Admiral Mark L. Bristol, an Open-Door Diplomat in Turkey

Thomas A. Bryson

doi:10.1017/S0020743800025538

Admiral Mark L. Bristol, an Open-Door Diplomat in Turkey

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 29 January 2009

Thomas A. Bryson

Article contents

Extract
References

Get access

Rights & Permissions

Extract

United States diplomatic historians have traditionally claimed that American foreign-policy makers employed the Open-Door principle in the Middle East after World War I merely to defend American rights from the Allied efforts to achieve economic hegemony over Turkey and other parts of the old Ottoman Empire. However, William Appleman Williams — supported by the works of several younger scholars — has asserted that Woodrow Wilson used the, Open Door to promote American economic expansion. Williams maintains that the Open Door was not an ad hoc policy, fashioned simply to meet the immediate postwar challenge of the Allies — as the traditional historians have alleged. Nor was it British-inspired, idealistic policy that received only sporadic support during the twentieth century, as George F. Kennan has asserted. According to Williams, the Open Door was an American-designed tactic that diplomats used continuously throughout the first half of the twentieth century for the express purpose of promoting American expansion, with a view to creating an American economic empire, a process that resulted in the extension of American political and economic influence.

Type: Articles
Information: International Journal of Middle East Studies , Volume 5 , Issue 4 , September 1974 , pp. 450 - 467

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020743800025538 [Opens in a new window]
Copyright: Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1974

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

^{page 450 note 1} See Gordon, Leland James, American Relations with Turkey, 1830–1930: An Economic Interpretation (Philadelphia, 1930), pp. 270–7;Google ScholarHoward, Harry N., The Partition of Turkey: A Diplomatic History, 1913–1923 (New York, 1966), pp. 321–3,Google Scholar and An American Inquiry in the Middle East: The King-Crane Commission (Beirut, 1963), p. 294; De Novo, John A., American Interests and Policies in the Middle East, 1900–1939 (Minneapolis, 1963), p. 134;Google ScholarEvans, Lawrence, United States Policy and the Partition of Turkey, 1914–1924 (Baltimore, 1965), p. 292.Google Scholar

^{page 450 note 2} See Williams, William Appleman, The Tragedy of American Diplomacy (New York, 1965), pp. 37–50;Google ScholarLevin, N. Gordon Jr, Woodrow Wilson and World Politics: America's Responses to War and Revolution (New York, 1968), p. 237;Google Scholar and Parrini, Carl P., Heir to Empire: United States Economic Diplomacy, 1916–23 (Pittsburgh, 1969), p. 13.Google Scholar Also see Smith's, Robert Freeman essay ‘American Foreign Relations, 1920–1942’, in Bernstein, Barton J. (ed.), Towards a New Past: Dissenting Essays in American History (New York, 1968), p. 238.Google Scholar

^{page 450 note 3} Kennan, George F., American Diplomacy 1900–1950 (New York, 1952), p. 36.Google Scholar

^{page 451 note 1} See book reviews of Williams's Tragedy of American Diplomacy by Dulles, Foster Rhea, American Historical Review, vol. LXIV (07, 1959), p. 1022;Google ScholarMc Clelland, C. A., American Political Science Review, vol. LIII (12 1959), p. 1195;CrossRef Google Scholar and by Tucker, R. W., The New Republic, vol. CXL (4 05 1959), p. 140.Google Scholar Also critical of Williams's work is Unger's, Irwin article ‘The “New Left” and American History: Some Recent Trends in United States Historiography’, American Historical Review, vol. LXXII (07 1967), pp. 1237–63,CrossRef Google Scholar and that of Maddox, Robert James, ‘Another Look at the Legend of Isolationism in the 1920's’, Mid-America, vol. 53 (01. 1971), pp. 35–43.Google Scholar In disagreement with several of Williams's conclusions are works by Perkins, Dexter, The American Approach to Foreign Policy (New York, 1968), chaps. 2 and 3,Google Scholar and Van Alstyne, R. W., The Rising American Empire (Chicago, 1965), pp. 192, 193.Google Scholar

^{page 451 note 2} Buzanski, Peter Michael, ‘Admiral Mark L. Bristol and Turkish–American Relations, 1919–1922’, unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, 1960, p. 211. The Open-Door or free-trade imperialist is one who anticipates the extension of colonial empire by trade and investment and opposes the political or administrative empire similar to that of Great Britain. He seeks to expand the marketplace for his goods through the most-favored-nation clause. Because of the preponderant American economic power and technical advancement, he expects to bring all areas of the world under American economic control.Google Scholar

^{page 451 note 3} De Novo, American Interests, p. 134.Google Scholar

^{page 451 note 4} Bristol to Lewis Heck, 25 Feb. 1920, box 37, Mark Lambert Bristol Papers, Library of Congress, and Bristol to Dr E. C. Moore, 29 Aug. 1921, box 42, ibid.

^{page 452 note 1} Sims to Bristol, 6 01 1919, box I, ibid., and cited in Henry P. Beers, U.S. Naval Detachment in Turkish Waters, 1919–1924 (Navy Department, 1942), p. 2. My italics are added.

^{page 452 note 2} Buzanski, ‘Admiral Mark L. Bristol’, p. 29.Google Scholar

^{page 452 note 3} Bristol to Admiral H. S. Knapp, 15 Jan. 1920, box 37, Bristol papers; Bristol to Frank Polk, 15 Jan. 1920, ibid.; Bristol to Sir William Ramsay, 15 Jan. 1922, box 41, ibid.; Bristol to G. Howland Shaw, 7 Dec. 1922, box 48, ibid.; Bristol to Allen Dulles, 29 Jan. 1923, Box 49 ibid.; and Bristol to W. W. Cumberland, 10 Nov. 1923, box 48, ibid.

^{page 452 note 4} Buzanski, ‘Admiral Mark L. Bristol’, p. 211.Google Scholar

^{page 452 note 5} Kolko, Gabriel, The Triumph of Conservatism: A Reinterpretation of American History, 1900–1916 (Chicago, 1967), pp. 2–3.Google Scholar

^{page 453 note 1} Beard, Charles A., The Idea of National Interest: An Analytical Study in American Foreign Policy (Chicago, 1966), pp. 26–7.Google Scholar

^{page 453 note 2} For Bristol's philosophy on the relationship between industry and government, see Bristol to Capt. Lyman Cotten, 28 April 1919, box 36, Bristol papers; Bristol to Martin Egan, 22 Oct. 1921, box 42, ibid.; Bristol to L. I. Thomas, 13 Nov. 1920, box 39, ibid.; Bristol to Allen Dulles, 21 Sept. 1922, box 47, ibid.; and Bristol to Bradley, 30 Oct. 1923, box 48, ibid.

^{page 453 note 3} See E. G. Mears to Bristol, 15 June 1920, box 38, Bristol papers, advising that President Wilson's Secretaries of State, Navy and Commerce were pleased with Bristol's work; L. I. Thomas to Bristol, 8 Oct. 1920, box 39, ibid., expressing Secretary of State Colby's appreciation of Bristol's services; Charles Evans Hughes to Bristol, 15 July 1922, 19 Feb. 1923, boxes 47 and 49, ibid.; Secretary of the Navy Edward Denby to Bristol, 18 May 1921, box 42, ibid.; Admiral A. T. Long to Bristol, 11 Dec. 1922 and 16 Aug. 1923, boxes 48 and 52, ibid.; and also Beers, U.S. Naval Detachment, p. 12.

^{page 454 note 1} Concerning these activities see recent works by Daniel, Robert L., American Philanthropy in the Near East, 1820–1960 (Athens, Ohio, 1970);Google ScholarField, James A. Jr, America and the Mediterranean World, 1776–1882 (Princeton, 1969);Google Scholar and Grabill, Joseph L., Protestant Diplomacy and the Near East: Missionary Influence on American Policy, 1810–1927 (Minneapolis, 1971).Google Scholar

^{page 454 note 2} Daniel, Robert L., ‘The United States and the Turkish Republic before World War II: The Cultural Dimension’, Middle East Journal, XXI (Winter 1967), pp. 52–63.Google Scholar

^{page 454 note 3} See Bryson, Thomas A., ‘Mark Lambert Bristol, U.S. Navy, Admiral-Diplomat: His Influence on the Armenian Mandate Question’, Armenian Review, vol.XXI (Winter 1968), pp. 3–22.Google Scholar

^{page 454 note 4} Gordon, American Relations with Turkey, p. 283.Google Scholar

^{page 454 note 5} Lewis, Bernard, The Emergence of Modern Turkey (New York, 1968), pp. 248–9.Google Scholar

^{page 455 note 1} Bristol to American Mission at Paris, 24 Mar. 1919, box 27, Bristol papers.Google Scholar

^{page 455 note 2} Mears, Eliot Grinnell, Modern Turkey: A Politico-Economic Interpretation, 1908–1923 (New York, 1924), p. 515.Google Scholar This view is substantiated by Gordon, American Relations with Turkey, p. 28, and is suggested by Bierstadt, Edward Hale, The Great Betrayal: A Survey of the Near East Problem (New York, 1924), p. 101.Google Scholar On this interpretation also see Hoover, Herbert, The Ordeal of Woodrow Wilson (New York, 1958), pp. 228–9,Google Scholar and Cook, Ralph Elliott, ‘The United States and the Armenian Question, 1884–1924’, unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, The Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, 1957, p. 288.Google Scholar

^{page 455 note 3} Concerning British Foreign Office motives for proffering the mandate to the United States, see Bryson, Thomas A., ‘An American Mandate for Armenia: A Link in British Near Eastern Policy’, Armenian Review, vol. XXI (Summer 1968), pp. 23–41.Google Scholar

^{page 455 note 4} See Bryson, ‘Mark Lambert Bristol’, p. 7.Google Scholar

^{page 455 note 5} Bristol to Colby, 24 June 1920, cited in Cook, ‘The United States and the Armenian Question’, pp. 269–70.Google Scholar

^{page 455 note 6} Ibid. p. 312, and Daniel, Robert L., ‘The Armenian Question and American—Turkish Relations, 1919–1924’, Mississippi Valley Historical Review, vol. XLVI (09 1959), pp. 252–75.CrossRef Google Scholar

^{page 455 note 7} Buzanski, ‘Admiral Mark L. Bristol’, p. 212.Google Scholar

^{page 456 note 1} For example, see Charles Vickrey, General Secretary of Near East Relief, to Bristol, 7 November 1922, box 49, Bristol papers and James L. Barton, Sec. of ABCFM, to Bristol, 2 June 1923, box 38, ibid.

^{page 456 note 2} See Gates, Caleb Frank, Not to Me Only (Princeton, 1940), pp. 255–6;Google ScholarPatrick, Mary Mills, A Bosporus Adventure: Istanbul (Constantinople) Women's College, 1871–1924 (New York, 1929), p. 334;Google ScholarBarton, James L., Story of Near East Relief (1915–1930): An Interpretation (New York, 1930), p. 155.Google Scholar

^{page 456 note 3} Bristol to Bird, 20 May 1921, box 42, Bristol papers.Google Scholar

^{page 456 note 4} Bristol to Thomas, 24 July 1922, box 47, ibid.

^{page 456 note 6} Bristol to Benson, 23 July 1919, box 36, Bristol papers.Google Scholar

^{page 456 note 7} Daniel, American Philanthropy in the Near East, p. 172.Google Scholar

^{page 456 note 8} Bristol Diary, 22 June 1921, box 18, Bristol papers.Google Scholar

^{page 456 note 9} Bristol to Denby, 22 Nov. 1923, box 49, ibid.; Bristol often used the term ‘American interests’ interchangeably with ‘American business interests’.

^{page 456 note 10} Beard, The Idea of National Interest, p. 274; The Open Door at Home: A Trial Philosophy of National Interest (New York, 1935), p. 140.Google Scholar

^{page 457 note 1} Bristol to Dulles, 26 Mar. 1923, box 49, Bristol papers.Google Scholar

^{page 457 note 2} Substantiating the fact that accounts of discrimination hurt business interests, see Bristol Diary, 6 Nov. 1920, box ibid.; Bristol to Dr Ed. C. Moore, 29 Aug. 1921, box 42, and Bristol Diary, 25 July 1921, box 19, ibid.

^{page 457 note 3} Bristol Diary, 25 July 1921, box. 29, ibid. Also see Bristol to Dr Ed. C. Moore, 3 May 1920, box 37, ibid.

^{page 457 note 4} See Treaty with Turkey: Statements, Resolutions and Reports in Favor of Ratification of the Treaty of Lausanne by the General Committee of American Institutions and Associations in Favor of Ratification of the Treaty with Turkey in 1926.Google Scholar

^{page 458 note 1} Bristol to Bradley, 30 10 1923, box 48, Bristol papers; Bristol to Basil Miles, 12 Mar. 1923, box 48, ibid.; Bristol to Barnes, 30 Oct. 1923, box 48, ibid.

^{page 458 note 2} Bristol to Basil Miles, 12 Mar. 1923, box 48, ibid.; Bristol to W. H. Bradley, 30 Oct. 1923, box 48, ibid.: Bristol to L. I. Thomas, 13 Nov. 1920, box 39, ibid.; and Bristol to W. W. Cumberland, 10 Nov. 1923, box 48, ibid.

^{page 458 note 3} Yalinan, Ahmed Emin, Turkey in My Time (Norman, 1956), p. 79.Google Scholar

^{page 458 note 4} Trask, Roger R., ‘The United States and Turkish Nationalism: Investments and Technical Aid during the Ataturk Era’, Business History Review, vol. XXXVIII (Spring 1964), p. 60.Google Scholar

^{page 458 note 5} Israel, ‘The Open Door in Action’, p. 807.Google Scholar

^{page 458 note 6} Bristol to Barnes, 14 June 1923, box 50, Bristol papers.Google Scholar

^{page 458 note 7} Bristol to Lewis Heck, 25 Feb. 1920, box 37, ibid.

^{page 459 note 1} Bristol to Dulles, 29 Jan. 1923, box 49, ibid.

^{page 459 note 2} Bristol to LtJG R. S. Dunn, 28 Dec. 1923, box 53, ibid.; Bristol to Cecil Dorrian, 28 Mar. 1921, box 39, ibid.

^{page 459 note 3} Bristol to Knapp, 28 Jan. 1920, box 37, ibid., and Buzanski, ‘Admiral Mark L. Bristol’, 222 and U.S. State Department, Papers Relating to the Foreign Relations of the United States, 1920, vol. iii, pp. 757–65, and 1921, vol. II, pp. 890–916.Google Scholar

^{page 459 note 4} Evans, United States Policy and the Partition of Turkey, chap. xi, and DeNovo, American Interests, chap. vi.Google Scholar

^{page 460 note 1} Bristol to Cumberland, 10 Nov. 1921, box 48, Bristol papers.Google Scholar

^{page 460 note 2} Bristol to Barnes, 14 June 1923, box 50, ibid.

^{page 460 note 3} Bristol Diary, 14 Oct. 1920, box 17, ibid.

^{page 460 note 4} Sadler, E. J. of Standard Oil to Bristol, 30 Mar. 1920, box 37, and Wm. A. Ferguson of Tobacco Products Corp., 32 Aug. 1921, box 40, and J. H. Barnes of the American Chamber of Commerce, to Bristol, box 50, Bristol Papers.Google Scholar

^{page 460 note 5} Bristol to Dunn, 28 Dec. 1923, box 53, ibid.

^{page 460 note 6} Buzanski, ‘Admiral Mark L. Bristol’, pp. 41–2.Google Scholar

^{page 461 note 1} Bristol to Gunkel, 7 July 1921, box 43, Bristol papers.Google Scholar

^{page 461 note 2} Bristol Diary, 20 Mar. 1920, box 17, ibid., and 15 Oct. 1920, ibid.

^{page 461 note 3} Bristol to Niblack, 25 June 1920, box 38, ibid.

^{page 461 note 4} Bristol to Washington, 27 Sept. 1921, box 43, ibid.

^{page 461 note 5} Included in this number were the American Red Cross, the Constantinople Disaster Relief Committee, the American Navy relief group, American Board of Foreign Missions, Near East Relief, the YMCA, the YWCA, American Joint Distribution Committee, the Mennonite Relief Committee, the Relief Committee for Russian Refugee Children, Robert College, and Constantinople College for Women.Google Scholar

^{page 461 note 6} Bristol to Barton, 31 Oct. 1922, box 48, Bristol papers.Google Scholar

^{page 462 note 1} Bristol to Denby, 22 Nov. 1923, box 49, ibid.

^{page 462 note 2} Bristol to W. S. Hiatt, Associated Press, 19 Feb. 1921, box 40, ibid.

^{page 462 note 3} Bristol to W. H. Bradley, 30 Oct. 1923, box 48, ibid.; Bristol to Julius Barnes, 14 June 1923, box 50, ibid.

^{page 462 note 4} Bristol Diary, 22 June 1921, box 18, ibid.

^{page 462 note 5} Bristol to Eliot Mears, 17 July 1920, box 38, ibid.; Bristol to Admiral H. S. Knapp, 12 June 1920, box 38, ibid., and Bristol Diary, 24 July 1920, box 17, ibid.

^{page 463 note 1} Bristol Diary, 23 Sept. 1920, box 17, ibid.

^{page 463 note 2} Bristol to Heinz, 4 May 1921, box 41, ibid.

^{page 463 note 3} Bristol to Ferris, 19 Aug. 1921, box 42, ibid. The Webb—Pomerene Act allowed small firms to combine to purchase raw materials for the processing of goods for export in order to compete with the larger European combinations that engaged in buying and selling large lots of raw materials.

^{page 463 note 4} Gordon, American Relations with Turkey, p. 123.Google Scholar

^{page 463 note 5} Levant Trade Review, vol. XIII (July 1924), pp. 273–7, and vol. x (Jan. 1922), pp. 3–6.Google Scholar

^{page 463 note 6} Bristol to RAdm Philip Andrews, 18 Feb. 1920, box 37, Bristol papers.Google Scholar

^{page 463 note 7} Gordon, American Relations with Turkey, p. 123.Google Scholar

^{page 463 note 8} Bristol to Oscar Gunkel, 7 July 1921, box 43, and Bristol Diary, 20 Mar. 1920, box 17, Bristol papers.Google Scholar

^{page 464 note 1} Bristol to Martin Egan, 22 Oct. 1921, box 42, ibid.

^{page 464 note 2} Bristol to Thomas, 13 Nov. 1920, box 39, ibid.

^{page 464 note 3} Gibb, George Sweet and Knowlton, Evelyn H., Resurgent Years, 1911–1927: History of the Standard Oil Company (New Jersey) (New York, 1956), pp. 287–8.Google Scholar

^{page 464 note 4} Gordon, American Relations with Turkey, pp. 59–61.Google Scholar

^{page 464 note 5} Concerning the puncture of the American boom, see ibid., p. 61, and the article describing the rise of étatism in Turkey by Kerwin, Robert W., ‘Private Enterprise in Turkish Industrial Development’, Middle East Journal, vol. V (Winter 1951), pp. 1–38.Google Scholar

^{page 464 note 6} Bristol to Eliot Mears, 16 Sept. 1920, box 38, Bristol papers.Google Scholar

^{page 464 note 7} For example, Bristol ordered Rear-Admiral N. A. McCully to try to buy some ships in Russia for an American steamship firm that desired to engage in the Black Sea trade. He was ordered to provide information concerning the number, size, condition, and price of the ships to Bristol. Bristol to McCully, 10 June 1920, box 38, ibid.

^{page 464 note 8} Bristol arranged a conference, for example, between officials of the Ankara regime and American corporation officials in the summer of 1921. See Bristol Diary, 4 May 1921 and 28 July 1921, box 18, ibid.

^{page 465 note 1} Bristol to Hughes, 17 May 1922, box 46, ibid.

^{page 465 note 2} Bristol Diary, 5–6 May 1921, box 18, ibid.

^{page 465 note 3} Trask, Roger R., The United States Response to Turkish Nationalism and Reform, 1914–1939 (Minneapolis, 1971), pp. 99–102.Google Scholar

^{page 465 note 4} Yalman, Turkey in My Time, pp. 78–9.Google Scholar

^{page 466 note 1} Gordon, American Relations with Turkey, pp. 601; U.S. Department of Commerce, Department of Commerce Reports, vol. I (Sept. 1921), pp. 166–8; Trask, United States Response, pp. 129–30;Google ScholarThomas, Lewis V. and Frye, Richard N., The United States and Turkey and Iran (Hamden, Conn., 1971), p. 147.Google Scholar

^{page 466 note 2} Trask, United States Response, p. 244.Google Scholar

^{page 466 note 3} Trask, ‘United States and Turkish Nationalism’, p. 58.Google Scholar

^{page 467 note 1} Earle, Edward Mead, ‘American Missions in the Near East’, Foreign Affairs, vol. VII (04 1929), p. 398.CrossRef Google Scholar

^{page 467 note 2} Niles Register, vol. xx (21 07 1821), p. 331.Google Scholar

Article contents

Admiral Mark L. Bristol, an Open-Door Diplomat in Turkey

Extract

Access options

References

Save article to Kindle

Save article to Dropbox

Save article to Google Drive

Reply to: Submit a response

Your details

You have entered the maximum number of contributors

Conflicting interests