Abstract
Ottoman Muslim nationalism reached its climax during the National Struggle (1918-1922), the focal point of this chapter. Simultaneously, the conceptualization of the “nation” (millet) underwent further adjustments in response to evolving circumstances. In conflict with the central government and foreign powers, the resistance movement, led by the Ottoman military-bureaucratic elite, faced vulnerability and sought legitimacy from its domestic population base and abroad. This reliance on local support reshaped the conceptualization of the nation, altering the conventional state-nation framework significantly. While Ottoman nation-building typically involved the state seeking its nation, the National Struggle saw a shift, with the national discourse resembling a nation seeking its state. This change aimed to reconcile diverse nation-building approaches influenced by internal and external factors, resulting in a composite religio-ethnic and people-centric rhetoric, marked by ambiguity and adaptability.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Notes
- 1.
Woodrow Wilson, 8 January 1918. For the full text of the “Fourteen Points” see MacMillan, Paris 1919: Six Months That Changed the World, 495–496.
- 2.
Atatürk, for instance, in his opening speech at the congress of the Republican People’s Party in 1927, referred to the congress as RPP’s second, counting the Sivas Congress in 1919 as its first. “Our Party”, he added, “came into being nine years ago, in the years of suffering, for the sake of our nation's existence and honor.” For the full speech, see Cumhuriyet Halk Fırkası Büyük Kongresi, 1927. BCA 490.01 / 22.840.2.
- 3.
Türkiye Büyük Millet Meclisi, 23 Nisan Takvimi.
- 4.
Ibid. 2.
- 5.
Ibid, 2–4.
- 6.
Darendelioğlu, Türkiye'de milliyetçilik, 12–13.
- 7.
Prott, while admitting the problematic aspect of defining the resistance movement in ethnolinguistic terms, nonetheless uses “Turkish nationalists” very consistently in his work. Prott, The Politics of Self-determination, 83–110.
- 8.
The word normally used today for “nationalist” (milliyetci) had not yet been coined—the closest probably being milliyetperver (love for the nation) or milli his (national feeling)—the (Pan-)Turkist movement on the other hand, called themselves “Turkists” (Türkcüler). In a letter Kara Vasif told the resistance leaders that the Americans saw the resistance movement as an expression of “radical nationalism and religious fanaticism” (müfrit milliyetperverlik ve taassubi din), which he rejected. Kirzioglu, Erzurum, II, 276.
- 9.
See for example Daily News (London): 24 January 1921; 21 June 1920; 10 December 1920. Le Temps, 11 December 1919. The New York Times: 15 October 1919; 17 June 1920; 19 August 1920; 3 October 1920; 25 April 1921; 9 November 1921. See also various British reports enclosed in FO 371/4162/174172.
- 10.
Zurcher, Unionist Factor, 23.
- 11.
Zurcher, Young Turk Legacy, 223.
- 12.
In January 1918, President Woodrow Wilson presented a proposal to the US Congress, known as the 14-point program for peace, to serve as the basis for peace negotiations at the end of World War I, with the declared goal of ensuring world peace in the future. Among other things, the program advocated the removal of economic barriers between countries and emphasized the principle of self-determination in the post-war peace settlement. Prott, Politics of Self-determination, 22.
- 13.
The usage of “Turkey” in place of “Ottoman Empire” was prevalent in contemporary Europe and the United States, as evident in various sources such as the following titles: Abbott, G. F. (1909). Turkey in Transition; Knight, E. F. (1910). Turkey. The Awakening of Turkey. The Turkish Revolution of 1908; Ferriman, Z. D. (1911). Turkey and the Turks; Eddy, D. B. (1913). What Next in Turkey; Brailsford, H. N. (1916). Turkey and The Roads of The East; Eversley, G. Shaw-Lefevre (1917). The Turkish Empire—Its Growth and Decay; Earle, E. M. (1923). Turkey, The Great Powers, and The Bagdad Railway.
- 14.
Article 7: The Allies to have the right to occupy any strategic points in the event of any situation arising which threatens the security of the Allies.
- 15.
Theese provinces were Erzurum, Sivas, Diyarbekir, Van, Bitlis, and Harput. Article 24 stated, “In case of disorder in the six Armenian vilayets, the Allies reserve to themselves the right to occupy any part of them”.
- 16.
Orbay, Cehennem Değirmeni, I, 101, 116, 129–130, 148.
- 17.
The associations for “Defense of National Rights” (Mudafaa-i Hukuk-i Milliye) began emerging relatively early after the Armistice. For instance, 26 November in Eastern Anatolia, 1 December in Edirne, and 4 November in Istanbul.
- 18.
Tunaya, Siyasal Partiler, II, 74-75.
- 19.
Ertürk, İki Devrin Perde Arkası; Karabekir, Istiklal Harbimizin Esasları, 33; Tunaya, Siyasal Partiler, III, 677–679.
- 20.
In a joint address to the Ottoman Government the Allies stated that “In view of these new crimes of Turkey against humanity and civilization, the Allied governments announce publicly to the Sublime Porte that they will hold personally responsible [for] these crimes all members of the Ottoman Government and those of their agents who are implicated in such massacres” (The Ambassador in France (Sharp) to the Secretary of State, Papers Relating to the Foreign Relations of the United States, 1915, Supplement. https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1915Supp/d1398). This assertion had a follow up in the Armistice period by the attempts of the Entente and the central government in Istanbul to set up tribunals to try the individuals responsible for the massacres.
- 21.
Criss, Istanbul under Allied Occupation, 94–105.
- 22.
The internal correspondence of the resistance movement contains ample evidence of the imprint of local Unionist networks, causing conflicts between Unionists and anti-Unionists at the local level. Atatürk, Nutuk, III: Vesikalar. For a discussion of the CUP organisational structure and networks, see Tunaya, Siyasal Partiler, III, 253–258.
- 23.
Bleda, a member of the CUP Central Committee, was originally set to depart with the other leaders, as a temporary measure, “until circumstances became calm and the foreign occupation lifted”. He was then allowed to remain, because, as he claims, he had had “nothing to do with” (o hiçbir şeye karışmadı) the “deportation” (techir) of Armenians, indicating that the prospect of prosecution for the Armenian massacres constituted the primary motivation behind the flight of the top-leaders of the CUP. The fact that Bleda remained, did not mean, however, that the Entente was convinced about his non-involvement in the genocide. Following the Armistice, he was arrested along with several other leading Unionists and eventually interned in Malta. Bleda, Imparatorluğun Çöküşü, 121–130.
- 24.
Ertürk, İki Devrin Perde Arkası, 165.
- 25.
Ibid, 168.
- 26.
Ibid, 205–212.
- 27.
Criss, Istanbul under Allied Occupation, 97–99.
- 28.
Ertürk, İki Devrin Perde Arkası, 205.
- 29.
Indeed, according to Yerasimos, it was also Karakol, which established contact between the Soviet government and the resistance movement, through the members of the Special Organisation, who had been active in Azerbaijan and Elviyei Selase, and still were in the region. Yerasimos, 107.
- 30.
Cebesoy, Milli Mücadele, 51–56; Orbay, Cehennem Değirmeni, I, 222–231; Okyar, Üç Devirde bir Adam, 258–261, 274–275.
- 31.
Zürcher, Unionist Factor, 108.
- 32.
Zurcher, Unionist Factor, 107.
- 33.
Karabekir, Istiklal Harbimiz; Cebesoy, Milli Mücadele, 50–54; Orbay, Cehennem Degirmeni, I, 222–234.
- 34.
Bleda, İmparatorluğun Çöküsü, 102-104; Cebesoy, Milli Mücadele, 50–51.
- 35.
His appointment, which Zürcher has ascribed to the Unionist networks especially within the Ottoman army, was the result of a complex set of negotiations between various actors. For a detailed discussion on the issue, see Zürcher, Unionist Factor. See also Cebesoy, Milli Mücadele, 54–57. Ahmet Izzet Pasha claims the Unionists had approached him, before Mustafa Kemal, to lead the Unionist efforts for resistance in Anatolia, which he allegedly declined. Ahmet Izzet Paşa, Feryadım, II, 62–63.
- 36.
According to Ali Fuat Cebesoy, Enver Pasha told him, during a meeting in Moscow, that it had been his plan with the army he sent to the Caucasus, depending on the severity of the conditions imposed by the Entente, to establish a provisional government in Baku and with that army to spearhead the resistance and to “restore the homeland.” Cebesoy, Milli Mücadele, 59–60.
- 37.
Cebesoy, Milli Mücadele, 80.
- 38.
Arıburnu, Istanbul Mitingleri, 39.
- 39.
Ibid.
- 40.
The Turkish Hearth was a Unionist association founded in 1912, with Ahmet Ferit (Tek) and Yusuf Akçura as its president and vice-president respectively. Declaring itself a non-political organization, and promising it would “never support any political party”, it had the declared aim of highlighting Turkish culture and language, and to work for the advancement of the social, intellectual and economic life of the Turkish people. The Turkish Hearth association was transformed in 1931 into Atatürk’s People’s Houses (Halkevleri) which disseminated national culture in the provinces. For the text of the Turkish Hearth's regulations from 1912, see Üstel, Türk Ocakları, 100–103.
- 41.
Arıburnu, Istanbul Mitingleri.
- 42.
Atatürk, Nutuk, III: Vesikalar, 917.
- 43.
Cebesoy, Milli Mücadele Hatıraları, 151–166.
- 44.
Zürcher, Unionist Factor, 119.
- 45.
Cebesoy, Milli Mücadele, 89–96; Akşin, Istanbul Hükümetleri, I, 424–425.
- 46.
The names provided were Mustafa Kemal (Atatürk), Hüseyin Rauf (Orbay), Kazim Karabekir, Ali Fuat (Cebesoy), Refet (Bele), Cevdet (Ahmet), Cemal (Mersinli), Selahattin (Mehmet), Cafer Tayyar (Eğilmez), Bekir Sami (Günsav), Hamit Bey” and “other military and bureaucratic personnel of importance” (diğer bazı mülki ve askeri mühim zevat). Among the names mentioned in the circular, only Hamit Bey, the governor of Canik, was non-military. Cebesoy, Milli Mücadele, 93–94.
- 47.
Cebesoy, Milli Mücadele, 93–94; Atatürk, Nutuk, III: Vesikalar, 915–916. Circular (Tamim), dated June 22, 1919.
- 48.
Dursunoğlu, Milli Mücadelede Erzurum, 98.
- 49.
Karabekir, Istiklal Harbimizin Esasları, 73–75.
- 50.
Mustafa Kemal’s speech at a Representative Committee meeting (17 November 1919). Tunçay, Tek-Parti, 216.
- 51.
Goloğlu, Erzurum, 206. Tanör, Anayasal Gelismeleri, 224–225.
- 52.
Manela, The Wilsonian Moment, 17.
- 53.
Fisch, The Right of Self-Determination of Peoples, 32; Sterio, Right to Self-determination, 16.
- 54.
Not to mention the implication of such a principle for the imperial Entente powers, the British in particular. See in that regard Liebich, Cultural Nationhood, 73.
- 55.
For in the end, Wilson's idea to incorporate the principle of self-determination, which had become synonymous with his name as Wilsonism, into the League of Nations Covenant was unsuccessful, and so was the realization of the political ideals in practice. Getachew, Worldmaking after Empire, 39; Liebich, Cultural Nationhood, 73–75.
- 56.
The earliest of these began springing up in late 1918, Kars, Erzurum, Thrace, all areas thought to be in immediate danger of occupation or secession. Zürcher, Unionist Factor, 89–91.
- 57.
Another common name used was “Rejection of Annexation” (Redd-i İlhak).
- 58.
While the proceedings of the Erzurum Congress are documented in Kırzıoğlu's Bütünüyle Erzurum Kongresi, for the transcripts of the Sivas Congress see Iğdemir's Sivas Kongresi Tutanakları.
- 59.
Balistreri, Provisional Republic, 65–69. Uran, Hatıralarım, 96–109.
- 60.
Kırzıoğlu, Erzurum, I, 33.
- 61.
Ibid.
- 62.
Kırzıoğlu, Erzurum, Belgeler, XII, 24–26.
- 63.
Heater, National Self-Determination, 63.
- 64.
Kırzıoğlu, Erzurum, Belgeler, XI, 23.
- 65.
Sterio, Right to Self-determination, 16.
- 66.
Kırzıoğlu, Erzurum, II, 9.
- 67.
Türk İmparatorluğu’nun Türklerle meskun olan aksamında. Kırzıoğlu, Erzurum, II, 155.
- 68.
“Rumelia” in this case referring to southeastern Thrace, including Edirne.
- 69.
Atatürk, Söylev ve Demeçleri, II, 12.
- 70.
Ibid.
- 71.
Ibid, 15.s.
- 72.
Ibid, 77.
- 73.
The first declaration of the Association for the Defense of National Rights of the Eastern Provinces (Vilayat-ı Şarkiye Müdafa-i Hukuk-ı Milliye Cemiyeti), 3 March 1919. Kırzıoğlu, Erzurum, I, 10–11.
- 74.
Iğdemir, Sivas Kongresi, 111, 115.
- 75.
Ibid, 113.
- 76.
Kırzıoğlu, Erzurum, I, 86.
- 77.
Iğdemir, Sivas Kongresi, 115.
- 78.
Kırzıoğlu, Erzurum, II, 49–52.
- 79.
Atatürk, Söylev ve Demeçleri, II, 15.
- 80.
While the adversary was defined as the Rum and Armenians, other non-Muslim population elements were not mentioned at the congresses of Erzurum and Sivas, however.
- 81.
According to Suleyman Bey the danger came from the Armenians, the Rum, and “the foreign elements” (unsur-i Ecnebi)—one of which was identified by Avni Bey as “the English”. Kırzıoğlu, Erzurum, II, 76.
- 82.
Tebaai Osmaniye’den olan Rum ve Ermeni anasırı Düveli Itilafiye’den gördükleri teşvik ve müzaheretin netayiciyle de, namusu millimizi cerihadar edecek taşkınlıklardan başlıyarak, nihayet hazin ve kanlı safhalara girinceye kadar küstahane tecavüzata koyuldular. Kırzıoğlu, Erzurum, II, 16.
- 83.
Kırzıoğlu, Erzurum, I, 34.
- 84.
Memleketlerimizin Ermeni idaresine terkedilebileceğine dair artık kat'i emareler zuhur ettiğinden … Ermeni zulmü altında mahvolmamak için birleşmek. Kırzıoğlu, Erzurum, I, 34–35.
- 85.
Meaning the properties of Armenians left behind during the deportations.
- 86.
Kırzıoğlu, Erzurum, I, 85–86.
- 87.
Kırzıoğlu, Erzurum, II, 252; Iğdemir, Sivas Kongresi, 114.
- 88.
Kırzıoğlu, Erzurum, II, 278.
- 89.
Ibid, 188.
- 90.
Kırzıoğlu, Erzurum, I, 10–11.
- 91.
Kırzıoğlu, Erzurum, I, 90.
- 92.
Ibid.
- 93.
Kırzıoğlu, Erzurum, I, 95.
- 94.
Ibid, 101.
- 95.
Ibid, 101–102.
- 96.
Ibid, 57.
- 97.
Ibid, 66–68.
- 98.
Apparently, a reference to the demographic composition of Eastern Anatolia after the destruction of the Armenian population.
- 99.
Kırzıoğlu, Erzurum, I, 68.
- 100.
Olson, Emergence of Kurdish Nationalism; 22–23. Bruinessen, Agha, Shaikh and State, 278.
- 101.
A thankful Mustafa Kemal wrote that even Kurds, who previously had propagated independence for Kurdistan, now responded positively to ADR’s call to gather around the sultanate-caliphate. Letter dated 21 June 1919, from Mustafa Kemal to “important figures in Istanbul”. Atatürk, Nutuk, III: Vesikalar, 916–917. See also Atatürk, ATTB, IV, 36–37, 48, 64, and 71.
- 102.
For the full text of the Treaty, see https://treaties.fcdo.gov.uk/awweb/pdfopener?md=1&did=63986.
- 103.
Based on the Treaty of Sevres, for instance, President Wilson, as the appointed arbiter, announced that most of the provinces of Erzurum, Trabzon, Van, and Bitlis would be ceded to Armenia. https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1920v03/d949.
- 104.
Kırzıoğlu, Erzurum, I, 97.
- 105.
Famous in that regard is the Grand Vizier Ferid Pasha’s appeal to the Entente to save the Turks from the Unionists as they were trying to save the Slavs from the Bolsheviks. In a statement presented at the Paris Peace Conference on 17 June 1919, Ferid Pasha claimed the following: “Europe and America are endeavouring at the cost of immense sacrifice to deliver the Slav people, whose ostensible attitude towards the Entente is scarcely different at the present time from that of the Turks, for both have been reduced to silence and both paralysed by an unheard-of tyranny. The Turks, who thus find themselves, under the domination of the Committee, in the same situation as that of the Russians under the Terrorists, deserve the same sympathy and the same humanitarian and kindly assistance at the hands of the rulers of the Great nations which hold the destinies of the world in their hands.” Papers Relating to the Foreign Relations of the United States, The Paris Peace Conference, 1919, volume IV. https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1919Parisv04/d30.
- 106.
Kırzıoğlu, Erzurum, II, 52, 84, 102. Iğdemir, Sivas Kongresi, 80–83, 89, 99.
- 107.
Kırzıoğlu, Erzurum, II, 41.
- 108.
Ibid, 17, 33-41, 95-96.
- 109.
Ibid, 236–237.
- 110.
Iğdemir, Sivas Kongresi, 88–89.
- 111.
Ibid, 74–77, 80–82.
- 112.
Akşin, Istanbul, I, 135.
- 113.
Atatürk, Nutuk, III: Vesikalar, 1168–1169.
- 114.
For the text of the National Pact see Shaw, Studies, 347–348. See also MM ZC, D: 4, S: 1, Cilt 1, 17 Şubat 1336 (17 February 1920), 144–145.
- 115.
MM ZC, D: 4, S: 1, Cilt 1, 22 Kanunusani 1336 (22 January 1920), 6–11.
- 116.
MM ZC, D: 4, S: 1, Cilt 1, 18 Mart 1336 (18 March 1920), 496.
- 117.
Ibid, 496–497.
- 118.
The original date of opening was 22 April 1920, which was a Thursday. In order to mark the sacredness of the occasion, it was moved to the following day, a Friday, whereby the opening ceremony was integrated into the Muslim Friday rituals, beginning in effect with the Friday prayer at the historic Hacı Bayram Mosque. Prayers were offered for the sultan as well.
- 119.
Karabekir, Istiklal Harbimizin Esasları, 231; Atatürk, Nutuk, I, 562.
- 120.
Helmreich, From Paris to Sèvres, 320–321.
- 121.
Among the treaty provisions, the Ottoman capital, Istanbul, was to be placed under international administration, while large portions of Anatolia were to be ceded to the Entente powers. Additionally, Greece was to receive Izmir and its surroundings, and the treaty envisaged the creation of an independent Armenian state in parts of eastern Anatolia. Although signed by the Ottoman Government in Istanbul, the treaty never entered into force, and was replaced by the 1923 Treaty of Lausanne. For the full text of the Treaty of Sèvres, see Martin, The Treaties of Peace, 1919–1923, vol. II, 794–796.
- 122.
Zürcher, Unionist Factor, 116; Şimşir, Ingiliz Belgelerinde Atatürk, I, 371–375; Selek, Anadolu Ihtilali, I, 371–376.
- 123.
Hakimiyet-i milliye was not a new concept at the time of the Armistice, however. The CUP had previously used it for legitimization purposes during another power shift through military intervention. After the constitutional revolution, the CUP utilized this concept to legitimize the revolution and their subsequent takeover of government as the will of the “nation”, while describing the suppression of the counterrevolution attempt in 1909 as an expression of the hakimiyet-i milliye firmly asserting itself. A few months after putting down the counterrevolution attempt, the CUP Istanbul branch issued a declaration claiming that the hakimiyet-i milliye had now fully asserted itself. In this case, the “nation” was defined as “all Ottoman citizens” and declared that this was an expression of Ottoman unity, justice, equality, and liberty for all citizens. Tasvir-i Efkar, 10 Temmuz 1325 [23 July 1909].
- 124.
MM ZC, D: 4, S: 1, Cilt 1, 17 Şubat 1336 (17 February 1920), 44. See also Kırzıoğlu, Erzurum, II, 175, 240–241, 250, 252.
- 125.
TBMM ZC, D: 1, Cilt 3, 21 August 1920, 387.
- 126.
Teşkilatı Esasiye Kanunu (The Law on Fundamental Organization) adopted January 20, 1921. Düstur, 3. Tertip, vol. I, 196–199.
- 127.
As is shown by its proceedings, the GNA initially tried to function within the Ottoman Constitution of 1876. See for instance: TBMM ZC, D: 1, Cilt 2, 24 July 1920, 378; TBMM ZC, D: 1, Cilt 3, 2 August 1920, 69; TBMM ZC, D: 1, Cilt 3, 18 August 1920, 317–318.
- 128.
TBMM ZC, D: 1, Cilt 3, 18 August 1920, 323.
- 129.
Ibid, 322.
- 130.
The Soviet Russian assistance, comprising of financial and military aid between August 1920 and May 1922, was crucial for the GNA government and its military. Yerasimos states that, aside from various types of military equipment, the total sum received by the GNA in this period, which was 11 million rubles and 100,000 Ottoman liras in gold, equated to GNA's entire national defense budget, 1920–1921. Yerasimos, Türk-Sovyet Ilişkileri, 614. See also Karabekir, Istiklal Harbimiz, I, 342.
- 131.
TBMM ZC, D: 1, Cilt 5, 18 November 1920, 416.
- 132.
TBMM ZC, D: 1, Cilt 5, 18 November 1920, 410.
- 133.
MM ZC, D: 4, Cilt 1, 19 February 1920, 170–171.
- 134.
TBMM ZC, D:1, Cilt 1, 1 May 1920, 164–165.
- 135.
Ibid, 165.
- 136.
For a further discussion on this particular debate, see Eissenstat, “Metaphors of Race and Discourse of Nation,” 246–247.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2024 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Simsek, A. (2024). Claiming the Homeland?. In: Ottoman Nationalism in Transition from Empire to Republic, 1908–1931. Modernity, Memory and Identity in South-East Europe. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-56928-9_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-56928-9_6
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-031-56927-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-031-56928-9
eBook Packages: HistoryHistory (R0)