXXIX (9): 266-7. ; (September 6, 1914). “Text of Agreement to Make No Separate Peace”, New York Times.