Young Turk

8/9/2019 Young Turk

1/25

The Memoirs of N. Batzaria: The Young Turks and NationalismAuthor(s): Kemal H. KarpatSource: International Journal of Middle East Studies, Vol. 6, No. 3 (Jul., 1975), pp. 276-299Published by: Cambridge University PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/162108 .

Accessed: 16/02/2015 08:11

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Cambridge University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to

International Journal of Middle East Studies.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 152.118.24.10 on Mon, 16 Feb 2015 08:11:17 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cuphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/162108?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/162108?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup

8/9/2019 Young Turk

2/25

8/9/2019 Young Turk

3/25

The

memoirs

of

N.

Batzaria: The

Young

Turks and

nationalism

277

mainly

on

the

first two.

Kuran

used

for

his studies

a

series

of

original

documents

but

also tended

to

sympathize

with

Prince

Sabahaddin and his

followers

while

showing

strong

bias

against

the Committee on Union and

Progress.

Nevertheless,

Kuran's

works still retain their value as

major

sources

on

the

history

of the

period.

T.

Z.

Tunaya's

Tiirkiyede Siyasi

Partiler

I859-I952

(1952), though

including

some firsthand

material,

is

essentially

a

historical

survey

of

various

political

organizations

in

1856-1952

and

provides

limited

understanding

of

the

period

as

a whole.

Several

of

Tunaya's

articles

on the

cultural movements of

the

period,

however,

are excellent.

A

recently

published

three-volume

work

by

S. S.

Aydemir,

Makedonya'dan

Orta

Asya'ya:

Enver

Pasa

(1970-2),

consists

partly

of

some

excerpts

from

the

diary

of Enver

Papa

and

mostly

of

lengthy

commentaries on the general history of the period

1876-1920

derived from pub-

lished

secondary

sources.

This

voluminous

work,

besides

adding

little new

to

what is

already

known

about the

Young

Turks,

destroys

the cohesion and

continuity

in

Enver

Papa's

journal.

(Aydemir apparently

obtained

this

diary

from Enver

Papa's

family

in Istanbul and

used

it as

the basis for

his own

work.)

Some

other

general

works

in

Turkish,

which

include useful

though

mostly

secondhand

information on

the

Young

Turks are

by

Yusuf H.

Bayur,

Turk

Inkildbz

Tarihi,

I

(I940)

and

II

(I943)

and

Celal

Bayar,

Ben de

Yazdzm,

8

volumes

(I967-72). Among the memoirs written in Turkish on the period, undoubtedly

the

first

place

must be

given

to

Kazim

Nami

Duru,

Ittihat ve

Terakki

Hatiralarzm

(1957)

and

Arnavutluk

ve

Makedonya

Hatiralarzm

(I959)

and

then to Ali

Fuad

Tiirkgeldi,

Gorip

Isittiklerim

(I95I).

Talat

Papa's

own

Talat

Paganzn

Hatiralar

(1958)

was edited

and

published

by

Hiiseyin

Cahit

Yal9in,

editor of

Tanin,

the chief

newspaper

of

the

Committee

on

Union and

Progress

(CUP).

Yal9in's

own

memoirs

on

the

Young

Turks

appeared

in

various

newspapers

and

reviews,

such as Fikir Hareketleri

(1935),

and

contain

by

far

the

most

vigorous

partisan

defense of

the Union

and

Progress

policies.

There are in

addition to

the

memoirs mentioned above a series of other memoirs, wholly or partly on the

period,

which

vary

greatly

in

quality

and

objectivity,'

as

well as a

series

of

articles

appearing

in Turkish

newspapers

and

in

reviews,

which often

provide

I

Good

and useful works

by

direct

participants

in

the

Young

Turk

events

include

the

memoirs

of

Halil

(Kut)

Pasa,

the

uncle of

Enver

Papa,

published

in

Akfam,

October-

November, I967,

Hattratt

Niyazi

(Istanbul,

I910),

Hatzrat-z

Sadr-i

Esbak Kdmil

Pafa

(Istanbul,

I9I3). Among

the

secondhand

accounts,

some of

which

include also

excellent

information

on the

general

political

situation of

the Ottoman

state,

one

may

cite Ahmet

Cevat

Emre,

Iki Neslin

Tarihi

(Istanbul, 1960),

Hiisamettin

Ertiirk,

Iki

Devrin

Perde

Arkasi, 3rd

ed.

(Istanbul,

1969),

Suleyman

Kiilce,

Firzovik

Toplantisi

ve

Mefrutiyet

(Izmir, 1944),

Hasan

Amca,

Dogmayan

Hiirriyet

(Istanbul,

1958).

A number

of

memoirs

published in French or English, such as those of Cemal Papa, are all too old and well

known

to

warrant

further

mention here.

See also Mehmet

Selahattin,

Ittihad ve

Terakki

Cemiyetinin

Maksadz

Tesis

ve

Sureti

Tefkili...

(Cairo, 1923);

(Mabeyinei)

Lutfii

Simavi,

Osmanh

Sarayinin

Son

Gunleri

(Istanbul, n.d.),

originally

published

as

Sultan

Mehmet

Refat

ve

Halifenin Sarayinda

Gordiiklerim

(Istanbul, 1924).


http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

8/9/2019 Young Turk

4/25

278

Kemal

H.

Karpat

original

information on

the

subject.

An

event

occurring

during

the

Young

Turk

era which

received

considerable

attention

and was studied

rather

extensively

largely because of its ideological and

polemical appeal

was the so-called religious

reaction of

I909.2

Western writers

have shown

considerable

interest

in

the

Young

Turks,

as

indicated

by

various

books

by

Sir W.

M.

Ramsay,

Paul

Fesch,

Noel

Buxton,

and

E. F.

Knight,

just

to

mention

a

few. After the

publication

of these books

there

followed a

long

silence,

which

may

be attributed

to the disillusion

caused

by

the

ill-fated

policies

of

the

Union and

Progress

Society among

its

European

sympa-

thizers.

It

was E.

E.

Ramsaur,

The

Young

Turks: Prelude

to

Revolution

(1957)

who

rekindled

somewhat an interest in

the

period.

Ramsaur's work

did

not

use most of the Turkish sources though some were available at the time he

published

his

book.

Ramsaur

emphasizes

the

Young

Turk

activities

in

Europe.

The

side

effect

of this

emphasis

is

to

give

the

refugees

abroad

exaggerated

credit

both

in

developing

the

ideology

of

the

Young

Turks and in

planning

the

revolution

of

1908.

More

recently

Niyazi

Berkes,

The

Development

of

Secularism

in

Turkey

(1964), provided

a

very

insightful

treatment of the

currents

of

thought

prevailing

at

that time

but

included limited

information

on the

period

as

a

whole.

Recently

a

survey

of the

Young

Turk

policies

in

I908-I4

was

under-

taken

by

Feroz

Ahmad,

The

Young

Turks

(I969).

This

last,

probably

one

of

the best books on the Young Turks, while using most but not all of the Turkish

sources,

relies

very

heavily

on

the consular

reports

in the British

Public Office.

Ahmad's

book,

which

is

a

factual

but rather

dry

account of

events,

pays

scant

attention

to the

important

social,

economic,

and

ideological

currents

of

the

time.

This

work,

similar

to

other recent

books mentioned

in this

article,

ignores

a

series

of

useful works

on

Young

Turks

published

in Russia and

elsewhere.3

The

works

mentioned above

provide

more or less a

fairly

consistent

account

of the

major

events

occurring

in

1908-I8.

They

fail

in

general

to

emphasize

the

truly

burning

issues of

the

time,

which sealed the fate of the Ottoman state in

I

The

works with the

most

extensive and useful

bibliographies

on the

Young

Turks

include Feroz

Ahmed. The

Young

Turks

(Oxford, I969),

E. E.

Ramsaur, Jr.,

The

Young

Turks:

Prelude to the

Revolution

of

90o8

(Princeton, 1957),

serif

Mardin,

J7n

Tiirklerin

Siyasi

Fikirleri

(Ankara,

I

964),

T. Z.

Tunaya,

Tiirkiyede

Siyasi

Partiler

(Istanbul,

I

952).

See

also

A.

Mango,

The

Young Turks,

Middle Eastern

Studies,

8,

I

(1972),

107-I7,

V. R.

Swenson,

The

Young

Turk

Revolution,

Ph.D.

dissertation, I968.

2

The

latest

work

which

includes

most

of the relevant

bibliography

on

the

subject

is

by

Sina

Akmln,

3r

Mart

Olayz

(Ankara,

1970);

see also

Ali

Cevat,

Ikinci

Meqrutiyetin

Ildnz

ve

Otuzbir

Mart

Hadisesi, ed. F. R.

Unat

(Ankara, I960).

3

Among

Russian

sources

one should mention A. F.

Miller,

Pjatidesjatiletije

Mlado-

turetskoj Revoljutsii (Moscow,

1958),

E. I.

Hasanova,

Ideolgija Burzhuaznogo

Natsiona-

lizma

v

Turtsii (Baku,

I966),

H. Z. Gabidullin, Mladoturetskaja Revolujtsija (Moscow,

I936),

A. N.

Mandel'shtam,

Mladoturetskaja

Derzhava

(Moscow, 1915),

G.

Aliev,

Turtsija

v

periodpravlenija

Mladoturok

(Moscow,

1972).

For

Bulgarian

sources see Tushe

Vlakhov

'Bulgriia

i

Mladoturskata

Revoliutsiia',

Godishnik

na

Sofiiskata

Univsrsitet

(Faculty

of

History

and

Philology),

vol.

LIX, 3

(Sofia,

I960),

pp.

i-8o;

Andrei

Toshev,

Balkanskite

Voinii,

vols. I-iI

(Sofia, 1929-3I),

esp.

I,

I86-94,

and

225-34.



8/9/2019 Young Turk

5/25

The

memoirs

of

N. Batzaria:

The

Young

Turks and nationalism

279

general

and of

the

Young

Turks

in

particular.

Indeed,

the

conflicting

nationalisms

of the

Bulgarians,

Serbians,

Greeks,

and

Montenegrinos,

who

were

divided

by

territorial ambitions and

linguistic

differences but could

expediently

unite

themselves

on

religious grounds

against

the

Ottoman

administration,

hardly

find

an

expression

in

these works.

Moreover,

many

of the books

on this

period

fail

to take

into

account

and

contrast

the

nationalism

of

the

Balkan Christians

with similar

ideologies

that

appeared among

the Muslim

groups

in

the

Empire

and found

their

full

expression

in

the

Young

Turk

era.

Indeed,

the

Muslims'

original anti-imperialist

nationalism,

which

culminated inPan-Islamism

during

the

reign

of

Abdiilhamid

II

(I876-I909),

was

gradually replaced

by

a

linguistic

and

ethnic nationalism

under Union

and

Progress

and

eventually

led to the disintegration of the Ottoman state. The same books fail to take into

account

the

developing political

conflicts

between

the

bureaucratic elite

and

the

economic

middle

classes,

the

pressing

demand for

development

and

education

that

played

a

mobilizing

role

among

the

population,

the

intensification

of

com-

munications,

and

a

series of

other

developments

that

spelled

the

dawn

of

pro-

found

political

and

economic

transformation.'

Due

in

good

measure

to the fact

that

the

most extensive

sources on the

period

and

the

best works on the

subject

are

written

in

Turkish,

the

Young

Turk

period

has come

to be

regarded

now

strictly

as

part

of

the

national

history

of

Turkey.

Actually

the truth is

that

the

Union and Progress Society was established and practically all the Young Turk

activities

developed

from

the start

in the

multi-national

and multi-ethnic frame-

work

of the

Ottoman state. One cannot

appraise

the

Young

Turk

period

by

ignoring

the

background

of

the

people

involved in

the events of the

period.

Indeed,

the

actors of the

Young

Turk era were

not

only

Turks

but

also

Arabs,

Greeks, Jews,

Armenians,

Bulgarians,

Albanians, Vlahs,

and members of other

national

groups,

who

were

struggling

to reconcile

their

ethnic

and

religious

alle-

giances

and national ambitions

with the

political loyalty

demanded

by

the

Ottoman

government.

The existence of

divergent

national

viewpoints

in the

Young Turks can be easily deduced, for instance, from the multi-ethnic and

multi-religious

character

of the

Ottoman Chamber

of

Deputies

elected

in

November

and

December

of

I908.

The

Chamber had a total

of

275

deputies

of

These

forces

were at work

among

all

groups

n

towns

and

villages.

See for instance

Ahmet

Serif,

AnadoludaTanin

(Istanbul,

I909),

Tanin

Matbaasi,

pp.

236.

This

book

which we

hope

to

review

more

extensively

elsewhere consists

of

reports by

a

corre-

spondent

of the Tanin.

It

providesexceptionally

good

information

on

the

general

situa-

tion of

the

bureaucracy

nd the demandsof the

newly

rising

ocal elites

in

Anatolianand

Syrian

owns.

It is

interesting

o

note that

this was the

first nstance

n the

history

of

the

Turkish

press

that a

correspondent

isited the

countryside

and

reported

on the

situation

there.The Tanin, he spokesmanor the YoungTurks,initiated his countryside eport-

ing

with

the

purpose

of

establishing

hannelsof

communicationwith 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

nstance

n

which a

modern

pattern

of communicationbetween the

government

and the

citizens at

large

was

established.



8/9/2019 Young Turk

6/25

280 Kemal H.

Karpat

whom

142

were

Turks,

60

Arabs,

25

Albanians,

23

Greeks,

12

Armenians,

5

Jews,

4 Bulgarians, 3

Servians,

and

I

Vlah. The

population

of

the

European

part

of the Ottoman state was equally multi-ethnic. The three vilayets in the Balkans,

that

is,

Salonica, Kosovo,

and Monastir

(Bitolia),

in

1908-9

had

1,897,3II

Muslims,

1,531,238

Christians,

and

623,383

Jews.

This

figure

excludes

the

population

in the

vilayet

of

Edirne

as

well

as the Muslims

(Turks)

of

Bulgaria,

Greece,

and

Romania.

Moreover,

on

the

basis of reliable sources we

know

now

that the Freemason

lodges

and

the

Jews

of Salonica

played important

roles in

shaping

the

ideology

and

policies

of the Union and

Progress

Society,

at

least

during

its

formative

years

in

the

Balkans.I

For instance

Emanuel

Carasso

(Karasu),

head

of

the

Masonic

lodge

in

Salonica

and

later

deputy

in

Istanbul,

and several other Masons such as Primo Levi, Oscar Strauss, and Jacob Schiff,

were close

at one time or another to

Talat

Papa

and

Cavit

Bey.

The

latter

two

occupied high

positions

in

the

Union

and

Progress government

and

were

also

important

members

of the

Masonic

lodges.

It is

obvious

that

the

history

of the

Young

Turks would

acquire

its

true

significance

and

the rise

of Turkish nationalism and that

of

the

national

states

in

the area

would be

understood

better

if the

background

of events and

personalities

shaping

the

policies

of

the

Union

and

Progress

were studied in

a

broader

frame

of

reference. Such

a

study

would

require

the use of new

concepts

concerning

the rise of nationalism and the relationships among social class, language, ethni-

city,

religion,

and

nationality.

It

also

would

require

the

use

of new

sources

beyond

and above

those

available

hitherto.

We

have

stressed

the

fact

that

most

of

the

relevant

and

recent

works

on

the

Young

Turks

appear

to be written

in Turkish

and are

published

in

Turkey.

There

is, however,

growing

evidence that some excellent

material

on

the

subject

may

be

found

in

the

journals,

reviews,

and

books

written

in

the

other

languages

spoken

in

the

Balkans and the Middle

East,

including

memoirs

published

by

various

people

who

were

involved

in

one

way

or another

in

Young

Turk

politics. Some

of

the

known

works

belonging

to this

category have been only

scantily

utilized. For

instance,

the

excellent memoirs of Ibrahim

Temo

(Themo),

one

of the founders

of

the first

Young

Turk

secret

revolutionary

society

in

I889,

whose involvement

in

politics

continued

in

one

way

or

another

until

the

I920S,

are

rarely

used

by

scholars interested

in

the

period.

Temo's

book,

Ittihad

ve

Terakki

Cemiyetinin

Te?ekiilii

ve

Hidemat-z

Vataniye

ve

Inkildb-z-

Milliye

Dair

Hatzratzm

(My

Memoirs

on the

Establishment of

the

Union and

Progress

Society,

Service

to the Fatherland and

National

Reform),

published

in

Mecidiye

in

1939,

is

now

a

collector's

item.

More

important

than

the

book is the

voluminous

correspondence

carried

on

by

Temo

himself with unionists

and then

with

antiunionists

well into

the

I92os.

Interesting

to

know is the fact that in a

visit

to

Istanbul,

Ibrahim

I

See

on

this issue

Elie

Kedourie,

'Young

Turks,

Freemasons and

Jews',

Middle

Eastern

Studies vol.

vII,

I

(1971),

pp.

89-I04.



8/9/2019 Young Turk

7/25

The

memoirs

of

N.

Batzaria: The

Young

Turks

and

nationalism

28

Temo

acquired

the

political

correspondence

of

Ishak

Sukuti,

his

close

friend,

and

brought

it with

him to

Mecidiye

(Medgidia),

a small town

in

central

Dobruja now part of Romania, where Temo practised medicine until his death

in

the

early

I950S.

(In

a

visit to Romania

in

1958,

I

contacted Temo's

family

living

in

Constanta

and

had a

chance to look

through

this

voluminous corre-

spondence.

It

filled three

suitcases of medium

size,

and

in

addition

to

hundreds

of letters

by

Young

Turks

it contained

various

proclamations,

small-sized

manuscripts,

memoranda,

and

programs

of

political parties

and

organizations.

Only

a

minimal

part

of

this

correspondence

has

appeared

in

Temo's

memoirs.

All

this

material,

according

to

Temo's

son,

a

practising physician

in

Constanta,

was taken

by

an

official

of

the Albanian

embassy

in

Bucharest

around

I960

and

allegedly was deposited in the Albanian archives but so far, to the best of my

knowledge,

it has not been

published.

Apparently

the

Albanians,

who are

now

in the

throes of

a

virulent

nationalism

of their

own,

were

disillusioned

since

Temo,

though

Albanian

by origin,

was a defender

of

Ottoman

unity

rather

than

of

outright

Albanian

independence.)

N.

BATZARIA

AND HIS

LIFE

An

important

source

on

the

Young

Turks

which has been

largely

unknown,

to

the

best

of

my knowledge,

and has not been

utilized

extensively by any

scholar

until

the

present

time,

is N.

(Nicolae)

Batzaria,

Din Lumea

Islamului,

Turcia

Junilor

Turci

(from

the

World

of

Islam,

the

Turkey

of the

Young

Turks).

The

book,

written

in

Romanian,

was

printed

in Bucharest

by

Alcalay

and Cala-

fateanu.'

It

bears

no

printing

date,

but

its contents

imply

that

it was

written

in

1922-3

and

published

about

the same time.

The book

contains,

moreover,

an

introduction

by

the

well-known

Romanian

historian Nicolae

Iorga,

whose

biased

anti-Turkish

views

expressed

there do not bear

any

relation whatsoever

to the

content

of the

book.

The

importance

of his

works

on the

Young

Turks

will become

evident

once

Batzaria's

background

and

activities

are

properly

analyzed.

Nicolae

Constantin

Batzaria

(also

Besaria

or

Bazaria)

was born

in

1874

in

the

village

of

Cru?ova

in

the

province

of Monastir

(Bitola)

in

Macedonia.2 He

was a

Vlah,

that

is,

he

belonged

to that

group

of

Romanian-speaking,

Christian

Orthodox

population

of the

Balkan

peninsula

known

varyingly

as

Aromunes,

Makedo-Romanians,

Kutzo-Vlakhs,

Valaks,

Vlahs,

and

Zinzars,

whose names

varied

depending

on

the

region

they

inhabited.

In this

study

I

use the

I

The

exact

reference

is

N.

Batzaria,

Din Lumea

Islamului,

Turcia

Junilor

Turci

(Bucharest,

n.d.).

This book

was

published

in the Editura

Ancora,

Alcalay

&

Calafateanu,

located at Strada Smardan No. 4, Bucharest. This publishing house does not exist any

longer.

2

For

biographical

information

on

Batzaria

see

Gh.

Adamescu,

Contributii

la

biblio-

grafia

romaneascd,

vol. inI

(Bucharest,

I928),

pp.

350-I;

also

Lucian

Predescu,

Enciclo-

pedia Cugetarea,

p.

o9;

see

also

Yedigiin,

no.

268,

pp.

x4-I6.



8/9/2019 Young Turk

8/25

282 Kemal

H.

Karpat

term

'Vlah'.

Batzaria

graduated

from

the Romanian

lyceum

(high

school)

in

Bitola

and

later studied

literature

and law at the

University

of

Bucharest.

In

addition to Turkish and Romanian, he spoke Greek, Bulgarian, Serbian,

and

French.

In

returning

to

his native land

in

the Balkans he became

a

teacher,

first

at

Janina

and then at the Romanian

high

school

in

Bitola. Soon afterward

he was

made

inspector

and

supervisor

of

all the

Romanian schools

in

the

vilayets

of

Kosovo

and

Salonica.

In

I908,

he

published

in

Salonica the

first

Romanian

newspaper De#teptera (Awakening)

in the Aromun

or Vlah dialect.

In

I907,

Batzaria met Enver

Bey,

and later

through

the

intermediary

of

Fethi

(Okyar) Bey

Batzaria

joined

the

Union and

Progress Society

in

Salonica.

As

a

member

of

the

Salonica branch

of

this

secret

revolutionary society,

Batzaria

established

close

relations with the main Young Turk leaders, such as Enver, Talat, Cemal, Cavit

Bey,

Tahir

Bey,

Maniyasizade

Refik,

and

many

others.

Thus he had

access

to

the

highest

Young

Turk

command forum.

Following

the

revolution of

I908,

significantly enough,

the

Unionists

gave

Batzaria a seat in the

Ottoman

Senate

by

taking advantage

of

a

special

clause that

allowed

exceptionally

the investure

as

senators

of

those who

had

'rendered

high

service to

the

State'.

Most

of

the

other

senators

appointed

in

this

way

were

officials

who

had

occupied high

positions

in the

Ottoman

army

and

government.

In the

Senate Batzaria

seemed

to

have

enjoyed

the

special

confidence

of

the Union

and

Progress

leaders.

He

became, meanwhile,

the

vice-president of the Red Crescent where he met many

Turkish women

working

there

as

volunteers and thus had a chance

to

acquaint

himself

closely

with

the

feminist movement

of the

Young

Turk era.

During

the

second

unionist

government,

which came to

power

in

the

middle of

the

Balkan

war

in

January

I9I3

through

a

coup engineered by

Enver

Papa,

Batzaria

became

Minister of Public Works. Meanwhile he continued

writing

articles

for

Le

Jeune

Turc and for

Turkish

publications

in

Istanbul.

In

1913,

Batzaria

went

to

London

as

the

second

Ottoman

delegate

to the

peace

conference and

signed

the

peace

treaty

which

put

an end

to the

first

Balkan war. Batzaria

also

played

an

important

role in the secret talks

between

unionist

leaders and

Romanian

statesmen

in

I912-13,

which

aimed

at

achieving

an

alliance between

Turkey

and

Romania

in

order to

put

pressure

on

Bulgaria.

Romania

eventually

joined

the

second

Balkan

war

on

the side of

Greece

and

Serbia

and

helped

deprive Bulgaria

of

much

of

her

territorial

gains

achieved

through

the

London

treaty

of

1913.

After

the

entry

of

Turkey

in

World War

I

on the German

side,

Batzaria,

who

had

opposed

the alliance with

Germany,

left

Istanbul

in

I916

and lived

in

Switzerland

for a

while.

Later

he

settled

in

Romania and

became

a

senator

in

the

Romanian

Parliament

under the

government

of

General

Averescu.

Eventually

Batzaria

dedicated

himself

to

writing

and

journalism.

He

worked for

Dimineafa

(Morning)

and Adevdrul

(Truth),

that is, for Romanian national

newspapers

that

espoused

a

somewhat democratic social

philosophy.

Then

he

published

Defteptarea

Copiilor

(Children's Awakening)

and

Dimineata

Copiilor

(Children's

Morning)

where he wrote under the

pen

name

of

Mo?

Nae

(a

Romanian

term

for



8/9/2019 Young Turk

9/25

The memoirs

of

N.

Batzaria: The

Young


283

the wise old

man).

Batzaria

became

the

publisher

of

the Universal

(Universe)

in

I936,

the

major

Romanian liberal-nationalist

newspaper.

After

I940,

he

fell

somewhat

in

disfavor

with the

rightist governments

and

eventually,

after

I945,

was ostracized

completely by

the socialist

regime.

He

died

in

Bucharest

in

poverty

early

in

the

I950S.' Lately

there seems

to

be

a

revived

interest in his

children's

stories.z

Batzaria's

published

works

amounting

to well over

thirty

volumes

of various

sizes. First

there

are

textbooks,

translations

and

reports

of limited

importance

for historical and

political

studies.

Secondly,

there

are

a

series of

books

for

children whose

themes

derive often

from

Turkish

folktales

such as

Ali

Baba,

from One Thousand

and

One

Nights,

and from

other

oriental

legends

and

fantasies shared by all the Balkan peoples. The third category of books includes

Batzaria's own

reminiscences

of

people

and

places

and of

events

that

affected his

life

during

his

stay

in

the

Balkans and Istanbul

in

I908-I6.

All

the books

in

the

third

category

suffer

from

a

series

of obvious

shortcomings.

Batzaria

is not

interested

in

sociological

or

political

analysis

or even

in

writing

a

history

of the

period,

as

he

openly

confesses.

Moreover,

his

facts

are

not

always

chronologically

presented

and

carefully

checked

or

organized

in

accordance

with

a

plan

or

a

particular

concept.

Batzaria is above

everything

else a

great

storyteller

who

strives,

in a

rather

balanced

fashion,

to

combine

the warm and

absorbing

style

of the Meddah and Ozan (the Turkish names for folk storytellers) with the style

of the

great

Romanian

folk

writer

Ion

Creanga.

His

writing,

similar

to

his

thinking,

is direct

and

clear

and

absorbing.

It

is

also full of Romanian

colloquial

expressions

which

give

it

a

unique

flavor and

vigor.

Batzaria's

cultural

values,

while

strongly

affected

by

Western

liberalism and

enlightenment

as well as

by

nationalism,

nevertheless

were

impregnated

by

a warm

acceptance

of

all creeds

and

faiths,

a

spirit

of tolerance toward human

weaknesses

that constituted

the

philosophy

of

life shared

by many

Ottoman

intellectuals

at

the

turn of

the

century. Consequently,

in

his

writings

Batzaria

abstained from taking categorical positions or from condemning a particularidea

or movement.

He was interested

chiefly

in

human

beings

and

in

their

happiness.

He

paid

attention to

ideologies

and

political happenings only

to the

extent

that

these forces

changed

the

course of

the

established

life

and

pushed

people

into

new situations

and

eventually

distorted

their natural lives.

Thus,

scholars

who

I

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.

2

Some

of his

early

works

have

recently

been reissued:

Ali

Baba

fi

MoF

Nae,

Povefti

de Aur

(Ali

Baba

and

Mo?

Nae,

Golden

Tales)

(Bucharest,

I968); Haplea,

Pdlanii

$i

Ndzdrdvanii

(Adventures

and

Miracles) (Bucharest, 1970, I97I). Haplea

is a comical

figure

in Romanian

folklore.



8/9/2019 Young Turk

10/25

284

Kemal

H.

Karpat

might expect

Batzaria to

present

his ideas

in

a

logical sequence

within

a

well-

defined

system may

be

disillusioned. But those

who

take into consideration his

Ottoman political culture, temperament, and philosophy and evaluate his works

accordingly may

be

fully

rewarded. Batzaria

had

a

special psychological

under-

standing

of the Balkan and Turkish

societies,

and

this enabled

him

to

capture

the inner fundamentals of

the

events he

described.

He

used

his

intimate and

profound grasp

of

the cultures

and

the

psychology

of the

people

amidst whom

he

spent

half

of

his

early

life to

explain

their

political

behavior. Batzaria knew

in

depth

the

qualities

and

defects of

the

Muslim

and

Christian

groups

in

the

Balkans and

pointed

out the

difficulty

faced

by

the Ottoman

government

in

governing

a

heterogeneous society

where

political allegiance

and

religious

and ethnic loyalty were in constant conflict with each other. Batzaria developed

in

due time

also

an

understanding

of the

problems

faced

by

religion

in

the

Ottoman

state.

He saw Islam as

mercilessly

challenged

both

by

a

secularist

nationalism

and a materialist

modernism. He made friends

with the

ulema,

including

the

*eyhilislAm,

and

educated himself

in

the doctrine and

practice

of

Islam.

Batzaria

realized

well

that his

books

were

written

for

a

Romanian

audience

who,

in

spite

of

a

large

Turkish-Muslim

minority

living

in

their

midst,

displayed

an

appalling

ignorance

of

and

contempt

for Islam.

Consequently,

the writer

took

pains to explain to his readers the cultural reasons that created a special pattern

of

behavior

among

Muslims or induced

the

Ottoman

government

to

undertake

a

series

of measures

that

appeared

unusual to

those

uninitiated

in

Islam.

For

instance,

Batzaria

explains

that the

religious

affiliation

of the

children

found

on

the

street

was

debated

and settled

by

the Ottoman Senate

in

favor

of Islam

only

after

a

senator from

Yemen,

defying

a

nearly

unanimous consensus

to raise

the

foundlings

in

the

religion

of

those

who

found

them,

claimed that

according

to

the

Koran

all

children were born Muslims

but

were

raised in a

different

religion

only

because

their

parents belonged

to another

faith.

Moreover,

Batzaria

recounts

that

close

relations

between

the

Ottoman state

and

Japan

could

not

be

estab-

lished

because,

among

other

reasons,

the latter

could

not

erect

a

pagoda

in

Istanbul;

the Muslims

allowed freedom

of

worship only

to the

'People

of the

Book',

that

is

Christians

and

Jews,

whereas

the

Japanese

were

considered

putperest

or 'idol

worshippers'.

In

sum,

one

may say

that Batzaria

captured

admirably

the

atmosphere prevailing

in

Ottoman

society

at

the

turn

of

the

century

and succeeded

in

giving

an

accurate

picture

of

the cultural

determinants

affecting political

decisions as well as

excellent

insights

into the

personalities

of

the

leading

political

figures

of

the

Young

Turk

era

whom

he knew

so

well.



8/9/2019 Young Turk

11/25

The memoirs

of

N.

Batzaria: The

Young


285

BATZARIA'S SOCIAL

AND

POLITICAL WRITINGS

Among

Batzaria'sbooks

dealing

with social and

political

events in I900-I916

there are several

works that deserve

special

attention.

First there are

the books

describing

the

social status of Turkish women

and their

emancipation

efforts.I

Batzaria

was

deeply

distressed

by

the

low

status of

Turkish

women

and

conse-

quently

supported

wholeheartedly

their

liberation

aspirations.

'Under

their

veil',

writes

Batzaria,

'there

beats

an

understanding

heart,

their

spirit

is

aflame

with

higher

thoughts

and is

[animated]

by

the desire

to

create for themselves

a

better

fate

and

to become

something higher

than

an

object

of

pleasure

and

amusement.'2

Batzaria

sympathized

with

Turkish women

when

they

complained

that 'our husbands, and in fact all of them [men] are agreed on this point and are

persuaded

by

centuries-old

traditions that the

human

society,

as

they

see

it,

will

remain

much

more

securely

anchored

on its

foundations

as

long

as

we,

women,

are tied

to

them

by

obedience,

and remain

[socially]

insignificant.'3

All

these

aspirations

on

the

part

of

the

women,

it must

be

stressed,

developed mostly

during

the

Young

Turk

rule

and

had

a

profound

effect

upon

their modernist

policies

which

included also

the

first

attempts

to

bring

about the

emancipation

of

women.4

Included

in Batzaria's books

with

political

and social content there

is

also In

inchisorile turceiti (In Turkish Prisons) which deals with his arrest and brief

imprisonment

in

1903

by

an

Ottoman

official

who

suspected

him

of

political

activities

which

had

been

banned

by

the

government

of

Abdiilhamid

II.5

This

book

contains

unique

and

insightful

information

about

various

social

and

ethnic

groups

in

Macedonia,

their

history,

culture,

and

political

aspirations,

as

well as

their

peculiar pattern

of relations

with

the

government.6

Thus,

one learns

that

I

Among

these

books,

Spovedanii

de

caddne,

Nuvele

din

viata

turceascd

(Confessions

of Turkish

Women;

Stories from

Turkish

Life) (Bucharest, I921),

Turcoaicele

(Turkish

Women)

(Ia?i,

1921),

Sdrmana Leila:

Roman

din

Viata

caddnelor

(Poor

Leila:

Novel

from

the Life

of Turkish

Women)

(Bucharest,

I922

and

I925),

Prima turcoaicd

(The

First

Turkish

Woman)

(n.d.),

deserve

special

mention.

Moreover,

he

has translated

several

books from Turkish

into

Romanian

on this issue.

2

Spovedanii

de

caddne,

p.

6.

3

Ibid.

p.

8.

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

I923.

5

N.

Batzaria,

In inchisorile

turcegti

(Braila,

n.d.).

This

book was

published

also

by

Alcalay

&

Calafateanu

in

Braila,

a

port city

on

the

Danube.

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

Nanta in

the

region

of

Meglavia

in

Macedonia,

inhabited

only by

Vlahs,

altogether 6,ooo 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

I767,

through

the

pressure

of

the

Greek

Patriarchate

in

Istanbul

(Inchisorileturcefti, pp. 64-5).



8/9/2019 Young Turk

12/25

286 Kemal

H.

Karpat

to

be

jailed

in

the

19oos

on

suspicion

of

political activity

made one a hero over-

night

and that

political prisoners

were treated

as

ordinary

criminals. The

jail

had also special quarters for local notables. Batzaria states that during the year

of

his

imprisonment

a

severe

drought

damaged

the

crops

and

made the

notables

unable

to meet their

financial

obligations

toward the

peasants

whose

lands

they

had

rented.

Consequently,

the

efraf

(notables)

went to

jail

and waited there for

the Sultan's

clemency

to absolve

them

of

guilt

and

maybe

of

debt.

This

was on

their

part

a

voluntary

act of submission to the Sultan's

authority

since some of

the

same

notables,

many

of

whom were

of

Albanian

origin,

had

fought

success-

fully

the

Sultan's

armies

for

years

in

the

past.

'If we

wanted

it,'

they

declared

proudly,

'even

ten

army

regiments

could not

lay

hands on

us.'

The

notables

would rebel and defy the government only in case of an act incompatible with

their

social

position

and

code of honor.

For

instance,

one of

the

imprisoned

notables had

killed a

government

official

in

the

past merely

because

he had

acted

disrespectfully

toward

him

and

then,

gathering

a

band of

followers,

stayed

as

an

outlaw

in

the mountains

for seven

years

until he

was

pardoned by

the

Sultan.

Power

in

the

countryside

resided

with these local

notables who bowed

to the

government's authority following

the

tradition

of

obedience

and

personal loyalty

to the

Sultan

and

whenever

authority

was

exercised in

harmony

with their

interests.

The

notables

knew

also that

a

continuous

challenge

of the

government

would undermine the Sultan's authority in the long run and this would work

to their

own

detriment.

The most

important

book written

by

Batzaria about the

Young

Turk era

is

undoubtedly

Din Lumea

Islamului.

It

includes his

recollections about his

membership

in the

secret Union

and

Progress

Society,

which

engineered

the

revolution

of

I908,

about

the

leaders of the

Young

Turks,

and about his

experi-

ences

as a

senator

and a

minister

in

the Union and

Progress government.

Before

dealing

further

with

this book

it

is

necessary

to ascertain

whether

or not

Batzaria

had

belonged,

indeed,

to

the secret

Union and

Progress

Society

in

Salonica some-

time in

907,

since his

membership

in

this

society

seems to have

formed

the

basis

for

his

friendship

with the

Young

Turk leaders

and

his eventual

ascendance in

position.

This

is an

important

point

to determine since

none

of the

major

writings

in

Turkish

and

English

on the secret

Union and

Progress

Society

credit

Batzaria

with

activity

or

even

mention his name. Batzaria

claims

that he

became

a

member of

the

Central

Committee of the Union and

Progress Society

of

Salonica

late

in

1907

and

that he

participated

in

some

of

its

secret meet-

ings.

The members

of

the

Committee

in

I908,

as

named

by

Enver

Papa,

were,

besides

himself,

Talat,

Hafiz

Hakki,

Ismail

Canbolat,

Manyasizade

Refik,

and

Cemal

Papa.

Batzaria

is not

mentioned. On the

other

hand,

Batzaria

states that

the Central Committee whose

meetings

he attended consisted

of

Talat,

Cavid,

Rahmi,

Fethi

(Okyar)

Enver,

Manyasizade

Refik,

Ismail

Canbolat,

and

himself.

This

apparent

confusion

about

the

members

of

the Central

Committee

of

the Union

and

Progress Society

is due

probably

to the fact

that the

secret



8/9/2019 Young Turk

13/25

The

memoirs

of

N. Batzaria:

The

Young

Turks

and

nationalism

287

organization

itself

had not

acquired

a

definitive

shape

and

that

it

held numerous

meetings

in

Salonica

and Monastir

in

which attendance

varied.

Moreover,

Batzaria talks about secret

meetings

in Salonica whereas Enver talks about

those

in

Monastir.

There

is

no

question,

however,

that

Enver

Papa

knew

Batzaria

well and

recruited

him into

the Union and

Progress

Society

with

some definite

purposes

in

mind.

Indeed,

in

Enver

Papa's

diary

quoted

by

Aydemir

there

is

one

entry

in

which Enver states

clearly,

'I was

instrumental

in

bringing

into the

Society

[Union

and

Progress]

the

first

Christian members. For

instance

Basarya

effendi.'I

Moreover,

the fact that Batzaria

was

made

a

senator

in

I908,

because he

'ren-

dered

high

service to

the

State',

and was

given

a ministerial

position

in

I912

after the coup d'etat led by Enver indicated fully that Batzaria knew closely

the chief

Young

Turk

leaders,

especially

Enver

and Talat

Pa?as,

and was

trusted

by

them. For

instance,

he

was

delegated by

Talat

Papa

on behalf

of

the

Ottoman

government

to

conduct some delicate

and

highly

secret

talks

with

the

Romanian

government

in order to establish

an

anti-Bulgarian

alliance.

There

is

no

question

that Batzaria was

part

of

the inner

circle of the Union and

Progress

Society

and

his

facts

and reminiscences are authentic.

NATIONALISM

AND THE

VLAHS

IN THE

BALKANS

The

rise of

nationalism

and

its

impact

upon

various

ethnic

groups, including

the

Muslims,

and

especially

the

Young

Turks

themselves,

occupy

a

central

part

in Batzaria's

memoirs.

His

views on

nationalism

are

particularly important

because

of

his

unparalleled

understanding

and

objectivity

with

regard

to the

situation

and

aspirations

of

the

Turks,

Muslims,

and

Christians

in

the

Balkans.

Batzaria's

unique

insight

into nationalism stemmed first

from

the

fact that

as

a

Christian

he

understood the

position

of

his

coreligionists

versus the

Muslims

and

Turkish rulers

and,

second,

that

as

a Vlah he was

well

aware of

the

true

nature of the nationalism promoted by Greeks, Serbians, and Bulgarians and of

the

deadly

threat

this

ideology

posed

to the survival of his own

group.

Indeed,

Batzaria's

nationality

as a Vlah

was central to

his

personality

and

political

views

and deserves some

attention.

The

Vlahs believed that

the

nationalist

claims of

the

Greeks,

Bulgarians,

and

Serbians

over

Macedonia,

which was

still

under

Ottoman

rule,

if

fulfilled,

could

result in

their

assimilation into

whatever

group

achieved

political

supremacy.

Few

people thought

about

establishing

an

inde-

pendent

and a

truly

multinational

Macedonia

where

each ethnic

group

would

retain its

identity

as it had

during

the

past

five

centuries

under

Ottoman

rule.

The

Vlahs,

an

Orthodox Christian

group,

lived

for

centuries

in

the

Balkans

dispersed

among

the

larger linguistic

groups,

such

as

Turks,

Greeks,

Serbians,

Albanians,

and

Bulgarians.

The

Ottoman

government

had

offered the Vlahs

in

certain

areas

of

the

Balkans

special

recognition

and

privileges.

Indeed,

as

early

I

Aydemir,

Enver

Papa,

vol.

I,

p.

524.



8/9/2019 Young Turk

14/25

288

Kemal

H.

Karpat

as

the

fifteenth

century

the Sultans

had

issued various

decrees

granting

the

Vlahs,

specifically by

referring

to them

by

their

collective

name,

a

variety

of

rights and privileges which assured their survival as a group. At the turn of the

twentieth

century

there were

in the Balkans

approximately

500,000

Vlahs

or

Aromunes,

most

of

whom lived in Macedonia.

But,

unable

to constitute a

majority

in a

single region,

the

Vlahs could

not

claim

political

autonomy

as

a

group

and

least of

all

independence.

On the other

hand,

the

Bulgarians,

Serbians,

and Greeks refused to

accept

the

Vlahs

as

a different ethnic

group

and

strived

continuously

to

assimilate them. The Vlahs

consequently

looked

upon

the

Ottoman

government

as

the sole

power

that could assure

their

group

survival.

The

Young

Turks,

notably

Enver

and

Talat

Pa?as

who

were well

aware

of this situation, tried to cultivate the Vlahs' friendship. They elected one Vlah,

F.

Mi?a,

to

the Ottoman Chamber of

Deputies

and

appointed

another

one,

Batzaria,

to

the

Senate.

It is

interesting

to note

that

the

Young

Turks

were

genuine

in their

desire

to consider

the

Romanian-speaking

Vlahs

a

distinct

national

group.

For instance

their

committee,

established in

Monastir

(Bitola),

in

a

declaration

given

to the

representatives

of the

foreign powers

in

May

I908,

referred also

to

the Ulah

(Turkish

term for

Vlahs) along

with other

ethnic

groups

as

one

of the nationalities

that suffered under

the

despotism

of

Abdiil-

hamid II and strived for

recognition

under

freedom and

constitutionalism.

(Today the official Greek statistics list the Vlah-speaking population in that part

of Macedonia

incorporated

in

Greece

as

barely

40,000

souls,

while the

Yugoslav

statistics,

avoiding

the term

'Vlah',

show

the Romanian

population

on

their

land

as

consisting only

of

60,ooo

souls

in

I96I;

the

reference concerns

probably

the Romanians

in

Vojvodina,

the

province

north of the

Danube,

since

the

Yugoslavs,

like the

Bulgarians,

have

ignored

the

Vlahs.)I

One

can

safely

assume that Batzaria

was

brought

into the Union and

Pro-

gress Society

because

in

I907-8

the Union and

Progress

leaders

decided

to

achieve

an

understanding

for

peaceful

coexistence with

all

the

nationalities

in

the

Balkans

and thus to form

a

united front

to

press

the

Sultan to

restore

the

constitution

of

I876, suspended

by

him

in

1878.

This

was a

liberal

policy

which

held

a

special appeal

for

the

Romanian-speaking

minorities.

The Vlahs

were

the

first

to

cooperate

in

this

enterprise.

It

is

certain, however,

that

the other

major

Christian

groups

in

the

Balkans

did not believe

genuinely

in

transforming

the

I

A

good many

Aromunes

(Vlahs)

from

Macedonia

migrated

to

Romania in

the

I920S

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

I940,

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.



8/9/2019 Young Turk

15/25

The memoirs

of

N. Batzaria: The

Young

Turks and

nationalism

289

Ottoman

Empire

into a constitutional state since their own

political

and

terri-

torial

aspirations

were based on the

premise

that

Turkey

was

condemned to

death. The 'Christian peoples transformed the embattled Macedonia into a vast

association

of

conspirators

and

revolutionaries',

but none of

them

thought

that

similar

associations on

the

part

of the

Turks and

Muslims

were

possible.'

The

end of

Turkey according

to Batzaria meant also the end of the Turks

themselves,

since

many

Christian

leaders

of

Macedonia,

inspired by

their

peers

in

Serbia,

Bulgaria,

and

Greece,

regarded

the

individual Turks as

interlopers

and con-

sidered their

extermination

almost a national

duty.2

Batzaria

believed that

when-

ever

Christians

cooperated

with Muslims and Turks in the framework of

the

Union

and

Progress Society

and later with its

government they

did

so

with the

hope

that such

cooperation

would hasten the downfall of

the Ottoman

state

and

fulfill more

rapidly

their

own

nationalist

aspirations.

Liberalism was a device

used

by

each ethnic

group

merely

to

further its

own

political

ambitions,

although

Batzaria

believed,

paradoxically,

that if the

Young

Turks had

remained

genuinely

faithful to

their

original

liberal ideas

they might

have

succeeded

in

holding

the

state

together.

Nationalism

prevailed

over

race,

ethnic

origin,

linguistic

affiliation,

and

religious

identity.

National identification

with a

specific

ethnic

group

in

fact was

forced

upon

individuals

by

a

handful of men

who

had

decided

to

claim

a

par-

ticular

nationality

for

themselves,

often

following

changing

circumstances rather

than conviction.

'Thus,

it was not rare to see in Macedonia a father who would

call himself

a

Greek without

actually

being

one

or even without

knowing

one

Greek

word,

while one of

his sons

would become

a

fanatical

Bulgarian,

and

the

other son would

turn into

a

killer of

Bulgarians.'3

The

difficulty

in

deciding

one's

national

identity

stemmed from

the

fact that the

overwhelming majority

of

the

Christians

in

Macedonia

belonged

to the

Christian Orthodox

Church,

and their

ethnic identities

had become blurred

by

their

allegiance

at

one

time

or another

to the

religious authority

of the

Ecumenical Patriarchate

in

Istanbul. The

I

Din lumea, p. 9.

2

G.

Rakovski's

massive

correspondence

includes

extremely

illuminating passages

about

the manner

in which the

Balkan nationalists

in the

nineteenth

century

planned

to

dispose

of

Turks.

See Veselin

Traikov,

Rakovsky y

Balkanskte Naroda

(Rakovsky

and

the

Balkan

Peoples)

(Sofia, I97I),

pp.

403-74.

3

In inchisorile

urcefti,

p. 13.

A

strong

support

for Batzaria's

views

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

propa-

gandists

use,

so to

speak,

missionary enterprises

that,

by

means

of

schools

and

churches,

try to convert people to the Bulgarian or Serbian faith' (Turkeyin Europe[London,

900o],

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,

see N.

Velev,

'Krastjo

Petkov Misirkov:

Une

vie

pleine

d'incoherence',

Etudes

Historiques

(Sofia),

vol.

vi,

pp.

377-400.

MES

6

3

9



8/9/2019 Young Turk

16/25

290

Kemal H.

Karpat

Macedonian Christians continued to show

allegiance

to

the Patriarchate even

in

the

early

I9oos

despite

the efforts made

by

the

Bulgarian

and

Serbian

national

churches to expand their own religious influence and induce their Macedonian

conationals to

develop political

allegiance

to

their

own

national state.

Amid

these

circumstances the Vlahs

appeared

as a

historical

and

political

contradiction,

if

not

anomaly,

to

the

Bulgarians,

Greeks, Serbians,

Montenegrins,

who,

striving

to

create for themselves

a

particularist

and exclusive

political

and

national

identity,

had

no tolerance

for

the

Vlahs'

similar

goals. Obviously

the Vlahs'

claim

to coexistence as

a

distinct national

group

was

undermining

their

own

arguments

for

a

unitary

national state

and

aggravated

further

the

inner

conflict

between

religious,

national,

ethnic,

and

imperial

identities,

which at that

time

convulsed

practically all individuals in the Ottoman state. The identity crisis is well

described,

though implicitly, by

Batzaria.

He

writes,

We who

were born

in

that mosaic of races

and

religions

n

the Turkish

empire,

which

extended over three

old

continents,

were

officially

not

'Turkish

subjects'

but'Ottoman

subjects'.

No

document

or officialact

mentioned the name of

'Turk',

but

exclusively

that of

'Ottoman'

or

'Osmanli'.

The Ottomans

or

the Osmanlis ncluded all

subjects

of

the

Empire

founded

by

Osman. The

Turks were a

part

of the Ottomans.

To

be an

Ottoman

did

not

mean in

the

least to

be

a

Turk.

Thus,

the

fact

that

non-Turkish

Ottomans

entered

public

service,

the

Parliament,

or the

Cabinet

did not

imply

that

they

were turcisized....

Thus,

when

the

Grand

Vizir asked

me in a

Cabinet

meeting

[in

1913],

'What does your [Romanian]king think of or what does your governmentdo

about the Balkan

war',

he

was

not

joking,

and

least

of

all

was he

trying

to offend

me.

Ethnically,

he

regarded

me

as

being

a

Romanian,

a former member

of the

body

of

Romanian

educators

[in

the

Ottoman

state]

and

accepted

as

natural the

sentimental

ties

which could

exist between

me and

the

Romanians

n Romania.'

The rise

of nationalism

under the

leadership

of the Christian

merchant

and

agrarian,

and later

intellectual, elites,

besides

causing

an

acute crisis of

identity,

threatened

to

end the

peaceful

coexistence

and relative

equality among

social

classes,

ethnic,

national,

and

religious groups.

Batzaria

thought

that

'the

Turks,

a

people

who do

not have

an

aristocracy,

either created or

by birth,

have

demo-

cracy

in

their

blood,

which

is evident

in

the

way they

behave toward

someone

of lower social

rank.

It

is

not

rare to

see an

important

pasa talking

in a

friendly

manner

to

the lowest

peasant

and

telling

each other

their

problems,

as

it is not

rare

to

see

families

in

which

the

servants sit at the

same table with their

masters.

It

was the

same

among

the

peoples

who lived

under the Turk's rule.

There

was

not

equality

in

laws,

but

there

was

an

absolute

equality

in

everyday

life.'2

The

Young

Turk revolt of

I908

hastened the

development

of all these

tendencies

and

brought

the

nationality

conflict

to

a

climax.

I

Din

lumea,

p. 284.

2

In inchisorile

urcefti,

p.

132.



8/9/2019 Young Turk

17/25

The memoirs

of

N.

Batzaria: The

Young


29I

THE

YOUNG

TURK ASSOCIATIONS

AND

THE

REVOLUTION

OF

1908

The truly meaningful Young Turk revolutionary activities and the revolt of

1908,

according

to

Batzaria,

was

exclusively

the

work

of

the

Union

and

Progress

Society

established

in Salonica

and Monastir.

He claims

that the

Young

Turk

organizations

abroad

had been infiltrated

by

the

Sultan's

agents,

some

of

their

leaders

bought

off,

and

thus had

become

ineffective

and

mistrusted

by people

living

within the

Ottoman

state. This

is an

important point.

I

believe, too,

that,

aside

from

certain talks

held

between

a

representative

of the

Young

Turks

living

abroad

and the

Union

and

Progress

members in

Salonica,

there

is

not

yet

truly

convincing

evidence

that the two collaborated

in

any

meaningful

fashion.

It

must

be

mentioned

that

the

Salonica

association

was

established

in

1906

as

Osmanl

Hiirriyet Cemiyeti

(Ottoman

Freedom

Society)

and

only

later

changed

its

name

first,

by

error,

to

Progress

and

Union

and

then to Union

and

Progress

after

the contact

mentioned above

occurred.

I

Thus,

in

principle,

one must

regard

the

revolt of

I908

solely

as

the

work

of the Salonica and Monastir

organizations

and

consider

the

Young

Turk

associations

abroad

only

superficially

related

to

it.

The Union

and

Progress

organization according

to Batzaria was

established

by

civilians and

Turkish-Muslim

army

officers

and

intellectuals first in Salonica

and then

in

Monastir

and had two

major goals:2

first,

to

establish

contact

with

associations

and

individuals

and

recruit followers

in

the Ottoman cities and

abroad

and,

second,

to

organize

in the

countryside guerrilla

bands which in

addition

to

military

duties would

be used to

propagate

the revolutionaries' ideas

among villagers.

These

guerrilla

bands were

to

serve also

as

hiding

places

for

the

organization

members

sought

by

the Sultan's

police.

Enver was

charged

with

the

organization

of these bands.

Batzaria believed that

Enver,

who was

close

to

Hiiseyin

Hilmi

Papa,

Inspector

General of

Macedonia,

gained

access

to

secret

information

from

Istan

Documents

Young Turk