Reval to Konstantiniyye: Foreign Causes of the 1908 Young Turks Revolution

4 janv.

April 2024, Article by Emin Özdemir

Introduction

The early 20th century was characterized by political turbulence that spread from China to Portugal. Many countries experienced revolutions that shook their political order at the core. However, these revolutions also shared a common fate of being usually overshadowed by the sheer historical weight of the Great War. This paper will explain one of these Belle Époque revolutions: The Young Turks Revolution of 1908. This revolution is of remarkable importance to understanding the modern Middle East. On top of being a fundamental milestone of Turkish modernization, the subsequent decade from 1908 to 1918 also dramatically influenced the future of post-Ottoman people.

Due to the sheer amount of histographical debate and the complexity of any revolution, within this paper, I will only focus on the foreign events that influenced and perhaps instigated the 1908 revolution. First, I will present a (very) brief historical account of Ottoman modernization and politics up to 1908, then investigate some of the external occurrences that influenced the revolution before concluding with a discussion on the extent of the influence of such factors.

Background

One of the most common historiographical interpretations of Ottoman history following the Treaty of Karlowitz (1699) is that of a decline. The days of uncontested supremacy were no longer, even though it would take another century before the empire became “the sick man of Europe”, it was clear that it no longer had the might it used to have. Hence, even since the 18th century, the Ottoman Empire has been marked by another process as well: modernization.

The initial modernization attempts began as far back as the 18th century. However, these efforts were mostly limited to military or educational spheres, with one of the most memorable legacies being the opening of a military engineering school. Yet, the continuous stagnation of the empire, in a time of rapid development in Europe, necessitated further, and more comprehensive, reforms.

These started with the reign of Mahmud II and accelerated well into the legal-political sphere during Abdülmecid’s reign (1839-1861) with the Tanzimat of 1839 and the Islıhat of 1856. By the end of Abdülmecid’s reign, the empire was remarkably different from what it was at the beginning of the century. Janissaries -the old military elite that blocked previous reform attempts- were gone, the dress code for officials was westernized (also the famous fez introduced), the Sultan’s powers were limited, fundamental rights guaranteed, and legal equality of Muslims and Christians were decreed (Zürcher, 1993/2020).

In the aftermath of these reforms, groups of intellectuals and bureaucrats, most notably the Young Ottomans (Genç Osmanlılar), began campaigning for further democratization of the empire and promulgation of a constitution. Although fiercely resisted by both Tanzimat bureaucrats and the sultan, the Young Ottomans were finally able to achieve their goal of constitutional rule during the short-lived interval from the coup of 1876 to Abdulhamid II’s dissolution of parliament, a period dubbed the First Constitutional Era.

After dissolving the parliament in 1878 with the excuse of the ongoing Russo-Turkish, Sultan Abdulhamid II established what is commonly viewed as an absolutist regime with heavy censorship, repression against political opposition, and increased role of the Sultan in the affairs of the state. Yet, this period, named İstibdat (tyranny) by opponents of the Sultan, also entailed increased access to state education (especially for girls), the growing influence of the central government in provinces through the use of railways, and a shift towards pan-Islamist politics, before coming to an abrupt end in 1908.

External Factors and the Revolution

In this portion of the paper I will analyze three important external factors that contributed or, according to some, directly caused the 1908 Revolution. These factors are contemporary constitutionalist experiences, Balkan politics at the turn of the 19th century, and the Anglo-Russian Reval Meeting.

In the years before the Revolution of 1908, external constitutionalist experiences energized the Ottoman revolutionary émigré circles organized around the Committee of Union and Progress (İttihad ve Terakki Cemiyeti, CUP). Two key events were the Russian Revolution of 1905 and the Persian Constitutional Revolution of 1905-1907, both leading to victories for the constitutionalist revolutionaries over absolutist regimes. The revolutions in Persia, a country regarded as more backward than the Ottoman Empire (Zürcher, 1993/2020) by the Ottoman elite, and Russia, famous for its ruthless secret police Okhrana, led to an increased belief in the necessity and possibility of a revolution among the educated elite (Kansu, 1997/2017).

Moreover, the rise of Japan as a modernized constitutional state following the Meiji Restoration and the Japanese victory over Russia in the War of 1905 made it a role model among CUP members and the wider opposition (Zürcher, 1993/2020). Serving as models of “resurgence” against Western powers, these examples were used in CUP’s propaganda campaigns to instigate a revolution. Notably, one of the illegal political pamphlets distributed in Istanbul during 1907 was on the experiences of constitutionalism in Russia, Persia, and Japan, calling for the people to learn lessons from examples of these countries (Les musulmans contre Hamid, 1907). Hence, contemporary constitutionalist experiences were important external inspirations for the revolution and the revolutionary cadres.

Another international factor contributing to the Revolution of 1908 was the so-called Macedonian Question on the partition of this Balkan region. Although having its origins in the decline of the Ottoman influence and the rise of nationalism, topics well beyond our scope, the Macedonian Question becomes relevant for the revolution after the signing of the Mürzsteg Agreement, forcing Ottomans to grant autonomy to the region along with the inflow of European officials to supervise the regional administration (Zürcher, 1993/2020). This was followed by the granting of the region’s financial control to the Europeans in 1905 (Armaoğlu, 2017). Both of these developments increased the CUP activity in the area by increasing the popular resentment against the compliance of the Sultan and due to the relaxed legal enforcement of the repressive laws against political opposition by the new governor, Huseyin Hilmi Pasha, as a result of increased local autonomy. Thus, Macedonia is a prime illustration whereby international intervention in the Ottoman Macadenia aided the revolutionary cause.

Austro-Hungarian expansionism in Macedonia also helped spur the Revolution of 1908. As a result of increased Austrian activity around the region, Albanians began to form armed gangs to resist possible Austrian encroachments (Birecikli, 2008). A considerable part of these gangs supported revolutionary army mutiny once it began, making the revolution harder to suppress when it eventually got off the ground. Austrian influence also motivated many villagers to support the revolution as the rumor spread that rural lands were going to be confiscated from villagers and given to Austrians to construct a railroad line in the region (Kansu, 1997/2017) as had happened previously with the Germans and the Berlin-Baghdat railway. These events provided the revolutionaries with military and civil assistance that proved critical for the rapid development of the revolution in the region, forcing the Sultan to give in to a fait accompli. Indeed, the first action of Niyazi Bey, the commander who initiated the revolt, was to move his troops to Albanian regions looking for local support. Furthermore, it is also important to note that his unit included as many civilians as soldiers at the start of the revolt (Kansu, 1997/2017), suggesting the role of Albanian and local resentments as well as underlining the role of fears emanating from Austrian expansionism.

Most importantly, the Reval Meeting of 1908 between British King Edward VII and Russian Tsar Nicholas II in today’s city of Tallinn was a pivotal event for the revolutionaries as well as the revolution itself. Although the only written record from the meeting, a report to the British Foreign Minister Sir Edward Grey, merely stated that the two parties reached a “total agreement” on the reforms that ought to be implemented in Macedonia (Grey, 1927), this meeting was seen as an existential threat to the Ottoman Empire by the CUP members and sympathizers who propagandized the event to the larger public claiming that the British and Russians had decided to carve up the Ottoman Empire (Alkal, 2008).

The participation of Britain in the meeting was especially critical in the fear it generated as the British Empire previously played an essential role in preventing the total collapse of the Ottoman Empire and had intervened on the side of Ottomans against Russia during both the Crimean War and the Russo-Turkish War of 1877-1878.

Reval Meeting was also accounted for in the memoirs of the leading figures of the revolution, including Enver and the previously mentioned Niyazi Beys (Alkal, 2008). Niyazi Bey went so far as to describe the cause of his revolt as “the inactivity of the government against foreign initiatives at Reval” (Niyazi, 1910). The CUP Central Committee in Paris was also quick to protest the meeting results and ordered the regional branch in Thessaloniki, one of the most important bases of the revolution, to reach out to locals in denunciation of the Sultan. Revolutionaries accused Sultan Abdulhamid II and his ministers of incompetency and complicity in the partition of the empire. Believing that further inactivity would bring the end of the empire and that they had a perfect opportunity for revolt, as people were frustrated about the Sultan’s inaction, the CUP spurred into action. Niyazi Bey, followed by various elements of the Ottoman 2nd and 3rd armies, revolted against the absolutist regime, quickly gaining control of Macedonian provinces and forcing the sultan to reinstitute the constitution of 1876.

As can be understood from the memoirs of the revolutionaries and the reaction of the CUP central committee, the Reval Meeting can be interpreted as the most direct cause of the Revolution of 1908. However, it is wise to be skeptical of the revolutionaries' own memoirs as they might be trying to retroactively portray their revolt as an act of patriotism in defense of the empire’s territorial integrity. Pragmatically, the meeting provided revolutionaries with the perfect opportunity to gain support among the people and non-CUP elements of the military by accusing the government of inaction against an existential threat while having behind them the winds of patriotic zeal. Regardless of the motives, the close timing of the two events and the revolutionaries' actions suggest close causation between the two, whether it be out of a genuine concern for the territorial integrity of the empire or out of opportunism when public criticism of the Sultan was mounting. Therefore, one can argue that the Reval Meeting and its domestic reflections were a sparking point for the revolution.

Discussion and Limitations

While it is important to acknowledge the role of international events in the Revolution of 1908, many other factors remain contributing to the revolution, some of which started long before the Reval Meeting was convened. One of these is the tax revolts of 1906-1907 across Anatolian cities like Kastamonu, Van, and Erzurum against newly introduced taxes and high inflation. The revolts paralyzed the administration and became not only concrete proofs of the regime's unpopularity but were also fertile grounds for the CUP agitation, which moved to turn the focus of the events from local concerns to political ones, especially in Erzurum (Kansu, 1997/2017).

Moreover, another contributing factor was the increased frustration with the absolutist status quo and the agents of the sultan. Infamous regional figures appointed solely for their loyalty, such as Ibrahim Pasha in Diyarbakır (Basmadjian, 1908) and Vehab Pasha in Erzurum (Ulusakul, 1937), were sources of agitation against the regime due to their incompetency. Without the administrative paralyzation caused by the revolts of 1906-1907, the unpopularity of the regime across the empire, and the activities of the CUP to coordinate these protests, Niyazi Bey’s revolt that sparked the Revolution of 1908 might well have ended up as a separate incident of mutiny suppressed by the regime. Popular unrest across the empire and the CUP’s coordination of these distant and separate protests prevented the revolution from being suppressed as an isolated soldiers’ mutiny in Macedonia that lacked support from the rest of the empire.

Lastly, the unrest within the army over prolonged service time, lack of supplies and payment (Macfie, 2003), and conflicts between the traditionally educated (Alaylı) and academically educated (Mektepli) elements of the officer corps all fueled day-to-day discontent within the ranks of the army, making the revolutionary messages more easily resonate with the regular soldiers as well mid-to-low ranking officers. The existence of resentment within the army helped prolongue and enhance the tax revolts as the army refused to suppress them on many occasions, while also aiding the CUP’s infiltration and organization of the army. The extent of CUP's influence and sympathies within the army would later be crucial in not only 1908 but also during a counter-revolutionary episode in 1909 as well as later in ensuring the hold of CUP over the government. Although a mere counterfactual, it is hard to underestimate the influence of military support on the success of the CUP. Perhaps without it, the revolutionary cadres would be left with only a handful of intellectuals and a few radical army officers unable to take off the ground or consolidate their regime later on.

Conclusion

To conclude, among many factors contributing to the Revolution of 1908, the reflections of the events on the international scene, like contemporary constitutional experiences, the Macedonian Question, and the Anglo-Russian relations vis-a-vis the Ottoman Empire played a crucial role as they increased popular resentment against the regime and helped revolutionary demands and inspiration spread. Most prominently, the Reval Meeting can even be argued as the immediate cause of the Revolution of 1908.

However, international events should not overshadow the long list of both immediate and structural factors, such as the tax revolts, increased popular and intellectual resentment against the Istibdat, and grievances of the army, as all of these factors were interconnected and had vital contributions to the revolution. As such, one can conclude that despite playing an important role in the Revolution of 1908, international events were neither the sole underlying reason nor the only decisive factor for the revolution, but their contribution, especially in the short-term and as an initial trigger, should not be ignored.

Bibliography :

Alkal, N. (2008). 1908 Jön Türk İhtilalinin Başlamasında Reval Buluşmasının Önemi. Toplumsal Tarih, 48-52.

Armaoğlu, F. (2017). 19. Yüzyıl Siyasi Tarihi. Istanbul: Timaş Yayınları.
Basmadjian, K. (1908). Le mouvement révolutionnaire en Asie Mineure. Revue du Monde

Musulman, 819-825.
Birecikli, İ. B. (2008). Yüzüncü Yılında II. Meşrutiyet’in İlanı Üzerine Bir İnceleme.

Akademik Bakış, 211-226.

Grey, E. (1927). Mémoires de Edward Grey. Paris: Payot.

Kansu, A. (1997/2017). 1908 Devrimi. Istanbul: Iletişim Yayınları.

Les musulmans contre Hamid. (1907, July 20). Pro Armenia, pp. 1125-1126. Macfie, A. (2003). Osmanlı’nın Son Yılları 1908-1923. Istanbul: Kitap yayını.

Niyazi, R. A. (1910). Hâtırât-ı Niyâzî Yahûd Târihçe-i İnkılâb-ı Kebir-i Osmâniden Bir Sahife. Istanbul: Sabah Matbaası.

Ulusakul, N. (1937). İstibdad Aleyhinde Türk Ulusunun İlk Hareketi Erzurum İhtilali . Ankara: Ankara Basımevi.

Zürcher, E. J. (1993/2020). Modernleşen Türkiye'nin Tarihi. Istanbul: İletişim Yayınları.

Lucas Desgardin