Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T23:04:40.106Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Memoirs of N. Batzaria: The Young Turks and Nationalism

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 January 2009

Kemal H. Karpat
Kemal H. Karpat
Affiliation:
University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The most important and undoubtedly the most fateful period in Ottoman history is the Young Turk or Union and Progress era in 1908–18. The final disintegration of the Ottoman empire, the rise of independent states in the Middle East, the intensification of conflicts over Macedonia, the full emergence of Turkish and Arab nationalisms, the start of the Muslim anti-imperialist mobilization through struggle in Libya in 1911, and other events of vital importance in the social and political history of the area occurred during the Young Turk era. It was a historical watershed which marked simultaneously the end of an imperial form of political organization in the Middle East and the beginning of a new political existence in the form of national states. The Young Turks affected profoundly the course of history among the peoples of the Middle East and the Balkans. Moreover the Young Turks were the first group in the Ottoman state to approach the social, political, and cultural transformation of their society in the spirit of modern politics. Yet the Young Turks remain the least studied and understood and the most distortedly portrayed power group in the history of the Balkans and the Middle East. Most of the existing works on the Young Turks, consisting mainly of memoirs, were written by their authors to credit themselves with political roles and achievements which did not always correspond to reality.

Type
Articles
Information
International Journal of Middle East Studies , Volume 6 , Issue 3 , July 1975 , pp. 276 - 299
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1975

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 276 note 1 Sauvaget, Jean, Introduction to the History of the Muslim East, ed. Cahen, Claude (Berkeley, 1965), does not include any specific entry on the Young Turks. Even worse, the First International Convention of the South-East European Studies, an organization composed mostly of Balkan countries, in its first meeting held in Sofia in 1966, did not have any communication on the Young Turks. See Actes du Premier Congrés International des Etudes Balkaniques et Sud-Est Européennes, vol. v (Sofia, 1970).Google Scholar

page 276 note 2 Since this is not an exhaustive bibliographical survey of the literature on Young Turks, only general works dealing mainly with the events after 1908 are mentioned.Google Scholar

page 277 note 1 Good and useful works by direct participants in the Young Turk events include the memoirs of Haul (Kut) Paşa, the uncle of Enver Paşa, published in Akşam, October-November 1967, Hatirati, Niyazi (Istanbul, 1910), Hatirat-i Sadr-i Esbak Kâmil Paşa (Istanbul, 1913). Among the secondhand accounts, some of which include also excellent information on the general political situation of the Ottoman state, one may citeGoogle ScholarEmre, Ahmet Cevat, Iki Neslin Tarihi (Istanbul, 1960),Google ScholarErtürk, Hüsamettin, Iki Devrin Perde Arkast, 3rd ed. (Istanbul, 1969),Google ScholarKülce, Suleyman, Firzovik Toplantisi ve Meşrutiyet (Izmir, 1944),Google ScholarAmca, Hasan, Dogmayan Hürriyet (Istanbul, 1958). A number of memoirs published in French or English, such as those of Cemal Paşa, are all too old and well known to warrant further mention here.Google Scholar See also Selahattin, Mehniet, Ittihad ve Terakki Cemiyetinin Maksadz Tesis ve Sureti Teşkili… (Cairo, 1923);Google Scholar (Mabeyinei) Simavi, Lütfü, Osmanli Sarayinin Son Gunleri (Istanbul, n.d.), originally published as Sultan Mehmet Reşat ve Halifenin Sarayinda Gördüklerim (Istanbul, 1924).Google Scholar

page 278 note 1 The works with the most extensive and useful bibliographies on the Young Turks include Ahmed, Feroz. The Young Turks (Oxford, 1969),Google ScholarRamsaur, E. E. Jr, The Young Turks: Prelude to the Revolution of 1908 (Princeton, 1957),Google ScholarMardin, Şerif, Jön Türklerin Siyasi Fikirleri (Ankara, 1964),Google ScholarTunaya, T. Z., Türkiyede Siyasi Partiler (Istanbul, 1952).Google Scholar See also Mango, A., “The Young Turks”, Middle Eastern Studies, 8, 1 (1972), 107–17,Google ScholarSwenson, V. R., The Young Turk Revolution, Ph.D. dissertation, 1968.Google Scholar

page 278 note 2 The latest work which includes most of the relevant bibliography on the subject is by Akşin, Sina, 31 Mart Olayz (Ankara, 1970);Google Scholar see also Cevat, Ali, Ikinci Meşrutiyetin Ilâni ve Otuzbir Mart Hadisesi, ed. Unat, F. R. (Ankara, 1960).Google Scholar

page 278 note 3 Among Russian sources one should mention. Miller, A. F., Pjatidesjatiletije Mladoturetskoj Revoljutsii (Moscow, 1958),Google ScholarHasanova, E. I., Ideolgija Burzhuaznogo Natsionalizma v Turtsii (Baku, 1966),Google ScholarGabidullin, H. Z., Mladoturetskaja Revolujtsija (Moscow, 1936),Google ScholarMandel'shtam, A. N., Mladoturetskaja Derzhava (Moscow, 1915),Google ScholarAliev, G., Turtsija v period pravienija Mladoturok (Moscow, 1972).Google Scholar For Bulgarian sources see Vlakhov, Tushe ‘Bulgriia ź Mladoturskata Revoliutsiia’, Godishnik na Sofliskata Universitet (Faculty of History and Philology), vol. 59, 3 (Sofia, 1960), pp. 1–80;Google ScholarToshev, Andrei, Balkanskite Voinii, vols. 2–2 (Sofia, 1929–1931), esp. I, 186–94, and 225–34.Google Scholar

page 279 note 1 These forces were at work among all groups in towns and villages. See for instance Serif, Ahmet, Anadoluda Tanin (Istanbul, 1909),Google ScholarMatbaasi, Tanin, pp. 236. This book which we hope to review more extensively elsewhere consists of reports by a correspondent of the Tanin. It provides exceptionally good information on the general situation of the bureaucracy and the demands of the newly rising local elites in Anatolian and Syrian towns. It is interesting to note that this was the first instance in the history of the Turkish press that a correspondent visited the countryside and reported on the situation there. The Tanin, the spokesman for the Young Turks, initiated this countryside reporting with the purpose of establishing channels of communication with the towns in order to learn what the countryside people expected from the government and to disseminate there the ideas of the Young Turk revolution. This was in fact the first major instance in which a modern pattern of communication between the government and the citizens at large was established.Google Scholar

page 280 note 1 See on this issue Kedourie, Elie, ‘Young Turks, Freemasons and Jews’, Middle Eastern Studies vol. 7, 1 (1971), pp. 89–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

page 281 note 1 The exact reference is Batzaria, N., Din Lumea Islamului, Turcia Junilor Turd (Bucharest, n.d.). This book was published in the Editura Ancora, Alcalay & Calafateanu, located at Strada Smrdan No. 4, Bucharest. This publishing house does not exist any longer.Google Scholar

page 281 note 2 For biographical information on Batzaria see Adamescu, Gh., Contribuţii la bibliografia româneasca, vol. 3 (Bucharest, 1928), pp. 350–1;Google Scholar also Predescu, Lucian, Enciclopedia Cugetarea, p. 90; see also Yedigün, no. 268, pp. 14–16.Google Scholar

page 283 note 1 In 1968, I visited Batzaria's only child, a daughter, Rodica, in Bucharest to find out if the writer had left any material that could be used by scholars interested in the Young Turk period. According to her, Batzaria was forced to evacuate his house in the early 1950s and consequently had to pile all his books, notes, and other material outside in a yard where all this was destroyed by weather and neglect. His daughter died shortly after this visit.Google Scholar

page 283 note 2 Some of his early works have recently been reissued: Ali Balm şi Moş Nae, Poveşti de Aur (Au Baba and Moş Nae, Golden Tales) (Bucharest, 1968); Haplea, Patcedil;anii Şi Nazdravanii (Adventures and Miracles) (Bucharest, 1970, 1971). Haplea is a comical figure in Romanian folklore.Google Scholar

page 285 note 1 Among these books, Spovedanii de cadâne, Nuvele din viaţa turceasca (Confessions of Turkish Women; Stories from Turkish Life) (Bucharest, 1921), Turcoaicele (Turkish Women) (Iaşi, 1921), Sarmana Leila: Roman din Viaţa cadâne1 or (Poor Leila: Novel from the Life of Turkish Women) (Bucharest, 1922 and 1925), Prima turcoaica (The First Turkish Woman) (n.d.), deserve special mention. Moreover, he has translated several books from Turkish into Romanian on this issue.Google Scholar

page 285 note 2 Spovedanii de cadâne, p. 6.Google Scholar

page 285 note 3 Ibid.. p. 8.

page 285 note 4 A full survey of Batzaria's writings on the status of Turkish women would provide excellent information on the Young Turk state of mind which formed the background against which the feminist reforms were carried out in the Republic after 1923.Google Scholar

page 285 note 5 Batzaria, N., In închisorile turceşti (Braila, n.d.). This book was published also by Alcalay & Calafateanu in Braila, a port city on the Danube.Google Scholar

page 285 note 6 The people in the region converted to Islam in the past preferred to call themselves ‘Turks’ in order to cut all relations with the past and to become equals with those who nominally held the political power. Moreover, conversion to Islam was often adopted as an alternative to the hellenization threat posed by the Orthodox Patriarchate. Thus, in the village of Nânta in the region of Meglavia in Macedonia, inhabited only by Vlahs, altogether 6,000 people, converted to Islam as a group during the first day of Easter, right in the church, and were headed in this deed by their bishop Ilarion. This conversion was in reaction to the closing of the Ohrida Patriarchate in 1767, through the pressure of the Greek Patriarchate in Istanbul (Inchisorile turceşti, pp. 64–5).Google Scholar

page 287 note 1 Aydemir, Enver Paşa, vol. I, p. 524.Google Scholar

page 288 note 1 A good many Aromunes (Vlahs) from Macedonia migrated to Romania in the igzos after most of this province was given to Yugoslavia, and were settled mainly in the southern Dobruja in the districts of Silistra and Pazarcik (now Tolbukhin), most often in villages inhabited by Turks. Many of the latter, under the pressure of the newcomers, migrated to Turkey. The term ‘makedon’ came to inspire terror among the Turkish peasants of Deliorman, that is, southern Dobruja. In the exchange of population which followed the acquisition of southern Dobruja by the Bulgarians in 1940, the Aromunes were moved and settled in northern Dobruja, where most of them still live, while the Bulgarians settled in the South. The Macedonian element proved to be very nationalistic in Romania. Many of them joined the Iron Guard (Garda de Fer) and occupied high positions in the party.Google Scholar

page 289 note 1 Din lumea, p. 9.Google Scholar

page 289 note 2 Rakovski's, G. massive correspondence includes extremely illuminating passages about the manner in which the Balkan nationalists in the nineteenth century planned to dispose of Turks.Google Scholar See Traikov, Veselin, Rakovsky y Balkanskte Naroda (Rakovsky and the Balkan Peoples) (Sofia, 1971), pp. 403–74.Google Scholar

page 289 note 3 In închisorile turceŞti, p. 13. A strong support for Batzaria'sviews comes from Charles N. E. Elliot who stated: ‘All the non-Turkish races have a “national idea” or, to be more exact, a certain number of energetic politicians [who] try to force this idea into the heads of their fellows… Propaganda has only two directions open to it, ‘linguistic and ecclesiastical. Each race is desirous to have its language taught in its schools and used in its churches if possible, under the superintendence of its own bishops… The propagandists use, so to speak, missionary enterprises that, by means of schools and churches, try to convert people to the Bulgarian or Serbian faith’ (Turkey in Europe [London, 1900], pp. 297–8). For the life and ideas of an intellectual who could claim Bulgarian and Macedonian as his nationality and had close relations with Serbians,Google Scholar see Velev, N., ‘Krastjo Petkov Misirkov: Une vie pleine d'incohérence’, Etudes Historiques (Sofia), vol. 6, pp. 377–400.Google Scholar

page 290 note 1 Din lumea, p. 284.Google Scholar

page 290 note 2 In închisorile turceşti, p. 132.Google Scholar

page 291 note 1 This took place only after Dr Nazim came from Paris and proposed the change of name in an effort to establish cooperation between revolutionaries in the interior and abroad. This cooperation, however, had no visible effect upon the revolution of 1908 or on the politics of the Young Turks after they came to power.Google Scholar

page 291 note 2 Batzaria believes that Manyasizade Refik, a lawyer and professor at Istanbul who was exiled to Salonica because of his liberal views, may be considered the founder of the Young Turk organization in that city. Manyasizade occupied a ministerial position in the Union and Progress government after 1908, but died shortly thereafter (Din lumea, p. 25).Google Scholar

page 292 note 1 Ibid.. p. 35. See also Külce, Süleyman, Firzovik Toplantisi ve Meşrutiyet (Izmir, 1944). This book includes the names of several participants in mass meetings, mostly notables from the Balkans.Google Scholar

page 292 note 2 Ibid.. pp. 35–6. The CUP members thought that the rebellion might come in at least three to four years (ibid. p. 33).

page 293 note 1 Ibid.. p. 123.

page 294 note 1 Already while discussing Cemal Paşa's personality and ideas Batzaria states that he was known publicly as pro-French. Actually Cemal was neither pro-French nor pro- German, but pro-Turkish in every respect. He loved his Turkishness to the point of seeing Turks’ defects as virtues, and was interested from the beginning in promoting solely the Turkish cause.Google Scholar

page 294 note 2 Ibid.. p. 75.

page 295 note 1 England, which played a major part in the peace talks between the Balkan states, nurtured hidden ambitions about the Ottoman territory. After the signing of the peace treaty the king of England received Batzaria and asked him, as the Ottoman minister of Public Works, about Turkey's construction plans in Mesopotamia (Iraq).Google Scholar

page 295 note 2 Ibid.. p. 247. Batzaria points out that Esat Paşa, the defender of Scutari in Albania, was an Albanian who surrendered the fortress to an insignificant group of Montenegrino troops for 200,000 francs. Supposedly Esat's motive was not money but the animosity nurtured by Esat against Turks, and his desire to weaken the Ottoman government and help the cause of an independent Albania (ibid. pp. 193–4).

page 296 note 1 Ibid.. pp. 253.

page 296 note 2 Ibid.. p. 247.

page 297 note 1 Batzaria writes that on the very day Edirne was occupied by the advancing Bulgarian army, the Ottoman Council of Ministers met in urgent session. During discussions, the Şeyhülislâm asked Batzaria whether apples or cherries bloomed first, since his entire family spent the previous night sleepless arguing this issueGoogle Scholar (ibid. p. 220).

page 297 note 2 Ibid.. p. 289.

page 298 note 1 Ibid.. pp. 270 ff.

page 298 note 2 Ibid.. pp. 228 ff.