Download - 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).
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/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.
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/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
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.
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/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
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.
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/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
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.
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/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
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
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/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
9/25
The memoirs
of
N.
Batzaria: The
Young
Turks and nationalism
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.
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/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
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.
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/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
11/25
The memoirs
of
N.
Batzaria: The
Young
Turks and nationalism
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).
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/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
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
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/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
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.
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/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
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.
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/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
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
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/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
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.
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/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
17/25
The memoirs
of
N.
Batzaria: The
Young
Turks and nationalism
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