Abstract
With the outbreak of World War I in 1914, the Ottoman Empire and Montenegro, which no longer shared a border due to the shifted territories following the Balkan Wars (1912–13), faced each other as belligerents in two different coalitions (the Entente and the Central powers). Throughout this process, Montenegrin citizens, both Muslim and non-Muslim, living in the Ottoman territories and working in various fields, suddenly found themselves as enemy subjects. This article analyses what it was like for Montenegrins living in the Ottoman territory during the war by assessing their legal status, naturalisation, internment and the security measures taken against them. In the light of Ottoman archival documents and within the framework of the concept of enemy aliens, this article examines just how the war affected these forgotten citizens of Montenegro – who have long been overlooked and overshadowed in scholarly works by the subjects of the Great Powers – and how the Ottoman administration treated them in the context of state security.
The question of enemy aliens and their internment is one of the most controversial issues of World War I, during what Eric Hobsbawm calls the ‘age of catastrophe’. 1 The measures to be taken by the belligerent states against enemy subjects residing within their territory were in fact defined in general terms years before the War in the Hague Convention of 1907. 2 The extent to which such measures were enforceable, however, was to be seen with the onset of World War I.
As the Entente Powers were in a serious rivalry with the Central Powers over various economic and colonial disputes, the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand in Sarajevo was an important casus bello for the outbreak of war. Montenegro, the smallest participant in the War in terms of its geographical area and population size, joined this ‘Armageddon’ on the side of the Entente on 1 August 1914, 3 in order to help its Serbian brothers. On the other side of the front, with the Committee of Union and Progress (CUP) in power, the Ottoman Empire entered the war three months later on 10 November 1914 as a fait accompli on the side of Germany 4 and the Central Powers, in hopes of recovering the vast amount of territory lost in both the Turco-Italian War (1911) and the Balkan Wars (1912–1913). 5
Nearly every country involved in this war took several measures against enemy subjects they considered to be potentially dangerous or untrustworthy, including deportation, internment, imprisonment, denaturalisation and confiscation. 6 From this point of view, it can be observed that the Ottoman Empire implemented a similar set of measures against enemy aliens within its territory, including Montenegrins. Moreover, the fact that they did not share common borders, but were at war because of the blocs to which they belonged, and the fact that Montenegro was a former Ottoman vassal until 1878, lends special significance to the question of how the Ottoman government treated the Montenegrins as enemy aliens.
Although there are many detailed and meticulous studies 7 on ‘enemy subjects/aliens’, the lack of any scholarly work on the status of Montenegrins as enemy aliens in the Ottoman Empire during World War I reveal a significant gap. Therefore, this article focusses specifically on this issue and attempts to answer the following questions: what happened to the Montenegrins who constituted a small part of the subjects of the Entente? How were they affected by the Ottoman policy of deportation and internment, and what role did their Muslim or non-Muslim religious identity, ethnicity, etc. play in such a policy? In addition, perhaps the most important point that distinguishes Montenegro from the other belligerent states is that it was defeated and withdrew from the War about a year and a half after the War began. Focusing on two distinct periods, from Montenegro's involvement in the war to its defeat and from its defeat to the complete end of the war, this study also aims to shed light on the role of different religious identities in the Ottoman Empire's treatment of the Montenegrin subjects, who are largely ignored, forgotten, and considered an insignificant detail in the Great Powers-centred historiography.
I will begin by giving a brief overview of how the issue of ‘enemy aliens’ in the Ottoman Empire emerged. Then, using specific examples, I will analyse the Empire's practices of internment, retaliation, naturalisation, etc. against the Montenegrin Muslim and non-Muslim subjects. Finally, I will present the results of my research in my conclusion.
The issue of ‘enemy aliens’ in the Ottoman Empire
It is well known that the number of foreigners increased during the 18th and 19th centuries due to the Empire's modernisation efforts, its high number of capitulations and its need for manpower. This situation, which was also reflected in the demographic structure of the Ottoman population, 8 made it necessary to regulate the status of foreigners. In fact, the Ottoman Subordination Regulations (Tabiiyet-i Osmaniye Nizamnamesi) of 1869 clarified this by stating that foreigners would be called ‘ecnebi ‘(foreigners) in times of peace and ‘muhasama’ (enemy aliens) in times of war. 9 During the Turco-Italian War, and later during the Balkan Wars, the Ottoman government partially implemented its policy of ‘enemy aliens’. 10 However, its most extensive implementation took place during World War I.
Immediately after its outbreak, the CUP-led government seized the opportunity to throw off the yoke of the Great Powers by taking measures to curb foreign investment in order to strengthen the citizens’ loyalty to unionist politics. There were also attempts to politically reshape the Empire, to ‘normalise’ its opponents through the use of forceful relocation, to depoliticise the adoption of Islamist policies and even to execute some of their opponents. 11 The aim was to quell Great Powers’ influence in the Empire, especially in the Arab vilayets (provinces). CUP's first action was to destroy the capitulations on 7 November 1914, which resulted in the loss of privileges for foreign subjects within the empire; 12 such measures also applied to all enemy aliens, including a large number of its own subjects, such as dissident Arabs, Orthodox Armenians and Greeks, whom they considered to be a military threat and a ‘fifth column’. 13 In particular, the deportation of Armenians and the confiscation of their property placed the CUP at the centre of controversies over economic nationalism, 14 ‘demographic engineering,’ and ‘military extremism’. 15
On 15 November 1914, the Council of Ministers (Meclis-i Vükela) issued a 25-point decision entitled, ‘The Measures to be taken against Citizens and Officials of the Enemy State’. 16 These decisions undoubtedly had undesirable consequences. During this period of heightened xenophobic/anti-alien sentiment, travellers, students and seasonal workers were adversely affected by these sanctions. However, perhaps most affected were those who were born and raised in the Empire, or those who had lived, worked and even owned property there for years, but who could not escape being labelled as ‘suspects’ due to such demonisation. 17
In short, these measures were essentially a generalised response to the issue of enemy aliens. However, the question remains as to how this approach would be applied to the Empire's Montenegrin subjects.
Montenegrin subjects as enemy aliens
Montenegro's participation in the War, as well as its defeat and withdrawal, had a significant impact on its subjects within the Empire. Despite Montenegro's initial successes – in coordination with Serbia and with the support of Russia – with the fall of Cetinje, 72-year-old King Nikola I Petrović-Njegoš (1841–1921) asked for an armistice and left his country on 13 January 1916. Finally, on 25 January Montenegro officially surrendered and remained under the Austro-Hungarian military rule until the end of the War. 18 This defeat, hailed by the Ottoman parliament as a great victory for its ally, 19 added a new dimension to the already existing debate about the status of Montenegrins in Ottoman territory and the Ottoman government's treatment of them as enemy aliens.
Montenegrins had lived in the Ottoman lands well before the twentieth century. At the beginning of the nineteenth century, they travelled to Istanbul, ‘the city of gold’, either by sea from the port of Cotor (Kattaro) on Austrian merchant ships, or by land through the Sanjak (district) of Herzegovina. Their numbers continued to grow each year. From 1856 onwards, hundreds of Montenegrin labourers began arriving in Istanbul at irregular intervals. 20 Since Montenegro was then an autonomous region under the sovereignty of the Ottoman Empire, such travel was considered an internal problem. However, after independence in 1878, their entry into the Ottoman territory was transformed into an international travel status requiring a passport. But, the Ottoman territories, especially Istanbul, never lost their character of being a great place for Montenegrins to earn money.
In general, Montenegrins were preferred candidates for strenuous and demanding jobs, such as guards for the consulates, gardeners in palaces and houses, labourers in railway construction, etc. due to their strong and muscular stature. In 1887, the number of Montenegrin miners in Zonguldak, was nearly three hundred. 21 Moreover, these miners, sometimes provoking bloody clashes, established their hegemony in some places and even monopolised drinking fountains (cheshme) close to the port and the mine. 22 Some of them were born and raised in the Ottoman lands, while others emigrated for various reasons, had children and acquired property before the Balkan Wars (1912) and even earlier. 23 Despite the adverse effects of the Balkan Wars and the outbreak of WWI, the population statistics of 1917 revealed that a total of 948 Montenegrins resided within the Empire, including 100 female and 848 male individuals. In terms of religion, 37% were Muslim and 63% were non-Muslim. The demographic profile showed that about 70% of the male subjects of Montenegro in the Empire were between 20 and 40 years of age. 24 But these are only the officially registered ones. If we imagine that there were unregistered Montenegrins, or those who had Ottoman citizenship and were considered suspects because of their ethnic origin and religion, this number would be much higher.
Consequently, the Montenegrins living in the Ottoman territory had reached a turning point: either they would remain in the Ottoman territory as enemy aliens and somehow continue their livelihood, or they would return to their country and fight in Montenegro, as they had done during the Balkan Wars.
The deportation of Montenegrins: In retaliation or on suspicion?
According to an article in the decision of 15 November 1914, ‘Serbian and Montenegrin subjects shall be treated as Russian subjects’. 25 Furthermore, for the security of the state, enemy subjects living on strategically important coasts and railroad crossings should be relocated inland. 26 On the other hand, in telegrams sent to the vilayets (provinces) on 16 November, governors were ordered ‘not to expel Serbian and Montenegrin subjects outside the borders of the country’ (harice birakilmamasi). 27 Enver Pasha (1881–1922), one of the most prominent figures of the time and the deputy commander-in-chief who opposed the deportation of enemy aliens in this way, had issued an order to prevent these demands from significantly increasing. In his view, they were ‘potential spies’ who would naturally try to spread false information for their country. They were not only seen as a guarantee of the Empire's security and as potential bargaining chips that could save Ottoman citizens from the atrocities committed by the enemy states but they were also seen as important sources of information. The gradual deportation could weaken the Empire's hand in the event of prisoner exchanges, reprisals or threats. Therefore, their deportation outside the borders of the empire should be prevented. 28
As soon as the war started, the numbers and names of the enemy aliens in the vilayets were collected through the governors. Between October 1914 and February 1915, out of 95 enemy subjects who were involved in ‘illegal activities’ in Istanbul, five Montenegrin subjects were interned to different places where they could no longer practice their business and earn a living. Only one of them was deported outside the border on 20 November; the other four were exiled to Sivas and Kayseri a few days apart. However, on 7 March 1915, Mehmed Talaat Bey (1874–1921), the Minister of the Interior, considered it appropriate to deport all Serbs and Montenegrins as they were small in number (pek cüzi) compared to other enemy subjects and the majority of them were in Istanbul. 29 According to the numbers from that day, there were 152 Montenegrin subjects. 30 In fact, it is noteworthy that, three days after this decision, a distinction was made and only ‘non-Muslim’ Serbian and Montenegrin subjects were to be deported. 31 It is clear that the government granted some privileges to the Montenegrin Muslims.
The Ottoman government's decisions regarding Montenegrins were constantly changing and it was unclear whether their decisions were made in retaliation or for security reasons. If retaliation was the primary motivation, then the question remains: what official measures did the Montenegrin government take against the Ottoman citizens? According to the Italian embassy, the Montenegrin government did not take any special measures against the Ottoman citizens in question, and neither did it deploy security forces to deal with the issue. The Turkish government concluded that, the internment of the Montenegrins whose names were listed en masse as a form of retaliation would be unjust. In its decision of May 9, the Council of Ministers also did not object to the return of Montenegrins, except for those who were ‘dangerous and suspicious
As far as we can identify from various documents in the Ottoman archives, at least 105 Montenegrin citizens, almost all of them Christians, were exiled and interned in ‘safe places’ in Central Anatolia. The government, like other belligerent states, used the method of neutralising Montenegrin subjects by forcing them into exile, but with some differences, such as their relatively small numbers in comparison. 34 This was because Montenegro did not pose a direct threat to the Empire, as they did not share a common border. In June 1915, only 94 Montenegrins − 82 of them in Istanbul – were identified in the Ottoman territory. 35 Yet only three months earlier, considering that the number of Montenegrins in Istanbul was 152, it can be determined that almost 70 Montenegrin subjects who were in Istanbul were exiled to Central Anatolia in that period. Edirne, with 28 people, was the second city after Istanbul with the highest number of Montenegrin subjects in November 1916. This was probably due to an earlier decision to gather up those who were to be deported in Edirne. However, despite Montenegro's withdrawal from the War, Montenegrin subjects in Edirne were not deported across the border, rather they were interned in the ‘safe places’ under the new order. All of them, between the ages of 20 and 22, including a Muslim and a woman, were exiled to Çorum, Sivas, Kayseri, Ankara, Adapazari and Konya between 1 December 1914 and 21 February 1917 with notes by their names such as ‘among the suspects’, ‘exchange is not permissible’ or ‘there is no harm in exchange’. The deportation of the only Muslim among these subjects contained the note ‘at his own request’. 36 In general, Sivas, Ankara, Çorum, Konya, Beyşehir, Bozkir, Kayseri (Kiçikapı, Talas), Niğde, Bor, Isparta, Şarkikaraağaç, Seydişehir 37 and Urfa were among the internment locations for Montenegrins (Appendix 1). The fact that a number of them were marked as ‘not eligible for exchange’ implies that at least some of them were being held in case of a prisoner exchange.
Urfa, which was a favourable place due to its geopolitical location, was also considered a safe place. A total of 240 enemy subjects, including seven Montenegrins, were taken to Urfa from Kudüs, Jaffa, Damascus and Beirut 38 by the orders of the 4th Army commander Djemal Pasha (1872–1922). Three of these Montenegrins were transferred first to Niğde in February 1916 and then to Bor and Kayseri in two weeks in March 1916. 39 In some cases, enemy subjects were exiled with their families. For example, six Montenegrin families living in Küçükbakkalköy in Istanbul's kaza of Kartal were exiled to Çorum. 40 However, as we will see later, Montenegrin women and children were not subject to this procedure, except in a few rare cases.
In fact, the teb’id (exile) or tehcir (relocation) of enemy subjects was a multidimensional issue of logistics, route security, food supply, destination and overnight stays, and the transportation of hundreds of thousands of people from west to east, north to south, all within a system that required massive mobilisation. As the ‘safe areas’ were far away from the railways, people were transported by train up to a certain point and then by horse-drawn carriage the rest of the way. Even the journey from Ankara to Çorum took five or six days, 41 from Nigde to Kayseri almost a week, sometimes on horseback and carriage and sometimes on foot.
Montenegrin miners who worked in Zonguldak and Ereğli were also among the internees. Particularly, at the beginning of the war, in November 1914, when Zonguldak was the target of Russian naval bombardments, 42 Montenegrins who worked in the mines were investigated on suspicion of espionage and were followed around day and night. Although no concrete evidence was found, 12 of the 37 enemy aliens on the list of deportees in November 1914 were Montenegrin. 43 At the end of the year, 19 Montenegrins, aged 17 to 58, who worked in various professions such as mining, as guards, carpenters, mechanics, fishermen, etc. were deported to Çorum for the same security reasons. 60% of these workers were illiterate, and only 40% could speak and write Montenegrin. 44 In September 1915, 20 Montenegrin subjects from Zonguldak and Inebolu, half of whom were born and raised in the Ottoman territory, were also exiled to Çorum. 45 Yet the warnings at the beginning of this process, that the displacement of these miners would have a negative impact on the mining industry, 46 were not heeded, and so the coal supply was naturally disrupted. Therefore, in November 1915, Enver Pasha decided, with some delay, not to deport all the workers from the coal mines, but only the ‘suspicious’ ones. 47 As a direct result of this decision, 18 of the 20 Montenegrin subjects who had previously been sent to Çorum were later ordered to return to their former place of residence, Zonguldak. However, when they stopped in Kastamonu on their way back, the decision was reversed again, and they were ordered to be kept in Kastamonu. With an order dated in August 1916, they were finally transferred to Safranbolu. 48
It is difficult to believe that all of the interned Montenegrins were guilty. Take, for example, Aleksander Bošković who was born in the Demirkapi neighbourhood of Bursa and had worked as a cavass/guard in the Bank-i Osmani in Bursa for ten years. During his stay in Bursa, there were no reports of impropriety on his part – his criminal record was clean. He lived a quiet family life with his mother, wife, two sisters and his child in a house that was left to him by a deceased Greek woman in her will in 1904. 49 But in spite of all this, on 17 November 1914, he too was eventually interned with his two brothers, shoemaker Nikola and shoveler Vasil to Çorum. 50 Like the other Montenegrin subjects, they were settled in the Çorum Khan (inn), also known as Veli Pasha Khan, located in the Çepni neighbourhood. 51
In addition to subjective reasons such as ‘potential danger’ they might pose, subjects could also be deported for more concrete reasons such as spreading ‘propaganda’ against the Empire and the Central Powers. With this in mind, the experiences of Andrea Milo Vukotić, and Božo Andrea Domažić, during the internment proceedings contain intriguing information that provides a clear example of the government's practices. Vukotić, a janitor at the Lycée Français Privé Saint-Joseph in Kadiköy and then at the Chavushoglu Khan in Beyoglu, had been living in Istanbul for about 20 years. Domažič, on the other hand, was a modest young man of about 25, living in Aynalıcheshme and working as a cashier at the Tokatlıyan Hotel. In February 1917 they were sent all the way to Ankara with 11 others to be interned in Konya. Unable to withstand the harsh weather in Ankara, Vukotić's endless forced exile ended not in Konya but in Isparta. Domažić, on the other hand, was tansferred to Bozkir and then to Konya because of his illness. A year later, in April 1918, Vukotić's uncle, Žacquin Milović, an Austrian citizen, and Domažić's maternal uncle, Jvan Perajković, a Montenegrin citizen, both of whom had worked for more than ten years in Istanbul at the Sipahi Ocagi Equestrian Club of the Ministry of War as sofrajibashi (head butler in charge of the dinner table), jointly wrote an important petition with their own signatures on behalf of their nephews, which began by emphasising their loyalty to the government. According to them, their relatives were arrested and interned without any reason. In trying to explain how loyal their nephews were to the government, they mentioned that Domažić's ancestors in Bar (Antivari) had served the Ottomans well when the town was under Ottoman rule, and they even owned the Ottoman consulate building in Bar. The uncles, stressing that these wretched and poor young men (bichareler) were honourable people and that they could vouch for them in everything, asked that their nephews be allowed to return immediately to Istanbul or, if that was not possible, at least to their homeland. In its reply on 13 May 1918 regarding the reason for their internment, the General Directorate of Security gave an unconvincing answer that the two young men were among the ‘Ottoman dissidents’ who had been deemed ‘capable of committing any type of crime (her bir denaati irtikaba müsait kisandan)’ and were always ‘attracting the attention of the police’. Although the note dated 22 April 1918 on the back of the uncles’ petition, stated that ‘It is our will (irade buyurulmustur) that they be allowed to return to Istanbul’, the government, considering the police report, did not issue permission for Vukotić and Domažić until the end of the war. 52
The neutral states focused on such cases, accusing the government of unjust deportations. For example, in February 1917, the US Embassy expressed concern over the arrest of 35 enemy aliens, including three Montenegrins working for the embassy, at the Haydarpaşa train station and their retaliatory removal to the interior, and asked the Ottoman government to release them immediately, as their services were needed. 53
Among those arrested was Andréa Nikola Loumbarda, a Montenegrin born in the Bar of the Vlach origin, who worked as a doorman in the Romanian embassy. 54 Since he was employed by the Spanish Embassy after Romania's declaration of war, the Spanish Embassy immediately reacted to the unreasonable arrest of Loumbarda, indicating that he was ‘absolutely indispensable’. Conversely, Andréa was not an innocent man in the eyes of Talaat Pasha. It was rumoured that he had been a ‘brigandage’ in Montenegro for some time, then joined the Vlach propagandists operating in Macedonia and had been involved in some political murders. In addition, allegations that during World War I he ‘propagandised far and wide, wishing the Ottomans and Germans to perish’ and ‘celebrated Russia's success with 20 cans of beer and a banquet’, led to Loumbardo being considered one of the people whose presence in Istanbul was ‘absolutely unacceptable’. 55 As a consequence, the embassies’ request was rejected.
The difficulties experienced by Montenegrin subjects in internment camps
The internment camps were not surrounded by barbed wire or walls as internees were often held in churches, houses, public buildings or khans (hotels). But they were forbidden from going out at night between sunset and sunrise. 56 Although some scholars, such as R. Sonat, generalised the situation and claimed that internees were treated ‘more like guests than prisoners’, 57 it is difficult to equate Montenegrin civilians with French and British POWs. Those Montenegrins had to cope with various illnesses and health problems. In this regard, the story of Jordan Marko Đurović, a 35-year-old carpenter from Inebolu, who was interned in Safranbolu, is worth mentioning. He was one of the cases of internment in which the Italian Embassy attempted to intervene for the violation of the ‘principle of retaliation in January 1915. 58 Despite Đurović's best efforts, he and his brother Niko could not avoid exile. After spending two years in internment, Jordan eventually contracted some kind of bone disease: he could neither eat nor walk; he could not even take care of his own personal needs. He had no one to help him in Safranbolu, nor did he have the money to hire a maid. According to the doctor's report, it was literally impossible to treat the patient in the current location, and the sea air would be particularly good for him. As such, he had requested to be transferred to his mother's side, to Bartın, where he was born. But neither reports nor petitions were enough to convince the government. Interestingly, this request and his subsequent request to be transferred to the Haydarpaşa Hospital in Istanbul were rejected by Enver Pasha in July and September 1917, respectively. 59 It was only four months later, at the beginning of 1918, that he was finally allowed to receive treatment at a hospital in Ankara. 60
In addition, Montenegrins, faced with sanitation problems and related epidemics, struggled to survive in places they had never been before. For example, dysentery (kanli basur), a diarrheal disease spread by poor hygiene and lack of sanitation, 61 had become widespread and resulted in many deaths in Bozkır where eleven Montenegrins were interned. The situation in Bozkir had become so deplorable that internees complained of poor health conditions in their petitions. 62 This is probably the reason why nine internees were transferred to Isparta in July 1917. 63 Additionally, Koçhisar, where mostly British and French belligerent subjects and POWs were interned, including one Montenegrin ‘civilian POW’, was, according to the American embassy, a very unsanitary place where various types of fevers were prevalent. 64 In Beyşehir, 65 some civilian prisoners 66 committed suicide while others suffered from physical and mental disorders, some of which were fatal, even though the conditions there were reportedly relatively favourable in terms of better food and accommodations. 67 Additionally, the cases in Urfa also show the extent to which internees suffered from disease. For example, the 38-year-old Montenegrin guard Dido Čoka Popović 68 died of disease in December 1915. He had just been exiled from Beirut by order of Djemal Pasha and was waiting to be transferred to Konya. 69 Indeed, epidemics such as dysentery were likely to occur in warm weather. It is not difficult to imagine how the sweltering heat of Urfa might have affected the 78-year-old Montenegrin baker Jani Janis Nikolavič. 70
Furthermore, the most common complaint was the lack of the ability to earn a living. 71 Enemy subjects in Nif (today Kemalpasha/Izmir), a kaza of Izmir, including two Montenegrins aged 22 and 45, suffered from poverty and housing problems. 72 Despite the expectation that the local government would be responsible for their shelter and resettlement, the wali of Aydin, not only stated that they lacked the necessary funds, but also gave a surprising answer: ‘Let them manage with their own money or with the help of the American consul’. 73 In Kayseri, however, the American missionaries, under the supervision and control of the police department, regularly gave them a monthly cash payment. After a while, they returned to Istanbul and the Hilal-i Ahmer Üsera Commission took over their relief work. 74
In short, the internments broke up Montenegrin families, caused internees to lose their jobs, and in some cases, even their lives. As evidenced by the petitions they wrote, sometimes personally and sometimes through relatives, they asked both the government and the embassies of the neutral states for help. Some sought to be reunited with their children, others complained of the lack of money, while still others expressed their fear of starvation.
Montenegrin subjects: POWs, civilian POWs or just enemy aliens?
Since the Ottoman Empire had no border contact with Montenegro during the war, it was assumed that there were no Montenegrin prisoners of war (POWs) in the Empire 75 . Indeed, according to the Red Crescent, at the beginning of 1916, there was not a single Montenegrin among the 26,334 POWs in the Empire. Montenegrins, who were considered almost exclusively civilian enemy subjects, could not be forced to work because they were protected under humanitarian law. But, they were not allowed to continue working as before to earn a living. Although there were some who continued to work in the mines of Zonguldak with a special permit, we saw above that they too were later interned. In July of the same year, however, the government's attempts to make Montenegrin subjects work in the Taurus and Amanos tunnels in Belemedik, a district of Pozantı in Adana, 76 raised the suspicion that a small number of them had been declared ‘prisoners of war’. The construction of these two tunnels on the Baghdad railway line was interrupted by the deportation of more than 600 skilled Armenian workers – 200 of whom were expert tunnellers – thus resulting in a huge shortage of labour. Since the work had to be completed as soon as possible, Enver Pasha, at the request of the construction company, asked Talaat Pasha, Minister of the Interior, to send them back to their former places to work on the tunnel construction. Furthermore, in June 1916, a list of 48 workers who specialised in tunnel construction was compiled in Izmir. ‘17 of these men, 16 of them Italians and one Montenegrin, were subjects of the enemy aliens and were ‘prisoners of war’ in Izmir (…)’, wrote Enver Pasha, in a letter to the Ministry of the Interior (Appendix 2). Among those listed as ‘POWs’ was Christo Pilamivassi, a Montenegrin citizen and resident of the Seydiköy nahiyya (sub-district) (now Gaziemir) in Izmir. Regarding these 17 ‘POWs’, the police noted that ‘no bad behaviour was observed’. In August, however, Italian and Montenegrin POWs refused to go to Belemedik, fearing that they would not be paid like other Austrian, Greek, and Ottoman labourers and would be forced to work as POWs. In response, Enver Pasha assured them that they would be paid a daily wage according to the hours they worked, just like the British, Russian and French POWs. 77 Considering that recent research studies mention the presence of 5 Montenegrin POWs in the labour battalions (Amele Taburlari) of the 4th Army in 1916, it shows that this procedure was put into practice. 78
Although it was a small proportion of 0.4% of the total number, this incident raised the question of the use of civilian enemy aliens as labourers and of the consideration of Montenegrin subjects as POWs. In January 1917, in his report outlining the government's policy towards enemy aliens, Enver Pasha noted that there were very few POWs despite the large number of civilian enemy aliens. According to him, at first only ‘a very small and suspicious proportion’ of the enemy aliens were listed and exiled to ‘safe places’ in central Anatolia. Later on, when it was found out that these subjects had been taken out of the country by the enemy states to be used against the Ottoman government, it was decided to keep all these ‘likely-to-be used’ enemy aliens together in several ‘safe places’ under the name of ‘civilian prisoners’ in order to prevent their escape. However, since these civilians could not be used as labourers, there were problems with their resettlement and transfer. Enver Pasha, citing an intelligence report that enemy states were preparing to treat all Ottoman subjects in their countries as ‘POWs’ and to employ them in drudgery with low wages, proposed that all subjects of enemy states within the borders of the Empire be declared ‘POWs (üsera-yi harp)’ instead of ‘civilian prisoners (sivil üsera)’ and that they be employed in drudgery. Thus, civilian prisoners between the ages of 17 and 60, could be paid the same wages as military POWs. Although this proposal was a reaction to the treatment of Ottoman subjects by the British, Russians and French, the proposal to include all enemy aliens in the Empire naturally led to the idea of including the Montenegrin civilians as POWs. 79 However, Legal Office of the Sublime Porte took a cooler view of the matter, pointing out that this would, in any case, be a ‘violation of the international treaty’ and that the only reasonable justification for it would be ‘retaliation’. But, of course, retaliation required clear and indisputable written documents, not rumours or allegations that enemy states were treating Ottoman subjects as ‘POWs’. Otherwise, it was stressed, that no such action should be taken. In August 1917, after receiving and collecting ‘concrete and unobjectionable written documents’, Enver Pasha submitted the matter to Talaat Pasha, who had been Grand Vizier since February. As peace had been signed with the Russians at the time, it was decided to use the ‘prisoner of war’ declaration only in the context of ‘retaliation in kind’ (mukabele-i bil misil) against the British and French. 80 Naturally, the Montenegrins were not included in this framework. However, considering that 5 Montenegrins were forced to work in labor battalions, 81 including Christo Pilamivassi, who was forced to work at the Taurus and Amanos tunnels as a ‘Prisoner of War’, and Milof Manović, a 35-year-old stonemason in Beirut, who was ultimately interned in Kochhisar (today Shereflikochisar) as a ‘civilian Prisoner of War (sivil harp esiri)’ 82 on 21 February 1916 – even before the government's decision in this regard– it can be assumed that at least some of the Montenegrin subjects might have been treated like POWs.
With all things being considered, from the use of the term ‘civilian prisoners’ in the correspondence, it can be concluded that the Montenegrin subjects, who were interned in Sivas, Talas and Konya along with other civilian prisoners of war and POWs, were not included in this scope, but were interned as possible suspects or those with criminal potential. Because the government of Montenegro did not take any measures against Ottoman subjects during the period of its participation in the War, even the use of the terms ‘POW’ and ‘civilian prisoners’ to describe Montenegrin subjects was contrary to the principle of retaliation, as stated in a note sent to the Ottoman government by the Italian embassy.
The naturalisation of Montenegrins
According to the Ottoman Nationality Law of 1869, Ottoman citizenship was subject to cumulative conditions. In addition, consulates were no longer allowed to intervene on behalf of applicants and those who were deemed ‘qualified’ among the applicants were naturalised. 83 This process was also applied to some foreigners like Jews living in the country to naturalise in the Empire in order to be politically recognised and integrated into the national state system. 84 Obviously, Montenegrins had no choice but to maintain their existing jobs and lives within the Ottoman territory both during and after the War. Even most Montenegrin-Muslim servants were forbidden from working in the palaces of Ottoman princes and sultans (selatin-i izam). For example, Sultan Abdül Hamid II's daughter, Princess Zekiye Sultan (1871–1950), had a servant named Karadagli Süleyman working in her palace in Ortaköy. Although he was a ‘Muslim’, his ‘Montenegrin’ identity was enough to end his service in the Sultan's palaces. 85 They would therefore have to choose between Ottoman citizenship and the citizenship of their neutral state.
The government soon realised that enemy aliens were trying to subvert the sanctions by applying for citizenship at the consulates of the neutral states, 86 and thought that such attempts would weaken the government in the face of its enemies. To prevent this, it was decreed that those who changed their citizenship in this way would be treated according to their original nationality, not their new one. 87 Therefore, people in this situation would acquire Ottoman citizenship in the current practice. For example, Hüsrev Ağa bin Mehmet from Bar, 88 a gardener who worked in the Imperial Weaving Factory (Hereke Fabrika-i Hümayunu) for about 15 years and lived alone in Feriköy/Istanbul, was among the many whose applications were accepted because no ‘bad behaviour’ was observed. 89
It is no coincidence that the majority of the applicants who were accepted and naturalised were those who identified as Muslims. Although religion was not an indispensable requirement, it was an important factor for changing one's nationality. In particular, Jews (with some conditions) and Muslims among the enemy aliens were considered ‘friendly elements’. 90 The fact that the applications of Montenegrin Muslims were largely accepted indicates that they were also seen as ‘friendly elements’. Nevertheless, some of their applications were rejected. 91
On the other hand, Montenegrin Christians were among those who managed to become Ottoman citizens, albeit rarely. For instance, the application of Ms. Vera Crnogorčević, the daughter of Nikola, is quite remarkable in terms of the applicant's gender. She lived at Hammalbashı Sokak in Beyoğlu with her 67-year-old Montenegrin father, who was born and raised in Istanbul and was a retired servant of the Régie Company. As a result, Vera's application was also accepted in October 1917. 92
To sum up, the government carried out the most meticulous work possible on these cases. The form for collecting information about the individual included questions about one's identity, as well as questions like: does he/she own property? Is he/she sincere in declaring his nationality? Is there anyone to look after? Is there any harm in admitting him/her to Ottoman citizenship in terms of the Empire's status and glory? 93 After a rigorous investigation based on the information provided in the completed forms, the applicant's request was either accepted or denied.
Recruiting Montenegrins: Mistreatment and the violation of International Law
The change in citizenship raised further questions about whether these ‘new citizens’ could be recruited in the army. The issue was neither clarified in the Recruitment Law (Ahz-i Askeri Kanunu) nor in the Provisional Military Liability Law (Mükellefiyet-i Askeriye Kanun-i Muvakkati) of May 1914. 94 However, regarding the status of the muhajirs [refugees], the statement ‘immigrants could only be conscripted six years after the date of their migration according to their age’ was abolished by the 5 April 1915 law. 95 Should it become necessary, the Ministry of War would be able to conscript all muhajirs who had already arrived including those who would arrive in the future, three months after the date of their entry into the Empire, provided that their period of service was dependent on the duration of their mobilisation.
The decision to recruit soldiers was put back on the agenda in August 1916 for the ‘former’ citizens of Montenegro. At the beginning of the War, the Montenegrins sought Ottoman citizenship seeing it as a means of survival; as Montenegro withdrew from the War, however, their demands diminished. Nevertheless, the unavoidable need for more soldiers led the government, instead of applying the precise criteria of the Nationality Law, to consider that ‘registration in the population’ was sufficient and thus they began recruiting Montenegrins who had refugee status. 96
But the local police and military authorities were criticised for their treatment of the conscripts among the Montenegrin subjects. Individuals were threatened with deportation if they did not obey orders. On 15 October 1916, for example, in an aide-memoire, the American Embassy drew the government's attention ‘to the action of the local police and military authorities in endeavouring to oblige Montenegrin and Serbian subjects to submit to be enrolled in the Ottoman Army or else to being exiled from Constantinople’. 97 Among the Montenegrins mentioned was Chabo (Shaban) bin Bekir Matešić, who lived in Nishantashi and worked as a guard at the Italian Embassy. His case was particularly tragic because it was not only Chabo but also his three sons who found themselves in the military recruitment office (Ahz-i Askeri). 98 The Embassy urged the government to release these men and others immediately and to desist from such practices. 99
In another case, Costa Filipović, a 28-year-old Montenegrin coiffeur in Pera, was called twice by the Galatasaray Police and forced to obtain a registration certificate (nüfus teskeresi) despite his express preference to remain a Montenegrin citizen. On the other hand, 26-year-old Ismail Hadžić, from Krajina/Kraja, also refused to register in order to avoid recruitment. Realising the gravity of the situation, Hadžić fled in the confusion to the American consulate and told the story from beginning to end. On his way out of the consulate, however, he was arrested by the Turkish police and taken directly to the recruitment office once again. 100
Of particular note in the American Embassy records are two allegations against the Ottoman authorities: First, mistreatment, and second, violation of international law. For example, in a note verbale dated 28 November 1916, a sailor named Mustafa bin Hussein was allegedly tortured and forced to agree to have a nüfus teskeresi. He was arrested by the Arnavutköy police in Balat and ill-treated for 20 days in detention simply because he had expressed his wish to remain a ‘Montenegrin’ since his entire family was Montenegrin. When he arrived at the Embassy, he could barely walk and described being beaten with numerous sticks. 24-year-old Osman bin Hussein was also subjected to the same abuse. The government was asked to take the necessary measures to ensure that these people would no longer be mistreated. 101
The second issue was the allegation that these recruitments were in violation of international law. As a result of the increasing number of similar requests, the situation became untenable, and the government launched an investigation. Interestingly, the report prepared for this purpose, dated 23 November 1916, pointed out that the registration of Montenegrins, Serbs and Albanians who had temporarily arrived as muhajir after the Balkan Wars could not be carried out at that time because of the large number of immigrants, but that to register these refugees now would be a violation of the international law. For this reason, the need to find a solution and re-evaluate the issue was stressed, and the Ministry of the Interior was informed of the problem. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs also acknowledged the existence of the problem and stated that all these practices were due to the implementation of the decision of the Meclis-i Vükela of 20 September 1916. 102 The Ministry of War, on the other hand, threw the ball in the Grand-Vizier's court and declared that the old decision would be applied until a new implementing order was received. 103 Thus, it is clear that all levels of the state were aware that international law was being violated in this matter.
However, this practice was applied not only in Istanbul but also in other sanjaks such as Bolu and continued until August 1917. At the end of April 1917, an overzealous director (reis) of the recruitment office in Bolu summoned 11 Montenegrin subjects and forced them to become Ottoman citizens with statements such as ‘for two years there has been no state called Montenegro’, implying that they were stateless. Following the complaint, the governor of Bolu tried to rectify the situation, but after a few days, on the grounds that they could not produce documents proving their Montenegrin identity, 9 of them, including two brothers Georges (Đorđe) and Simo Malli Đurović, with the exception of two – one over 60 years old and the other lame – were conscripted and sent to the Selimiye Barracks (Selimiye Kışlası) in Üsküdar, Istanbul. 104 Within a month, they were forcibly transferred to Bandirma (Panderma) 105 most likely to a unit of the 5th Army. How long these reluctant Christian Montenegrin ‘mehmetçikler’ served in the Ottoman army remains a mystery, but there is no doubt that they set foot in Bandirma as ‘Ottoman soldiers’ in early June 1917.
Last but not least, the arrest of Janko M. (for Marko: his father's name) Bogdanović from Cetinje by the Eminönü police in June for the same reason, the government was asked for an explanation to remind them that military service was not compulsory. The case of Bogdanović in particular revealed another dimension of the government's conscription policy. When Janko went to the police station on 20 August 1917 to renew his residence permit, the officers discovered that he owned land and property in Istanbul. In this case, the authorities recognised Janko as an ‘Ottoman subject’ and conscripted him. 106 Interestingly, his 23-year-old cousin Jovan Bogdanović, son of Philip, was the subject of an American note verbale in November 1916, also on the issue of military service, which led to the investigation of the status of their families. 107
As a consequence, it is not known whether the intervention of the American and later the Spanish embassies stopped this process, but it is documented that as a result of these practices, Muslim and non-Muslim Montenegrins were conscripted into the army because of their new status after the surrender of Montenegro. Finally, the fact that a Montenegrin who owned property was considered ‘Ottoman’ added another dimension to the problem and resulted in the dilemma for Montenegrins of going to the army as ‘Ottomans’ and losing their property as ‘Montenegrins’.
Remaining ‘Montenegrin’ or becoming ‘Ottoman’: Confiscation or conscription
As briefly mentioned above, Montenegrins had to choose between staying ‘Montenegrin’ or becoming ‘Ottoman’. In this context, I would like to present two similar cases – the case of the Bogdanović brothers and the case of Mašan Čavuš – and analyse the way the government dealt with each differently.
The first and perhaps most interesting is that of the brothers Marko and Philip Bogdanović and their respective families. The main reason they were on the government's radar was the aforementioned referral of their sons, the two cousins Jordan and Jovan, to the recruitment office by the Istanbul police and the embassies’ subsequent intervention on their behalf.
Marko and Philip, aged 73 and 83 respectively, had been living in the Kestel village (today Kestanelik/Erdek/Balikesir), in Kapudagh nahiyya (sub-district) in the kaza of Panderma (Bandirma), for 30 years beginning in 1878. Marko worked as a guard and Philip was a fisherman. They only had to pay the dividend tax (temettuat) of 50 kurush, which was levied annually on merchants and craftsmen according to their income. They were also exempt from the military tax (Bedel-i Askeriye) levied on non-Muslim Ottoman subjects who did not serve in the army. Because there was uncertainty about their citizenship, the Divan-i Harb-i Örfi (martial court) had initiated proceedings against them. On 7 October 1916, the Advisory Chamber (Hukuk Müsavirligi) of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs wrote a page-long report on their family and tried to legally determine whether they were ‘Montenegrin’ or ‘Ottoman’. According to this, they had emigrated from the lands ceded to Montenegro after the Treaty of Berlin in 1878 and were registered in both the old and the new population registers (Tahrirat Defters) of Kestel (Kestanelik), a Greek Orthodox village in Kapudagh/Bandirma. They were therefore considered to be ‘Ottoman’, although they were born in Montenegro. 108
On the other hand, even though there were two different records kept by the Tahrir officials, one in which they were recorded as ‘Ottoman’ and the other as ‘Montenegrin’ – no matter how they were recorded – the mere fact that they were recorded was sufficient evidence for them to be considered ‘Ottoman’. This was because such records could only exist if they themselves had made the request and filled out an application. The second and more important point was that Marko had acquired property within the borders of the empire. 109 Normally, after 1878, it was not legally possible for Montenegrin subjects to buy property in the Ottoman territory. 110 However, Marko had two houses, a field (1/4 dunam) and an acre of vineyard registered in his name in the town of Kestel, and the fact that he and his brother Philip, with the help of a bank loan, bought and operated a water mill worth six hundred kurush in the Kalem-Manastir area of the village of Shahinburgaz (now Çayağzı/Erdek/Balıkesir) was further evidence of their status as ‘Ottoman subjects’. According to the law, a foreigner, who had resided in the Ottoman territory for five years, could be simply registered as a resident in order to be de facto ‘Ottoman’. Consequently, it was thought that Marko and Philip and their sons Jordan and Jovan were ‘Ottomans’ until proven otherwise. 111
The two elder brothers were certain that, whatever the verdict, they would be the losers. If they were accepted as Ottomans, they would most likely not have been conscripted into the army because of their age, but they could have been tried as deserters in a court martial (Divan-i Harp) and their sons Jordan and Jovan could not escape being conscripted. If it were proven otherwise and they were found to be subjects of Montenegro, then the property they had worked hard to acquire over the last 30 years and which was registered in their names would be confiscated on the grounds that they were subjects of an enemy state, sold at auction and the value of the proceeds deposited in a bank and the right to run the mill would be taken away from them. 112
The second case concerns the property of Mašan Čavuš of Montenegro. Like the Bogdanović brothers, he had come to the Ottoman lands with his family 30 years earlier and settled in Zonguldak. A few months after the Balkan Wars started, he and his family applied for Ottoman citizenship. However, the fact that he had not yet received the certificate of acceptance by 1912 meant that he was treated as a ‘Montenegrin’, which naturally led to the questioning of the property he had acquired. For this reason, in November 1912, he was brought before the Zonguldak Civil Court on a complaint from the local Land Registry Directorate (Defter-i Hakani). 113 The case had begun in 1910 when Mašan Čavuš took possession of a 15-acre plot of land. In his testimony to the court, he denied the charges of having occupied the land without a license and without permission. Since he had already applied for citizenship, he should, therefore, be able to exercise his rights over the land as an ‘Ottoman’. The land he had acquired was miri land (demeane), which had been granted to everyone after the proclamation of the Constitution (23 July 1908). He had reclaimed and rebuilt part of the 15 acres, planted fruit trees and vineyards and built a house. All he wanted was the title and the deed. The fact that Montenegro was not one of the countries that had the privilege of owning property and real estate, 114 the court unanimously decided that he was ‘Montenegrin’ and his property was confiscated in accordance with Articles 25 and 31 of the Land Code (Kanunname-i Arazi); his house was demolished, the fruit trees and vineyards he had planted were uprooted, his property was handed over to the state, and the court costs were collected from Čavuš himself. The decision was finalised on 24 April 1913. 115 But he did not give up on his property: he tried for years to claim his rights and left no stone unturned. On 27 April 1914, months before the outbreak of WWI, he sent a telegram to Talaat Bey, the Minister of the Interior, and demanded justice, stating that it was unjust to confiscate the property that an Ottoman subject had built with upwards of 50 years of hard work; he ended his telegram with the words ‘Mašan Čavuš, Osmanli tebaasindan (from an Ottoman subject)’. 116
The telegram had an almost immediate effect, and his application for citizenship was tracked down by order. The government insisted on the document registration number from the local administration. But when the Empire declared mobilisation and entered the war, things became even more complicated. In July 1917, after almost three years of inter-agency correspondence, a report by the mutasarrif (governor) Bolu revealed some negligence in the matter. ‘Although the civil registry office stated that he had renounced his Montenegrin citizenship (terk-i tabiiyyet) in Zonguldak, the records of the date and the application could not be found because they had somehow been mixed up during the transfer of the local government to Üzülmez (a place south of Zonguldak) (due to Russian bombardment)’. 117 Another reason for the delay was the absence of the registrar, who had been ill with typhoid fever for more than two months. Finally, in January 1918, the Zonguldak district governorate registered Mašan Čavuš. This was based on the report of the Bolu recruitment office dated 5 February 1917, stating that, the subjects of states such as Montenegro and Serbia, whose countries had been completely overrun during the war, and who were in Ottoman territory, should not be considered as ‘foreign subjects’, as they had lost contact with their states due to the abolition of their governments, should be forced to renounce their nationality, be registered among the population of their localities and be conscripted into military service. 118
As a result, Mašan Čavuš's life was ruined because of a document that went missing for five years. His citizenship, which he had been denied before the war, was restored when he was registered with the military recruitment office because of the need for soldiers during the war, and this proved to be the only way he could get his property back. What is striking in both the case of the Bogdanović brothers and that of Mašan Čavuš is the way the Ottoman government dealt with these two similar cases differently. It is interesting to note that in the Bogdanović case the government tried to prove that the individuals were ‘Ottomans’, while in the Mašan Čavuš case, the Ottoman government persistently tried to deny him his Ottoman identity.
The relaxation of measures and the return home
In fact, after the capitulation of the Montenegrin army in January 1916, it was expected that the measures against Montenegrin subjects would be relaxed. Their unconditional surrender, which almost completely destroyed Montenegro's internal organisation and threw the country into chaos and devastation, was also interpreted as the loss of its ‘formal legal existence’. The Austro-Hungarian government did not start the peace negotiations as King Nikola I and most of his government were in exile in Paris and were considered a ‘rump government’. 119 Until the end of the war, two Montenegrin exile groups debated over the Corfu Declaration which aimed for a unified ‘Yugoslavia’, and thus there was a race to determine the country's post-war fate. 120 In other words, until 24 November 1918, it can be assumed that, apart from the Austro-Hungarian Military General Government of Montenegro, there existed no ‘legitimate’ government agreed upon by the parties to deal with Montenegrin subjects living in the Ottoman Empire.
Considering that Montenegrin enemy aliens who were being held in Austria-Hungary did not want to return to such ‘chaos’ – even if they were allowed to return 121 – it is difficult to expect those who lived in Ottoman territories to do so. Still, some of them did not hesitate to return to their country or to their homes in the Ottoman lands to resume their lives where they had left off. Nevertheless, such returns were not without difficulty. The requests for return to Montenegro were assessed according to a specific procedure: individuals had to undergo an examination of their specific circumstance, including a security check in coordination with the Austro-Hungarian officials. Those who were not deemed a security threat were granted permits and visas.
Between March 1917 and November 1918, as far as we have been able to ascertain, a total of about eighty-three Montenegrin subjects, including women and children, who wished to return to their homeland, were gradually granted permission to do so. 122 In September 1917, Ahmet Halil Mačkić, and Mrs Anna Nilović, daughter of Marko, and her son Petar, as well as Madame Roza, with different religions, were subjected to the same procedure. 123 According to reports, Ahmet Mačkić from Bar, whose father had died six months prior to his application, had no one left to support his family. He was described as a ‘nice man’ and he and his family were ‘honourable people’ (erbab-i namus). On the other hand, Mrs Anna Nilović was living alone with her nine-year-old son Petar. Her husband had worked for 15 years at the Holy Spirit Catholic Church in Pangaltı, and then as a janitor at the Parizyana Theatre in Beyoglu. 124 The story of Madame Roza, who had been living in Istanbul with her family for over 20 years, was pretty much the same as the others. Her husband Markić Giovanni was a long-time conductor for an Ottoman railway company, the Oriental Railway, but he was unemployed and unable to find a job at the time of their application. According to the police, neither she nor her husband were involved in any illegal activities. 125 After three months of correspondence and inquiries, neither the Ottoman Army Command (for military reasons), nor the Ministry of the Interior (for internal security reasons), nor the Austro-Hungarian Military Administration in Shkodër/Scutari (for their own interests), saw any issues with the above-mentioned families returning to their homes. 126
In a nutshell, the list of applicants predominantly comprised Muslims from the Ulcinj and Bar regions, including janitors at Robert College, 127 servants of Ottoman princesses, 128 and workers involved in the construction of the Austro-Hungarian embassy, such as Ramazan bin Hussein Begović, who received a photo passport (Appendix 3). 129 However, the list also included some Christian Montenegrins. 130 These permits partly indicate a relaxation of measures against Montenegrins.
Forgotten Montenegrins in internment
The expected improvement of the situation of Montenegrin subjects after capitulation did not occur to the desired extent and some of them continued to suffer great hardships. This was also reflected in the note verbales of the neutral states. A few specific examples may better illustrate the situation. For instance, there was a note verbale from May 1918 concerning the situation of a 70-year-old widowed Montenegrin woman named Chariclia (Hariklia) Castelone. After her husband's death, she lived with her two sons and her daughters in Küçükbakkalköy in Istanbul. She was first exiled to Edirne and then, despite her advanced age and a nervous breakdown, to Çorum in 1915 with her two sons under a new order. 131 One of her sons, a 35-year-old labourer named Curo, 132 contracted typhus, and committed suicide after complications such as aggression and depression. 133 The grieving mother was unable to take care of herself; neither she nor her younger son Stefo could earn money for a living. In her petition, she literally pleaded for permission to return to Istanbul to be cared for and treated by her daughters. 134
As previously mentioned, the story of Alexander Bošković is remarkable in this sense as well. In early 1916, after Montenegro withdrew from the war and the U.S. embassy stopped sending aid, he and eight of his friends fell into poverty and in mid-March asked the government for some money to help them get by. In response, the Turkish government referred the matter to the U.S. Embassy, noting that the Montenegrins could benefit from the aid money sent by Russia for the Russian subjects of the enemy state. 135 Ten days later, Bošković and his friends received 2 liras each (200 kurush), which was the lowest amount compared to the amount given to the other enemy aliens present there. 136 Considering that the average price of bread in those years was about 4–5 kurush in 1916, and in 1918 it had risen to 35 kurush, it was almost impossible for them to survive with the money they received. 137 In July 1918, Bošković complained that the local authorities had not given them the necessary documents that would allow them to buy bread at a cheaper price, 138 and as such, their financial difficulties were not alleviated. But he was further devastated when the aid he had received from the Russian relief organisation ceased. Bošković and his two younger brothers’ poverty was so extreme that in August 1918 he requested that he and his brothers be sent to live with his family in Bursa or, as he put it, that the financial support be continued ‘so that they do not die of hunger’. 139
The situation in Urfa was similar. By December 1915, almost 98% of the 344 enemy aliens were British, French and Russian prisoners, with Montenegrins making up only 2.3%. Under the terms of the Treaty of Bern, on 28 December 1917, all British subjects and most French subjects were transferred to the West in a prisoner exchange. 140 This exchange was followed by the release of the Russian subjects who had withdrawn from the war on 3 March 1918 with the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk after the October Revolution. By the end of April 1918, the number of enemy aliens was down to twelve, including five children and seven adults (the latter of which consisted of two women and five men). Two of the five men were Montenegrin and were father and son. The 78-year-old father, driver Jani Janis Nikolavić, and his 39-year-old son, baker Janis, were born in Istanbul and made their living in Cebel-i Bereket (now Osmaniye), a sanjak of Adana Vilayet. In December 1914, 141 however, they were exiled by order of the district governor of Cebel-i Bereket and ended up in Urfa, abandoned to their fate in the scorching Anatolian heat.
On the other hand, by April 1918 in Sivas, ten enemy subjects remained due to reasons such as ‘reprisals’ or ‘violation of public order (te'dîben)’. Unlike the others, two Montenegrin subjects, were interned in Sivas for ‘violation of public order’. 142
By early October 1918, after the resignation of the CUP, which was seen as responsible for the war, the Grand Vizier Ahmed İzzet Pasha (1864–1937) and his government had no choice but to surrender. Eventually, after the defeat of the Central Powers, the war ended with the signing of the Armistice of Mudros on 30 October. 143 In accordance with Article IV of the armistice, French and British POWs and civilians were handed over unconditionally to the Entente. However, Montenegrins in internment were almost completely forgotten. 144 They, among whom Božo Domažić, who we mentioned before regarding his uncle's unsuccessful attempt for his return, was chosen as their representative in Konya, together with the Serbian and Italian representatives of other civilian prisoners, sent a telegram to Istanbul on 30 October asking for the same permission as the French and British. 145 The Spanish embassy also declared that, as required by the terms of the armistice, the decision should also be applied to Montenegrin ‘civilian prisoners’. 146 It was only on 5 November 1918 that Božo Domažić and his friends were finally released and allowed to go wherever they wished. 147
More dramatic than the situation of their compatriots in Konya were the four Montenegrins in Talas, the kaza of Kayseri. In his petition dated 22 September 1918, Andrea Milo Antonijević, a catholic-Christian from Zupci, a village of Bar (Antivari), stated that he had not received a salary for seven months and that he was extremely miserable. Although his wife's appeal to the Austrian Militär-General-Gouvernement Montenegro resulted in his release, this was refused by the government. He asked to be allowed to go at least to Istanbul or to join his son in Aleppo, concluding his petition with the following words: ‘Have mercy on an old man of 54 years like me’. 148 After receiving no positive response, in early October 1918 he wrote to the Spanish embassy through the Ottoman Red Crescent Society, together with three other Montenegrins: Jovan Martinović, Marco Kopitović, and Georges Gonović. They complained both about the cessation of money from Montenegro and the lack of work opportunities in Talas. 149 The government immediately launched an investigation into the matter. The reason for the rejection of Antonijević's petitions was actually the two security reports of the district governor of Kayseri, which repeatedly emphasised that he was suspected of taking part in activities against the Ottoman government during the Balkan Wars and accused of aiding the Montenegrin army and traveling in suspicious areas. It was also stated that he had been interned by the decision of the General Directorate of Security in February 1915 150 and exiled from Istanbul and arrived in Kayseri at the end of March 1915. 151 It was precisely because of these accusations in the reports that his applications were rejected twice. As a matter of fact, based on the information we received, the truth was completely different from those reports. Indeed, Antonijević had worked as a labourer (hademe) in Beirut 152 and his long and tragic journey began with his exile to Urfa to be interned in Konya ‘for political reasons (siyaseten)’ with his 21-year-old labourer son Jan by order of Djemal Pasha, in March 1916. After a while, he was transferred to Aleppo, where he was separated from his son and exiled to Niğde. Finally, on 20 March, he was sent to Kayseri instead of Konya 153 and arrived here after a gruelling 7-day journey. He was one of the four Montenegrin subjects who settled in the Kiçikapı neighbourhood of the sanjak 154 , and transferred to his last station, Talas, almost a year later. 155
This information leads to the conclusion that Antonijević was absolutely the wrong person accused in two almost identical security reports, and that the real addressee of these accusations and the person described was none other than the stonemason Jovan Martinović. 156 Thus, it can be said that Antonijević had been interned for two years on an undeserved charge, when he could have been released earlier, because of this terrible mistake by the district governor of Kayseri. Finally, thanks to the efforts of his distraught wife and family in Montenegro through the Austria-Hungarian Chargé d'Affaires, 157 he was allowed to return on 20 November 1918. 158
Conversely, it cannot be said that this intentional or unintentional mistake has benefitted the real ‘suspect’ Jovan Martinović. He and other two Montenegrins in Talas, had to wait another week for their freedom. As soon as Montenegro's surrender, in early February 1916, Martinović and Marko Kopitović, like the others, had hoped that their status would change and their lives would return to normal in the context of ‘peace and good relations’. Their request for permission to return to Istanbul to ‘reunite with their families and to take care of their businesses’, 159 was rejected and they were kept in Talas for another two years of hardship. It was perhaps the longest two years, especially for 71-year-old Kopitović, who was not even able to work for a living due to his advanced age. Moreover, he had received no financial support since August 1918. All he wanted was to be transferred to Istanbul, where his son lived and who he thought would look after him. 160 The Spanish embassy, which, in a nota verbale on 19 November, demanded the immediate release of the internees, stressing that such an attitude was not only contrary to the armistice but also to international law. Finally, on 27 November 1918, the government of Grand Vizier Ahmet Tevfik Pasha (1845–1936) moved to release these last civilian prisoners of war in Talas. 161
However, Dimitri Popović – from Sutomore/Spiç, Montenegro – was not on the list of those released: he was literally forgotten, not in internment but in the cramped and filthy cells of the Konya prison in the centre of the vilayet. 162 Before the war, Dimitri was living in Tarabya in Istanbul and was exiled to Çumra-Iskele, a nahiyye (sub-district) of Konya in February 1917. His one-year exile ended in January 1918 with permission from Enver Pasha to return to Istanbul. Shortly afterwards, before he had even left Konya, he was accused of ‘complicity in a crime’ for having allowed a friend who had robbed his own father to stay in his house, a crime that had taken place almost two years earlier in Istanbul. He was unaware that his friend had committed the crime, but he was a victim of his own hospitality, so to speak. In February 1918, he was arrested by the court and sent to Konya prison and was kept behind bars for nine months without ever being brought to trial. Eventually, the government responded to a note verbale from the Swedish embassy, which assumed that he was a ‘Serbian subject’ based on the creation of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes; the court obtained a certificate of residence and subsequently released him on 22 December 1918. 163
Hunger, poverty, lack of unemployment, epidemics and other hardships that Montenegrin subjects described in their petitions were not only experienced by enemy aliens, but were pervasive throughout the entire Empire. It was not easy to survive in Çorum, Konya, Kayseri, Sivas or Urfa at a time when financial difficulties were at their height due to the war economy. 164 However, those forgotten in the internment camps may have also been neglected due to the attitudes of the Entente and the belligerents, the situation following the Montenegrin Army's surrender, the lack of authority and the discussions over the future of Montenegro. It seems that the only countries interested in these Montenegrin citizens were the neutral states rather than the Entente, who were more concerned about saving their own citizens. The Ottoman government, on the other hand, seems to have treated other enemy subjects differently, both in terms of prisoner exchanges and as a strategy for rescuing its own citizens.
Conclusion
With the outbreak of the war in 1914, the CUP government declared some 943 Montenegrins within its borders as enemy aliens. But not all were treated with the same severity or leniency. The distinction between Muslims and non-Muslims was blatant. It is a fact that Muslim Montenegrins were privileged because they were seen as ‘friendly’ elements. With few exceptions, all Montenegrins sent to internments were Orthodox Christians. According to our findings, about 105 Montenegrins were interned. Most of them were men and they represented about 11% of the total Montenegrin population in the Empire. However, it is difficult to say that everything went well for Muslims of Montenegrin citizenship. It was as if they were thrown out of the frying pan and into the fire. Some managed to become Ottoman citizens, but many of them faced military obligations and were torn between choosing Ottoman citizenship by joining the army or keeping their Montenegrin identity and losing their property.
On the other hand, the conscription policy of the CUP against some Montenegrin subjects (Muslim or non-Muslim) was considered a violation of international law, and even their internment was considered a violation of reprisals. Moreover, the designation of some Montenegrins as POWs or civilian prisoners cast a question mark over whether the government was applying the principle of reciprocity in its treatment of Montenegrin civilians as enemy aliens.
Not only did they lose their jobs and become destitute, but some faced hunger and lived in squalor, while others died under such conditions. Some, but not all, were interned in ‘safe zones’ either with their siblings, as father-son, very rarely as mother-son or as a family. Among them were men over the age of 60 and there was even a 72-year-old woman.
Generally speaking, there are two different periods of Ottoman policy towards Montenegrin subjects: the first took place while Montenegro was at war, and the second took place from Montenegro's defeat until the end of the war itself. Although the attitude of the Ottoman government showed some signs of softening, it is clear that the change in policy towards Montenegrin enemy subjects was not to the extent expected.
Although Montenegro had no border contact with the Ottoman Empire and withdrew from the war at the beginning of 1916, the fact that they continued to be interned suggests that they were maybe being punished for their previous actions and their positions during the Balkan Wars. It should also be noted that the government may have considered the position of its ally, especially Austria-Hungary, in its treatment of Montenegrin subjects.
The most striking point is that while all POWs and civilians were unconditionally released at the end of the war, the Montenegrins were not. Some of the reasons for this could be, on the one hand, the indifference of the ‘official’ Montenegrin government in exile, the debate about its legitimacy and the political discussions over a future union with Serbia; on the other hand, it could be due to the weakness of the Ottoman government, which was under the pressure of the Allied powers after the CUP government resigned and its members fled at the end of the war; and finally, it could be due to the Entente states giving priority to their own subjects, both in the exchange of prisoners and in terms of aid. Thus, despite the signing of the Mudros Armistice, the forgotten Montenegrins were among the last ‘civilian prisoners’ to be released.
Supplemental Material
sj-png-1-meh-10.1177_16118944241266046 - Supplemental material for Montenegrins in the Ottoman Empire as ‘Enemy Aliens’ during World War I (1914–1918)
Supplemental material, sj-png-1-meh-10.1177_16118944241266046 for Montenegrins in the Ottoman Empire as ‘Enemy Aliens’ during World War I (1914–1918) by Uğur Özcan in Journal of Modern European History
Supplemental Material
sj-png-2-meh-10.1177_16118944241266046 - Supplemental material for Montenegrins in the Ottoman Empire as ‘Enemy Aliens’ during World War I (1914–1918)
Supplemental material, sj-png-2-meh-10.1177_16118944241266046 for Montenegrins in the Ottoman Empire as ‘Enemy Aliens’ during World War I (1914–1918) by Uğur Özcan in Journal of Modern European History
Supplemental Material
sj-png-3-meh-10.1177_16118944241266046 - Supplemental material for Montenegrins in the Ottoman Empire as ‘Enemy Aliens’ during World War I (1914–1918)
Supplemental material, sj-png-3-meh-10.1177_16118944241266046 for Montenegrins in the Ottoman Empire as ‘Enemy Aliens’ during World War I (1914–1918) by Uğur Özcan in Journal of Modern European History
Footnotes
Acknowledgement
I would like to express my gratitude to the editor(s) and peer reviewers for their invaluable suggestions and corrections. Additionally, I extend my heartfelt thanks to Prof. Carola Dietze for her contributions and support.
Funding
The author disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was initially supported by The Philipp Schwartz Initiative of the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation from 2020-2022 and is currently supported by the Gerda Henkel Foundation, (grant number AZ 26/FI/23).
Supplemental material
Supplemental material for this article is available online.
Notes
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
