We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 09 March 2016
In many areas of Middle East studies, revolutions—from the 8th century Abbasid to the 20th century Egyptian cases—have been treated as multidimensional phenomena, filled with actors impelled by varying, often conflicting interests and motives. Scholarship has come to perceive these revolutions as products of commingled political, intellectual, social and economic forces, and each event as the unique creation of a particular blend of the various elements. The nature of this mix, in turn, has been seen to determine the subsequent post-revolutionary behavior of the various groups in society. Yet when we focus on the case of the so-called Young Turk “Revolution” of 1908, we find that most studies have been strikingly unilinear in their analyses. The limited approach has colored our view, both of the Revolution and of subsequent events. My purpose here is to examine the historiography of the Young Turk Revolution and then to offer some possible alternative interpretations.
1 A non-exhaustive listing of works, which present the widely accepted view, includes the following: Ahmad, Feroz, The Young Turks: The Committee of Union and Progress in Turkish Politics, 1908–1914 (Oxford, 1969)Google Scholar; Bayur, Yusuf Hikmet, Türk Inkilâp Tarihi, 3 vols. (Ankara, 1940-1943)Google Scholar; Ismail Hami Danişmend. Izahli Osmanli Tarihi Kronolojisi, IV, reprint (Istanbul, 1972); Enver Ziya Karal, Osmanli Tarihi, VIII: birinoi meṣrutiyet ve istibdat devirleri, 1876–1907 (Ankara, 1962); Kuran, Ahmed Bedevi, Inkilâp Tarihimiz ve Jön Tückler (Istanbul, 1945)Google Scholar; and Osmanli Imperatorluğunda ve Türkiye Cumhuriyetinde inkilâp hareketleri (Istanbul, 1959); Ramsaur, Ernest Edmondson Jr., The loung Turks: Prelude to the Revolution of 1908, reprint (Beirut, 1965)Google Scholar; and Unat, Faik R., Ikinci Meṣrutiyetinin ilâni ve Otuzbir Mart Hâdisesi (Ankara, 1960)Google Scholar. Ahmet Niyazi, Hâti-rat-i Niyazi (Istanbul, A.H. 1326) is a typical contemporary account of the Revolution by the participating officers.
2 Ömer S. Cosar, hazirlayan, Atatürk Ansiklopedisi, I (Istanbul, 1973), pp. 297, 356, 378–379, 396–397, 419 and 422–425.
3 Ramsaur, pp. 130–131. Stanford J. Shaw and Ezel K. Shaw, History of the Ottoman Empire and Modern Turkey: Vol. II, Reform, Revolution, and Republic. The Rise of Modern Turkey, 1808–1975 (Cambridge, 1977), p. 266, discuss the Revolution as a series of revolts that broke out “because of financial rather than ideological reasons.”
4 The seminal study in this group is by Hüseyin A. Şanda, 1908 ‘de ecnebi sermayesine karşi ilk kalkinmalar (Istanbul, 1935), reprinted under the title, Türkiye ‘de 54 yil önceki işçqi hareketleri (Istanbul, 1962). By the same author, see also: Bir yarim müstemlikle oluş tarihi (Istanbul, 1932). Other works in this category include: Behice Boran, Türkiye ve Sosyalizm Sorunlari (Istanbul, 1970); Kurthan Figek, Türkiye de kapitalizmin gelişjnesi ve işçi sinifz (Ankara, 1969); Aclan Sayilgan, Türkiye ‘de sol hareketler (1871–1972), second printing (Istanbul, 1972); and three works by Kemal Sülker: Türkiye ‘de Sendikacilik; Türkiye ‘de işçi hareketleri, second printing; and Sendikacilar ve politika (Istanbul, 1955, 1973, 1974). Orhan Tuna, “Türk Sendikaciliğinin boşlica meseleleri ve son gelişmeler,” Istanbul Üniversitesi, Iktisat Fakültesi Mecmuasi, 24 (Nisan-Eylûl, 1965), pp. 3–28, is a scholarly study, but concerned with the development of the labor movement and not with the Revolution. Oya Sencer, Türkiye ‘de işçi sinifi (Istanbul, 1969) is a well-documented study of labor unrest and organization during the 19th and 20th centuries into the period of the Turkish Republic. While offering richer detail than most works, this study is more chronological than analytic. It discusses labor formations, but does not relate organizing activities or worker unrest to the economic crisis of the pre-revolutionary period.
5 Mete Tunçay, Türkiye ‘de sol akimlar (1908–1925), second printing (Istanbul, 1967); Stefan Velikov, “Sur le mouvement ouvrier et socialiste en Turquie après la révolution jeune-turque en 1908,” Études Balkaniques, 1964, Nr. 1, pp/29–48; and by the same author: “Georges Dimitrov et quelques questions du mouvement ouvrier en Turquie,” ibid, 1972, Nr. 1, pp. 115–122. Recent studies by Paul Dumont, “Une organisation socialiste ottomane: la fédération ouvrière de Salonique (1908–1912),” Études Balkaniques, 1975, Nr. 1, pp. 76–87; and “À propos de la ‘classe ouvrière’ ottomane à la veille de la révolution jeune-turque,” unpublished paper graciously provided the present author and later published in Turcica, 1977, Nr. 1, pp. 229–251, add considerably to our knowledge of workers in the period of the Revolution.
6 Hess, Andrew C., “Consensus or Conflict: The Dilemma of Islamic Historians,” The American Historical Review, 81:788–799 (October, 1976).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7 “The Economic Climate of the Young Turk ‘Revolution’ of 1908,” paper presented to the annual meeting of the Middle East Studies Association, at Ann Arbor, Michigan, November 1978.
