3.1 Turkish Nationalism

{'type': u'plain'}

[BLANK_AUDIO]

So, what were the challenges that led to
the emergence of Turkish nationalism?

In Turkish nationalism, we are talking
first and

foremost of the pressure that is coming
from

Europe and the problem of secession by the

Christian populated territories in the
European part of [INAUDIBLE].

Ottomanism failed to keep the Christians
inside the Empire.

During the [UNKNOWN] read on the about the
equality

about the law that was passed, and this
equality before

the law that included Christians and
Muslims; was suppose

to create a shared Ottoman identity but it
did not.

In the face of Christian secession,
Sumpana turn to

[INAUDIBLE] to strengthen the bonds
between the increasingly Muslim empire.

As Christian seceded, so the Empire became
even more Muslim.

But this idea of pan-Islam and uniting the
people on the basis of their religion.

Was becoming less and less acceptable to
the new, Westernizing Turkish elite.

They believed in Turkish national
solidarity.

Based on a common langauge, Turkish,
European-style.

The empire now was almost entirely Turkish
and Arab.

Therefore, the emphasis on Turkishness
could be a cause of tension with

the Arabs, especially after 1908 when the
young Turks came to power.

So, though Turkish nationalists, the young
Turks

were reluctant to push Turkish nationalism
too far.

Not create a break with a very large
narrow Muslin population.

Then who were the young Turks.

The young Turks were young military
officers and bureaucrats, the graduates

of the [INAUDIBLE] and not the usual
opponents of the Sultan.

Not the local [INAUDIBLE] or the unruly
tribes or the Christians.

And it's the Young Turks who stage a
revolution

in July 1908, dispose the Sultan in April
of 1909.

And continued with the process of reform
in the military with German advisers,

as they continued like their predecessors,
building

new schools and adding to legal reform.

The young Turks continued as

their predecessors, building a modern
infrastructure.

Telegraph, roads, and railways, generally
modernizing the Ottoman Empire.

Government became ever more centralized.

Even the development of an effective
secret police.

Many of the revolutionaries, those who
came out the revolution of 1908.

Where military officers organized in an
organization that

was called The Committee of Union and
Progress.

In short, the C-U-P.

They sought the salvation of the empire

and the restoration of the 1876
Constitution.

They believed in Turkish nationalism.

On Westernized education and on the
implementation on the constitution.

There was very impressive impact amongst
the young

Turks and others in the Muslim middle
east.

Of the defeat of Russia in 1905, by the
Japanese.

This was a defeat of a European power by
an Asian power.

And in looking for the success of the
Japanese against

the Russians, many in the Middle East
focused on the fact.

That Japan had gone in the direction

of constitutionalism, whereas the Russians
had not.

And therefore, the idea of a
constitutional government

was gaining ground as a source of
collective power.

But also, for the young Turks.

Constitutions meant, the steady shift of
power into the hands of

the army at the expense of both the sultan
and the bureaucracy.

They also believed that the resumption of

parliamentary life, would ease you to peer
pressure.

But he did not.

In the Balkans, the Ottomans continued
losing ground.

And in 1911 the Italians took Tripoli in
Libya.

In 1912, '13, the Ottomans lost nearly all
the territory they had left in Europe.

In 1913, the CUP assumed complete control,

which they had not enjoyed entirely until
then.

But they didn't manage to do much before
the outbreak

of the First World War, and that changed a
great deal.

Since the second half of the 19th century,
there had been

a steadily increasing interest in the
history of the Turkish people.

As well as in the Turkish language, in
Turkish literature.

Ziya Gokalp, who lived from 1876 to 1924,

was the most prominent idealogue of
Turkish nationalism.

He rejected autonism and made theTurkish
nation the basis of his program.

But as long as the empire continued to
exist.

Turkish nationalism, as a practical,
political program, had little

appeal to the leadership and to the
general public.

The CUP, those sympathetic and supportive
of Turkish nationals, continued like

their predecessors with autonism,
centralization and modernization.

It would take the end of empire for
[INAUDIBLE]

ideology to become the policy of the new
Turkish republic.

This emergence of Turkishness, and Turkish
nationalism, gives

rise to a question of how this all
relates.

To the notorious Armenian tragedy.

And now we turn to this so called Armenian
problem.

Since the Empire was losing territory all
the time, what was

left of the Empire which essentially was
the area of Anatolia.

Faced increasing nationalist challenges by
others,

that served to reinforce Turkish identity
and nationalist fashions.

With the loss of the European province.

Anatolia was established as the heartland
of the Turkish speaking people.

And it was its zone of their prospective
self-determination.

But this allowed for the emergence of the
Armenian problem.

As a potential threat to the Turkish
[INAUDIBLE].

Anatolia developed, impressively like the
rest of the empire,

especially in the west of Anatolia during
the 19th century.

Eastern Anatolia remained less developed
and

there was considerable social and
political tension.

Between the Armenians who are Christians,
and the [INAUDIBLE]

who are Saudi Muslims in the eastern part
of Anatolia.

There were Armenians in all of Anatolia,
but especially in the eastern provinces.

And during the 19th century.

An Armenian National Consciousness
developed very much under the

influence of western sources, especially

through the American partisan missionaries
who were active amongst the Armenians.

The Armenians engaged in provocations
against the [INAUDIBLE].

To attract European intervention on their
behalf.

Cooperation with Russia, men's cooperation
of the

Armenians, with the traditional enemy of
the Armenians.

Tensions between the Turkish speaking
muslims and the Armenians rose.

And in the last quarter the nineteenth
there were massacres of Armenians,

by Kurdish irregulars of the Ottoman army
in the eastern part of Anatolia.

A combination of a lack of

government control, with suspicion towards
the Armenians

as a national move threatened what the
Turks had left of their Empire.

These two came together to allow for a

terrible massacre of the Armenians to take
place.

This terrible massacre took place in the
midst of

World War One, in the early years of the
war.

[BLANK_AUDIO]

Armenians in Eastern Anatolia had fought
with the Russians against the Ottomans.

Other Armenians had engaged in guerrilla
operations and some

Armenians populations rose against the
Ottomans during the war.

In the spring of 1915, with the British
attacking at the Dardanelles.

The Russians attacking in the East and the
British apparently advancing on Baghdad,

the Ottomans decided on the deportation of
the Armenians in Eastern Anatolia.

In the process of this deportation,
hundreds of

thousands, maybe even one million
Armenians or even more.

Perished because of the harsh conditions,
dying of hunger, disease and exposure.

Many were murdered by local, mainly
Kurdish, tribesman and villagers.

The Armenian tragedy is part of.

A general transition that is taking place
in the Ottoman Empire.

The transition from commoner identity to
territorial self-determination.

And this had some very unfortunate
consequences on the ground.

The transition from communal co-existence,
where religious

communities lead side by side Ottoman
style.

To territorial nationalism, European
style.

Required some degree of territorial
continuity.

The need for communities now to acquire
territorial continuity.

In the name of self-determination, rather
than communities just living side

by side, created unavoidable clashes
between the mosaic

of minorities within the Ottoman Empire,
accompanied by horrific bloodshed.

The Balkans of those days.

And latter-day Yugoslavia of the 1990s
were one example.

The Armenians in Anatolia was another.

Not all parts of modernity and change had
positive results.

Some were quite catastrophic.

Indeed, the Turkish-Armenian clash.

Was the worst example of this unfortunate
reality.