This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Turkish nationalism in the 1930s is an important episode in Turkish history, whose legacy seems to have imprinted itself on modern Turkey. During that decade, which witnessed the rise of nationalism in the European continent, but especially in Eastern Europe,1 the idea that the Turks were a glorious nation rose to prominence in Turkey. ‘Turkish History Thesis’ and ‘Sun Language Theory’ emerged in a series of ofﬁcial conferences and publications, emphasizing the role of race in deﬁning the nation. While there are many excellent earlier studies of Turkish nationalism,2 works on nationalism in the 1930s are few and only recent.3 This article aims to contribute to our knowledge of the 1930s by analysing the interaction between Turkish nationalism and race in this decade. It examines the extent to which race shaped nationalism throughout the period. As late as the 1920s, Turkishness had been mostly deﬁned independently of race. At that time Turkey was busy trying to recover from the devastating destruction of a decade of wars, spanning the Balkan Wars of 1912–13 and the Turco-Greek War of 1920–22. At that time, millions of Turkish and nonTurkish Muslim immigrants, expelled to Anatolia and Thrace from Europe and the Black Sea basin since the eighteenth century, banded with the Anatolian Turks and Muslims. These defended Turkey, a land that they saw as their home.4 In 1922, Turkey was liberated, and in 1923, a republic was established. An important demographic change at the time had been the death and emigration of most Anatolian Christians over the previous decade. (As late as 1912, Christians made up 20 per cent of Turkey’s population; in 1927, they were merely over 2 per cent).5 Yet, even then, Turkey still had a heterogeneous population. This included Turks, Jews and Christians, but also diverse non-Turkish Muslim groups such as Kurds, Arabs, Lazes, Muslim Georgians, Greek-speaking Muslims, Albanians, Macedonian Muslims, Pomaks, Serb Muslims, Bosnians, Tartars, Circassians, Abkhazes, and
Middle Eastern Studies, Vol.40, No.3, May 2004, pp.86 – 101 ISSN 0026-3206 print/1743-7881 online DOI: 10.1080/0026320042000213474 # 2004 Taylor & Francis Ltd.
had been instructed by Atatu ¨rk to produce works on Turkish history. Ankara looked the other way. The Society was responsible for disseminating Turkish national history ‘to its real owners. are Turks as regards citizenship. Ankara employed it as a vehicle to co-opt them and. far from using race to alienate the Jews and the non-Turkish Muslims. and his adopted daughter. I will ﬁrst examine the ascent of the notion of race under Turkish nationalism in the 1930s.6 The 1924 Constitution of the republic aimed to address this diversity: ‘The People of Turkey.10 Yet.13 This was a survey of Turkish history by Turkish scholars. regardless of religion and race. the rise of the notion of race ushered in questions: how would this phenomenon affect the practices of the state vis-a ` -vis the minorities. The ‘Turkish History Thesis’.11 On the other hand. Its ﬁrst major study. the Turkish Hearths’ Committee for the Study of Turkish History (Tu ¨rk Ocakları Tu ¨ rk Tarihi Tetkik Heyeti – TOTTTH) had nurtured the thesis. comprised of ethnic Turks and others? Moreover. It used legal measures to make their life difﬁcult. unexpectedly even the Christians.8 The government expected that non-Turkish Muslims would be assimilated. which marked the ascent of race under Turkish nationalism. when Christians left the country. as in the case of the Armenian exodus of 1929–30. Would Ankara create a two-tier society. Tu ¨ rk Tarihinin Ana Hatları (General Themes of Turkish History). Atatu ¨ rk dictated a ˙nan) (1908–85). it treated Kurdish resistance with considerable force. Then I will scrutinize the affairs between Ankara and the Jews (and Muslim minorities) in this era.’7 Ankara wished to consolidate as many of the country’s minorities as possible into the Turkish nation. I will conclude that.12 Thus. established on 28 April 1930. would the desire to assimilate the Jews and the non-Turkish Muslims vanish? In answering these questions. the TOTTTH was reorganized as the Society for the Study of Turkish History (Tu ¨ rk Tarihini Tetkik Cemiyeti – TTTC). emerged in 1930–31. a prominent programme for the new organization to Afet (I member of the organization. With this. too. Once these communities renounced their ageold privileges in 1925. For instance. to study the role of race therein. Ankara shared the legacy of a decade of hostility with them. among others.9 As for the Jews. Initially. in the 1930s. into the Turkish nation. I will take one aspect of this relationship. In 1931. The committee.TURKISH NATIONALISM IN 1930s 87 Daghestanis. a 606-page book titled. the ‘Citizen Speak Turkish’ campaign. the . was published in 1930. Inasmuch as race became a primary marker of Turkishness in the 1930s. Ankara hoped for their assimilation. Here. this did not prevent Ankara from attempting to assimilate various minorities. the government resorted to various methods to alienate them. the attitude was much different towards Greek and Armenian Christians.
and a Bulgarian citizen. who was described as a ‘revolutionary intellectual enthusiastic for change’. In this regard. They went to China in the east. professor at the Istanbul Daru ¨ nun (University). and Greeks.20 Afet I 21 a bracycephalic people. to India in the south. Dr Res ¸it Galip (1897–1934). The TDTC would launch a comparative study of these languages to show that ‘the Turkish language was the most inﬂuential factor in the development and progress of all the world languages’. Mesopotamia. the Turks were the ancestors of all the bracycephalic peoples including the Indo-Europeans. it called for a conference in Ankara for 2–11 July 1932. The Main Themes of Turkish History. Persia. and Italy in the west.15 Then. they left their original home and moved in all directions to civilize the rest of the world. which contended that the Turks ˙nan detailed this further: the Turks were were a great and ancient race. the Turkish race had created civilizations in all the lands.16 A second responsibility of the TTTC was to ‘synthesize and build’ the study on. the contemporary Turks were the inheritors of the glories of ancient Sumerians. produced perhaps the most radical interpretation of Anatolian history. First. autochthonous inhabitants. At this congress. Egyptians. The organization would establish a committee. the delegates discussed ‘the history of Turkish civilization. among others. and Greece. where they had lived thousands of years ago.17 Then the organization produced a revised version of this work titled. to which the Turks had migrated. ˆ lfu Martayan. and most importantly. then the Turkish homeland. an Ottoman Armenian.23 Secondly.14 It would accomplish this ‘under the supervision and responsibility of the government authorities and the municipal governments’. the thesis added that all Anatolia’s inhabitants were Turks. since the Turks were its original. In addition. Tu ¨ rk Tarihinin Ana Hatlarına Methal (Introduction to the General Themes of Turkish History). Anatolia. Minister Galip. anthropological characteristics of the Turkish race. they were the owners of the earliest Hittite civilization in Anatolia.18 Next.88 MIDDLE EASTERN STUDIES Turkish people’. In Central Asia. had recently come to Turkey to write a book on the ‘common origins of the Turks and the .24 Finally. the Society for the Study of the Turkish Language (Tu ¨rk Dili Tetkik Cemiyeti – TDTC). Consequently. they had created a bright civilization around an inner sea. whose origins went back to central Asia. whose roots went back to Central Asia.19 They also conferred on the ‘Turkish History Thesis’. During 1932. Atatu ¨rk was convinced that Turkish and the Indo-European languages were related and that Turkish was the root of these languages. When this inner sea dried up due to climatic changes. the programme gave the TTTC a number of other responsibilities. Minister of Education. and Turkish language and literature’. which would conduct historical research on Turkish. to Egypt.22 This narrative had four implications.25 had a meeting with Agop Martayan (Dilac ¸ ar) (1895–1979).
33 Such emphasis made language-through-ethnicity and race the main markers of ˙nan. This was because during the 1920s. only those. other foundations of Turkishness Turkishness.D. the historians in the TTTC. For ˙nan had personal connections with Euge instance. including their most cherished possession. should ﬁrst of all and in every case. Atatu ¨ rk is known to have read a number of seminal works on race. the Turkish language had preserved their memories. where he wrote a Ph.29 On the other hand. . I ` ne Pittard (1867–1962). One. claims membership to Turkish culture and community. it would not be right to believe in this. This accent on race is striking. who spoke it. could claim Turkish racial descent.27 Then he added: ‘In expressing my conviction on this point I believe I have sufﬁciently indicated the logical line of conduct which the Armenians in Turkey should follow with regard to the performance of their duties as Turkish citizens. since their emigration from Central Asia. the Turks had ‘crossed with other races’. who regards himself as a member of the Turkish nation. they would be eligible for membership to the nation. the two were joined by a representative of the Istanbul Armenian daily. . seem to have been inspired by various West European scholars. cultural characteristics. as Pittard’s Les Races et l’histoire: Introduction Ethnologique a ´ galite ´ des races well as Joseph Arthur Comte de Gobineau’s Essai sur l’Ine humaines.that the Armenians have the same ethnical origins as the Turks’. there was now no mention of Islam as a component of Turkishness. Atatu ¨rk had pointed this out even before the congress: One of the signiﬁcant characteristics of the nation is language. and Alfred Cort Haddon’s Les Races humaines. the Swiss expert on racial studies. In this view.32 Since Turkish had conserved the characteristics of the nation. dissertation on the Turkish race. Jamanak (Time). According to Atatu ¨ rk and I were ‘unity in political existence and homeland.30 among others. as ˙nan and Atatu well as I ¨ rk. as well as historical and ethical afﬁnity’. Although. If. In this matter. speak Turkish.26 At this meeting. and everything else that made them a nation. staunch .TURKISH NATIONALISM IN 1930s 89 Armenians’. Turkish race and ethnicity united all the inhabitants of the country.31 The First Turkish History Congress ended with the afﬁrmation of the History Thesis. someone.’ The Minister’s persuasion about the common origins of the Turks and the Armenians was rooted in the ‘History Thesis’. In the 1930s. Only. who did much of the actual work behind the 28 Thesis.34 Consequently. he became his doctoral adviser in the Department of Anthropology at the University of Geneva. including ` l’histoire. Dr Galip told his Armenian counterparts that ‘anthropological comparisons and ancient historical data leave no room to doubt. who does not speak Turkish. the Turkish intellect.
(study. Kemalism took another important ideological step with the convening of the ﬁrst Turkish Language Congress in Istanbul. The ﬁrst signal of this came on 12 July 1932. on 26 September 1932.37 They used phonetic similarities to assert afﬁnity between Turkish and other languages. who constituted 97. ﬁrst by bridging the chasm between spoken and written Turkish. ‘the language being taught at present’ could hardly be called Turkish ‘since it is intelligible only to one-tenth of the entire population of the country’. and the Indo-European languages. both of Arabic origin. lay language. tetkik.39 Just as the History Congress had asserted that most major nations descended from the Turks. were dropped from the name of the organization. ﬁnally the renaissance under the Republican regime of the Turkish people and language respectively. Turkish had to be reformed based on the spoken language. investigation. First.35 Following the History Congress. Such arguments ranged from declaring that Turkish was an IndoEuropean language38 to claiming connections between Turkish. the TDTC became the . Secularism aimed to strip the Turkish Muslims of their predominant collective identity. research) and cemiyet (society). and then. Ahmet Yıldız argues that Muslims. the decline under the inﬂuence of foreign inﬂuence of foreign factors and elements and. this was an extension of the History Congress. This could be done. A US diplomatic correspondent noted: Both the History and Language congresses tended to prove the potency and historical signiﬁcance in ancient times. While ‘throughout the recent centuries’. The words. In view of this.41 To alleviate this. Dr Res ¸it Galip added that due to this gap. Next. At this point. Accordingly. the Language Congress argued that most major languages were of Turkish origin. MP Mehmet S ¸ eref (Aykut) (1874–1939) (Edirne) emphasized the need to revive Turkish to its splendour.5 per cent of the population at this time. Islam. the Language Congress unleashed an interest in language puriﬁcation. it had ﬂourished in the spoken. Turkish had ‘died out as a written language’. the participants emphasized the need to compare Turkish with other languages.90 MIDDLE EASTERN STUDIES Kemalism had pushed Islam to the margins of society. the participants focused on language puriﬁcation. a gap existed between written and spoken Turkish. For instance. In many respects. (research or investigation) and kurum (society). Sumerian. Kemalist secularism offered them ethnic Turkishness as an alternative identity. needed a new collective self.40 Now. when the TDTC puriﬁed its name. in favour of pure Turkish words. by purifying the language.36 The conference discussions conﬁrmed these observations. aras ¸tırma.
44 This heralded the next signiﬁcant thesis of 1930s Kemalism. they had been puzzled by ‘a series of analogies encountered’. ‘While comparing ancient Turkish words with the vocabulary of other languages’. germ (hot) and efsun (magic) from Persian were replaced with sıcak and bu ¨ yu ¨ from pure Turkish. the origin of which remained unknown’ had led to consideration among Turkish linguists.42 With nationalistic fervour running high. The latter would be gathered ﬁrst. during 18–23 August 1934. Osmanlıca-Tu ¸ e Cep Kılavuzu (Ottoman-Turkish Pocket ¨ rkc Guide). which had earlier been regarded as borrowings from other languages. without a publicly accepted replacement in place.43 Almost in acceptance of the hasty nature of the puriﬁcation efforts. the ‘Sun Language Theory’. held in Istanbul. This was a ﬁnal forum for discussing the puriﬁcation efforts. by collecting substitutes from the spoken language and second. originally Turkish. which had been developed by Atatu ¨ rk. during 1932–34. Most people were unable to understand pure Turkish.TURKISH NATIONALISM IN 1930s 91 Society for Research on the Turkish Language (Tu ¸tırma Kurumu ¨ rk Dili Aras – TDAK). This example revealed the puriﬁcation strategy: Arabic and Persian words would be replaced with pure Turkish ones. among others. had been sun worshippers. 24–31 August 1936. by coining new words. the TDAK organized the Second Turkish Language Congress. ˙brahim Necmi Dilmen (1889–1945). Furthermore. Among examples were sulh (peace). in May 1935. which was publicized at the Third Turkish Language Congress. the puriﬁcation movement faced a practical problem: the campaign had been carried out with such haste that many words had been purged from Turkish. On the other hand. the TDAK gathered and coined thousands of new words with the help of the government. Thus. ‘the multitude of words in every etymological dictionary. who were ‘the oldest race in the world’. were purged. Secretary General of the According to I TDAK.45 it declared that all major world languages descended from Turkish. some of which had existed in Turkish for a millennium. Words. harb (war). which listed replacements for a wide range of Arabic and Persian words. By late 1935. Consequently. words. the Turkish linguists contended that the earliest Turks. and milli (national) from Arabic. and the puriﬁcation movement at its zenith. such as that between ancient Turkish word siliy (sun) and the French word soleil (sun). there was no reason to get rid of them. became barıs ¸. This was the epitome of a linguistic break between Turkish on the one hand and Arabic and Persian on the other.46 and had developed a language based on . Consequently. Based on a complex set of assertions and etymological arguments. savas ¸. were. The ‘Language Theory’ mirrored the ‘History Thesis’. and ulusal. in fact. In answering this dilemma. the organization published a dictionary. the TDAK declared that not all words needed to be replaced right away. These respectively. They had ‘derived their conceptions of life from the idea of the sun’.
which had been her presentation. Davidian [sic].49 What is striking in Dilac ¸ ar’s arguments. At this time. which was inhabited by Alpine bracycephals – the Turks. The paper read by I ground-breaking. and it has been established. Hittite. German. Central Asia to which scholars have attempted to connect the Sumerian race and language and the mohenjodaroes has. Atatu ¨ rk had given Professor Martayan a pure Turkish last name. Bantu. The Second Turkish History Congress was organized in Istanbul. studies on race had become popular in Turkey. Armenian. Indicative of his role in the puriﬁcation movement.that the material home of those who are the dominant race in this country – as regards culture and language – was Central Asia. now renamed Turkish Historical Society ˙nan at this meeting was (Tu ¨ rk Tarih Kurumu – TTK). brought forth subsequently the Arab. In her expose ´ titled.48 One of the main proponents of the ‘theory’ was Professor Agop Martayan (Dilac ¸ ar). in addition to the Kemalist claim to trace all major cultures in the world to the Turks. given his aforementioned 1932 encounter with Galip. Etruscan. she pointed out TTK’s and Atatu ¨ rk’s new ideological inclinations. which had stipulated that all citizens adopt Turkish last names. to carry out ‘scientiﬁc research’ on his skeleton in order to investigate his ‘morphological and scientiﬁc personality’. in lieu of his Armenian name.50 Now. (Following a 1934 law. Egyptian – that is all the languages in the world. Anthropometrical . was his insistence to link the Armenians and Hittites to a common origin with the Turks. Professor Martayan’s new last name meant. ‘tongue/ language opener’ in Turkish). in addition to the Ural-Altaic group. Professor Dilac ¸ ar elaborated on the implications of the ‘theory’: The question of searching for the race and the predominant culture of this land. Indo-European. Dilac ¸ ar’s interest in doing this for the Armenians is understandable from his perspective. on 20–25 September 1937 by the TTTC. In a newspaper article. . Greek. the original ‘Turkish ‘‘Sun Language’’ was the parent of all other tongues’.92 MIDDLE EASTERN STUDIES it. Hasik. for instance. Kludian.47 Consequently. a team of TTK scholars had excavated the grave of the famous Ottoman architect Sinan. . On 6 August 1935. Dilac ¸ ar. in the Second History Congress. ‘Tu rk Tarih Kurumunun Arkeolojik ¨ Faaliyeti’ (The Archaeological Activity of the Turkish History Association). has been studied. which has been a cradle. which he wrote during the congress. in ˙nan emphasized Turkey’s historical riches. his proclivity to connect the Hittites to the Turks became explicable during 1937. Meanwhile. I recently recovered in various archaeological excavations.
099 Abkhaz speakers. I characteristics have always preserved the Turkish core’. the campaign rose with a push from the Jews of Izmir. At the climax of the euphoria over the ‘History Thesis’ and language puriﬁcation. A test case for this is the ‘Citizen Speak Turkish’ campaign. However.155 Catholics. whether or not they spoke Turkish. 108. deﬁnitely belonged to the same original Turkish race. 10. the ‘Kurds. Armenians.381 French speakers. In conclusion.065 Bosnian (of whom 4. and 12. However.972 Circassian.725 Greek.246 people. They claimed that all Turkey’s past and present inhabitants were ethnically and racially Turkish. Turkey was by no means an ethnically homogenous state.899. the question was how Turkish nationalism of the 1930s would accommodate this. Hence. were also Turks by the virtue of race. 7.073 people. but waned later on. the country had 16. 15. who had invaded Anatolia over the centuries. Kurdish was the second.55 In 1931– 32.661 Pomak. which had originally started in January 1928.53 On the other hand.607 Judeo-Spanish. 29.51 Euge ` ne Pittard added that while Anatolia had been invaded and inhabited by many different waves of settlers throughout the centuries.838. 44. 12.TURKISH NATIONALISM IN 1930s 93 research on bones at these excavations proved the lineage between contemporary Turks and the earliest inhabitants of Anatolia. ‘whose racial times.965 others.615 (Crimean) Tatar. gained momentum. Jews had become . ‘it is best to accept that these generations of invaders spoke different languages and carried different names’. spoken by 1. largely. The 1935 census gives detailed data on this. of whom 15. 91. Lazes and the others. such as the Armenians. 32.687 Arabic. 4. 57.452 spoke the Serbian and Croatian variants). 57. while Turkish was the ﬁrst language in the country.046 Greek Orthodox.673 were Muslims. 8. spoken by 13. at least a large part of these people.245 Bulgarian. In the 1930s.480.253 Laze.54 Given such diversity. 42. In addition.157. were members of this race. All of its past inhabitants. the ‘Citizen Speak Turkish’ campaign. In that year.325 Georgian.486 Protestants. The rest of the population included 125.52 The History Congress concluded that Anatolia had been embedded with the Turkish race since the ancient times.855 Romani speakers. 63. and 5. including the Hittites. Moreover. Anatolia’s current populations. all derived their origins from ‘the same original. the ideologues of Kemalism established a speciﬁc deﬁnition of the Turkish nation. 22. primitive mass’.450 people.730 Jews. 32. 78.526 Gregorian Armenians. Turkey’s second largest city.599 Armenian.424 Spanish.754 Albanian. bracycephalic’. Excavations showed that the Turkish race had been in Anatolia from very early historical ˙nan hailed Anatolia as the land. 18. there were 153. After the departure of Greeks and Armenians.725 classiﬁed as Christians. who are.
‘The Israelites will not be an ethnic minority among the Turks. ﬁrst in Milas and later in Izmir. journalist Rus ¨ naydın) (1892–1959.’ Atatu ¨ rk had taught them that they are genuine Turks. ‘who were highly talented in commerce to merge with the Turks. after the decay of the Byzantine Empire. in 1930.57 and/or French. the Jews had thrown their support behind it. they had not been disloyal to the country. MP Mehmet S ¸ eref (Aykut) (1874–1939) (Edirne) continued and asked that the Jews. In as much as the religious legacy of the old Ottoman regime seemed to set them apart from the Turks. Unlike the Greeks and the Armenians. Jewish business capacity obtained a recognition in the then new Turkey that proved markedly beneﬁcial to the race. there was no ground for such separation in the secular republic. Mehmet Asım supported Mr Sidi’s arguments. The Jews needed to assimilate into the ‘Turkish language. and when they join to the Turkish nation. however. Perry.58 Now. remained as a minority in Turkey. Besides. adopted a language that did not belong to them. they will understand that they are happy and that they will not be able to ﬁnd that pride in their previous self’.56 All this had built a nationalist bitterness against them.59 The chief editor of the inﬂuential Istanbul daily Vakit.94 MIDDLE EASTERN STUDIES Izmir’s most signiﬁcant non-Muslim community. the ‘Speak Turkish’ campaign was their strategy to alleviate antipathy against them. with a good share in its economic life. George W. when the opposition Free Republican Party (Serbest Cumhuriyet Fırkası–SCF) had emerged to be massively popular in Izmir.’60 The Kemalist regime. had a meeting with Emanuel Sidi. The unique aim is to open up greater opportunities in public life for Jewish leaders: perhaps reminiscent of the time when. At this time. reacted positively to the Jews’ desire to assimilate. and ideals’. they have. and that it is now national in extent. The Jews ‘will one day learn that they are Turks. also. the head of the city’s Jewish community to discuss the ‘Speak Turkish’ movement. They had. culture. U speak Turkish. most Turkish Jews spoke Judeo-Spanish. Then. ‘As if it was not enough that they [the Jews] did not 1934. They made up more than ten per cent of the city’s population. the American Consul in Izmir. In a speech to the Turkish Parliament on 7 June (U ¨ naydın said. The Consul was told: The movement was quietly started more than a year ago by a group of young Jewish intellectuals. to us. too. in accordance with our Civil Law’. In December 1932. One of the staunchest proponents of the ‘Speak Turkish’ campaign was Atatu ¸en Es ¸ref ¨ rk’s Executive Secretary. which they had picked up at the Alliance Israe ´ lite schools. Asım concluded. they were Izmir’s largest nonTurkish speaking community. These . ‘Failing this’ he declared ‘we shall have to emigrate’.
rallied to this cause.’62 Bursa Jews followed: ‘Uhuvet’ (Fraternity). the impact of the ‘Speak Turkish’ campaign was also felt among Muslims. There is no other way for their representation.63 Ankara Jews came in next and declared ˙lyas Efendi. in Southwestern Turkey. for instance.’61 Turkish Jews gradually reacted to such expectations. Cretans. Reportedly.68 In Mersin. Moise Efendi. and Kurds in the country were being targeted for not speaking Turkish. who spoke ‘a language other than Turkish within the precincts of the club’. in July 1934.64 At the end of the year. there was resentment among the masses over this. In February 1933. some young vigilantes demanded that non-Turkish speakers be ‘beaten up and forced to speak Turkish only’. a small town in Turkish Thrace. who had earlier adopted a Turkish name. On 23 November 1933. Finally. Arabs and Syrians’ were being ﬁned for speaking languages other than Turkish. told his congregation at the end of services: ‘I beg you from today to speak the beloved language of the noble Turkish race and civilized proprietors of the great country in which we live. Tekinalp founded the Turkish Culture Association (Tu ¨ rk Ku ¨ ltu ¨ r Cemiyeti) to promote the use of Turkish in public. decided to impose a ﬁne on members. Cretan Muslims. I Diyarbakır. who endorsed the Turkiﬁcation movement in Milas. a Jewish schoolteacher. claiming that it was possible for Jews to become Turkish through assimilation. Circassians. British diplomatic correspondence from 1934 noted that Arabs. ‘Kurds. a Turkish Jewish intellectual.69 The ‘Speak Turkish’ campaign was especially ﬁerce in Mersin.instead’. For instance. the provincial elements gave in.71 The antipathy against those who did not speak Turkish was so strong in this town that. Munis Tekinalp (1883–1961). at this time. the American Embassy in Istanbul reported that ‘the inhabitants of a village near Mersina [sic] have decided to give up speaking Arabic and to speak Turkish – undoubtedly pure Turkish .67 In addition to Jews. the organization of the city’s Jews. the advantages they will derive from the Turks are many.72 . was beaten up by some of his coreligionists. together with some prominent members of the Jewish community.66 Yet. In 1934. made a tour of the Eastern provinces ‘calling upon the Jews to be baptized into the new Kemalist faith’. they joined the Greeks and the Armenians in the city to further the dissemination of the Turkish language. the Jews of Istanbul rallied. many ‘hundreds of persons’ were arrested ‘for speaking languages other than Turkish’.70 a town with a large community of Muslim and Christian Arabs and a sizable population of Greek-speaking Cretan Muslim immigrants. the rabbi of Kırklareli. the rabbi of that they adopted Turkish. First. In January 1933. who did not speak Turkish.TURKISH NATIONALISM IN 1930s 95 could assimilate into Turkishness: ‘while the pride they would get from Turkishness is inﬁnite.65 Inasmuch as the community leaders swiftly adopted Turkish.
the ˘. targeting the Jews for not speaking Turkish. All citizens. appeared in the press in 1937. although Kemalism increasingly favoured ethnicity as a . aesthetics. because of the vigilance of the campaign.77 In 1935.79 Nationalist articles. as the ‘Speak Turkish’ campaign demonstrates. was mainly on the Jews. a series of nationalist articles appeared in various papers in support of the campaign. Jewish community leaders in Istanbul recommended the community members to speak Turkish. passed decrees to fıne those who spoke languages other than Turkish in public. For example. from 1937 onwards. will speak Turkish. towns with Jewish municipal governments of Edirne and Tekirdag communities. (Tu ¨ rk Laik Hristiyanlar Birlig the pressure of this new wave. the nationalist daily La ´ publique published a piece on ‘Turks unable to speak Turkish’.81 Ayhan Aktar.82 Yet. The paper Re noted alarmingly that failure to learn Turkish ‘may trouble the harmony of social coexistence’. Signs were posted in public places to ask everybody to speak Turkish.75 For instance. banned the use of languages other than Turkish in public. two other towns with Jewish communities. the Kemalists turned to ethnicity as the underlying factor of Turkishness. set up the Turkish Association of Secular Christians ˘ i) in an attempt to promote assimilation.76 Christian minorities responded to this new wave by further promoting the use of Turkish. Monsignor Roncalli (1881–1963) (the papal nuncio in Istanbul and the future Pope Jean XXIII) gave a sermon in Turkish. While Go ¨ kalp had mostly emphasized religion. Those who did not speak Turkish were openly harassed.80 The ‘Speak Turkish’ campaign survived after Atatu ¨ rk’s death well into the 1940s. too. the ‘Speak Turkish’ campaign gained new momentum with a ﬁery ˙no speech given by Prime Minister I ¨ nu ¨ at the ruling Republican People’s Party’s (Cumhuriyet Halk Partisi – CHP) Fourth Congress. and Taha Parla argue that in its view of Turkishness. started to decrease. At this time. during Yom Kippur services in September. In reaction to increasing pressure. who live with us.96 MIDDLE EASTERN STUDIES In 1935.78 Yet. ethics. On 26 February 1936. According to Rıfat N. who spoke languages other than Turkish. In 1936. we will not keep quiet. the number of Jews and others. This unofﬁcial campaign aimed to make Turkish the sole language heard in the country. a small number of Greeks and Armenians. Bursa and Lu ¨ leburgaz.’74 Following this. who were well connected to the CHP. Rifat Bali. Bali. and socialization as the denominators of the nation.73 The Prime Minister emphasized the need for everybody in Turkey to speak Turkish: ‘From now on. Kemalism broke away from Ziya Go ¨ kalp’s (1876–1924) thinking. the National Union of Turkish Students ˘ i – TMTB) initiated a drive to invite the public to (Milli Tu ¨ rk Talebe Birlig speak Turkish only.
On the other hand. True.TURKISH NATIONALISM IN 1930s 97 marker of Turkishness in the 1930s. this deﬁnition does not seem to have been central to Ankara’s practices. this was an immutable concept. yet it was inclusive. Naziism and other racist ideologies transformed the term race. (Abalıog argued it was scientiﬁcally proven that Armenians and Turks had the same racial origins. it was deﬁned through language and not genetic factors. language. This refutes Erik Zurcher’s argument that. when race had been synonymous with nation. Consequently as the example of the ‘Speak Turkish’ campaign reveals. but nationalism shaped Turkey’s attitude towards the Jews in the 1930s. If the ‘Speak Turkish’ campaign were taken into account. with modiﬁers such as biology. Race referred not to a biological community. in the mind of the Kemalists. This points out that not racism. The aforementioned exchange between Minister Galip and Professor Martayan. Ankara kept the avenues of assimilation open to those who were not ethnically Turkish. unlike in many other European countries. bloodline. in practice. and physical attributes.85 In the early twentieth century. Subsequently. especially the Jews and non-Turkish Muslims. genetics. wherein biological race is the basis of the national community. it appears that under the rubric of Turkish race. where race divided the Jews from the Gentiles in the interwar era. True. It expected them to integrate by adopting the Turkish language. it would appear that what the Kemalists saw in ‘race’ was closer to the word’s nineteenth century connotations than to its twentieth century meaning. but. as well as the proceedings of the Second History Congress demonstrated this desire vis-a `vis the Armenians. but to a national one. at least in theory. limits to. in 1938. this is also the view of race one sees in the ‘Turkish History Thesis’ and the ‘Sun Language Theory’. Kemalism’s idea of ‘organic culture’ that is culture. the desire to integrate the Jews was especially signiﬁcant. a staunchly pro-Kemalist and nationalist journalist. 1930s’ Kemalism favoured the conventional. Yet. Nadir Nadi ˘ lu) (1908–1991).84 Thus.83 Inasmuch as Kemalist ideology focused on the Turkish race. and ideals by birth and not through voluntary selection or socialization represented a break with Go ¨ kalp’s idea of voluntary Turkiﬁcation. it never closed the gates to voluntary Turkiﬁcation. . Yet the way Ankara co-opted the notion of race suggests that. racial anti-semitism seemed impossible in Turkey even at the brink of the Second World War. and possibilities of this attitude ought to be discussed in another study. However. nineteenth century usage of this term. Kemalism was willing to accept not only the Anatolian Muslims and Jews. At ﬁrst glance. The merits. In another example along this line. Kemalism’s vision of the Turkish nation in the 1930s included even the Christians. Ankara regretted the fact that the Jews did not speak Turkish and had not been assimilated. thinking wishfully. In this regard. even the Armenians into the body of the Turkish nation. assimilation was enforced.
pp.9. 73–8. Arabs and the Young Turks: Ottomanism. 74–7. 7. and ˇnjaka [History of the Bosniaks] (Sarajevo: Bos Mustafa Imamovic ´ . Vol. C ¸ ag article. and Islamism in the Ottoman Empire. 4. For more on nationalism in Turkey’s European neighbourhood in the 1930s. consult Popovic ´ . 1995). Turkey. L’Islam Balkanique (Berlin: in Komission bei Otto Harassowitz–Wiesbaden.n. Constitution.159.1–62. 1997). consult Ivo Banac and Katherine Verdery (ed. Kemalist Tek-Parti ˙ Ideolojisi ve CHP’nin Altı Ok’u [The single party ideology of ˙letis Kemalism and the Six Arrow of the CHP] (Istanbul: I ¸im. . Ayhan Aktar. Landau. Les Migrations des Musulmanes Balkaniques en Anatolie (1876–1913) (Istanbul: Isis. Jacob M. Press. 113–– 34. Historija Bos ˇnjaka Zajednica Kulture Sarajevo. embodying such amendments to the text as have been made to date’. 260–4. 207–8. 1986). see Peter Alford Andrews and Ru ¨ diger Benninghaus (ed. Cumhuriyet Yıllarında Tu ¸tirme Seru ¨ rkiye Yahudileri: Bir Tu ¨ rkles ¨ veni (1923–1945) [Turkish Jews under ˙letis the Turkish republic: an episode of Turkiﬁcation (1923–45)] (Istanbul: I ¸im. 265–7. typescript. Cilt 7 [Statistics yearbook: 1934–5.183–7. 1995). pp. 6. Rıfat N. Vol. 2001). For the persecution of the Balkan Muslims during and after the establishment of Greek. Montenegrin. 1934–5). 1999). and Bulgarian states in the nineteenth and the twentieth centuries and the Balkan Wars. Varlık Vergisi ve ‘Tu ¸tirme’ Politikaları [The wealth tax ¨ rkles ˙letis and the ‘Turkiﬁcation’ policies] (Istanbul: I ¸im. (Istanbul: Cumhuriyet Matbaası. which examine Turkish nationalism before the 1930s. citizens of the republic] (Istanbul: ˙letis I ¸im. National Character and National Ideology in Interwar Eastern Europe (New Haven: Yale Center for International and Area Studies. 1995). pp. 1995). and Alexandre Toumarkine. consult: Rıfat N. Turkish Nationalism in the Young Turk Era (Leiden: Brill. (Ankara: Hu ¨ snu ¨ tabiat. ‘Consequences of the Exchange of Populations for Turkey’. (S. 3.108–12. see ˙ Istatistik Yıllıg ˘ ı Cilt 10 (Statistics ˙statistik Umum Mu ˘u yearbook. For some recent examples of these works. 1992). 1975). 2.7] (Ankara: Bas ¸ bakanlık I p. revealing the diversity of Muslim communities. ˘ lar Keyder. see in particular: Hasan Kayalı.10) Bas ¸bakanlık I ¨ du ¨ rlu ¨g ¨ .45. 1938–9). ‘Translation into English of the Turkish Constitution of 1924. The deﬁnition of the nation-through-language and the country’s demographic diversity seemed bound to clash in the future. L’Islam Balkanique. For a breakdown of the country’s population according to linguistic groups in the 1930s.. p. and comp. For more on the destruction and expulsion of the Ottoman Muslims from Central Europe in the seventeenth and the eighteenth centuries. ˙ ˙statistik G.2 1929] TC Bas ¸vekalet ˙statistik Umum Mu I Istatistik Yıllıg ˘ ı: 1934–5 ¨ d. For a few notable examples of these works. The Little Dictators: The History of Eastern Europe Since 1918 (London: Routledge. 135–47. and Taha Parla. 1995). IN: Indiana Univ. This created certain dilemmas for the minorities that did not wish to assimilate by adopting Turkish. 2000).). 127–56. 1821–1922 (Princeton: Darwin Press. Bali. NOTES 1.98 MIDDLE EASTERN STUDIES ethnicity-through-language emerged as one of the primary planks of Turkishness in the 1930s. 1929). pp. pp. Bali.D. 77–94. and Antony Polonsky. 294–6. For more on various Muslim communities in Anatolia.280–99. ˙ Istatistik Yıllıg ˘ ı: ˙ Ikinci Cilt 1929 [Statistics yearbook: Vol.64–5.). For general works on the persecution of the Ottoman Muslims in Europe and the Black Sea basin. 1908–1918 (Berkeley: University of California Press. and 66– 73. p. 1937?). and Masami Arai.1: s. 302–11. unpublished 5. Death and Exile: The Ethnic Cleansing of the Ottoman Muslims. Serbian. Musa’nın Evlatları Cumhuriyet’in Yurttas ¸ları [The children of Moses. 1997). Arabs. see Alexandre Popovic ´ . 1989). see Justin McCarthy. Pan-Turkism: From Irredentism to Cooperation (Bloomington. Ethnic Groups in the Republic of Turkey (Wiesbaden: Dr Ludwig Reichert Verlag. 257–60.
1933).000 people] (Ankara: Tu ¨ rk Tarih Kurumu. p. 1930). 27. Ibid. see Alexis Alexandris. ‘Five Stages of the Construction of Kurdish Nationalism in Turkey’. Ibid. Atatu ¨ rk Devri ˙g ˘ demir.125–132. 23. p. 1932 (hereafter State Department). 16 Nov.105– 8. and Ethnicity under High Kemalism’ (Ph. Afet [I History] Birinci Tu ¨ rk Tarih Kongresi [First Turkish History Congress] (Ankara: T. No. Arthur de Introduction Ethnologique a Gobineau. The Greek Minority of Istanbul and Greek–Turkish Relations 1918–1974 (Athens: Center for Asia Minor Studies. 25. also consult Soner Cagaptay.2 (Fall 2002).644. 1981). 18. p. 1983). (New York: H. Ulug ¨ rk’u ¨ n Emriyle Hazırlanan Programme’ (A programme prepared on Atatu ¨ rk’s orders) in Belleten. Vol. 30 October–12 November 1932.8. et. ‘Atatu 14. 30. Nationalism and Ethnic Politics.27 (1963). Hakan Yavuz. and Alfred Cort Haddon. see Bali. ‘Anatolian Armenians in the 1920s: Religion. pp.126. 1947). 1996). 1930).50–8. 17.. pp. [Turki¨ rkles ﬁcation policies during the early years of the republic] Tarih ve Toplum. and ‘Reconﬁguring the Turkish Nation in the 1930s’. 8 Nov. For Armenians in this period. 11. 12. State Department. Les Races et l’Histoire ` l’Histoire (Paris: Le Renaissance du Livre. unpublished paper. Tu 13. 10.26. Fertig. 16.7. Maarif Vekaleti.26–30. ˙nan].TURKISH NATIONALISM IN 1930s 99 ˙lk Yıllarında Uygulanan Tu 8.). Vol. Vol. Turkish Studies Association Bulletin.156 (Dec. Vol. see M. 1981). See Soner Cagaptay. 1932. pp. Religion. No. Ibid. p. ˙nan]. Tu ¨ rkiye Halkının Antropolojik Karakteri ve Tu ¨ rkiye Tarihi: Tu ¨ rk Irkının Vatanı Anadolu 64. ‘Population Resettlement and Immigration Policies of Interwar Turkey: A Study of Turkish Nationalism’.000 kis ¸i u ¨ zerinde Anket [The Anthropological Character of the People of Turkey and Turkish history: Anatolia. pp. 19.. ‘Atatu Tu ˘ itimi.1–242. see Euge ` ne Pittard. and Martin van Bruinessen Origins and Development of Kurdish Nationalism in Turkey.C. al. 1982). 28. The Inequality of Human Races. Atatu ¨ rk Devri Tu ¨ rk Eg ¨ rk) (Ankara: DTCF. Tu ¨ rk Tarihinin Ana Hatlarına. pp. 1924). For more on the Kurds in the 1920s..647. Records of the Department of State Relating to the Internal Affairs of Turkey 1930–1944. Embassy to the Foreign Ofﬁce (London).528. For the story of the Greeks in the 1920s. Ayhan Aktar. ˙g ˘ I ˘ demir. Identity and Security in Early Republican Turkey’. Tu ¨ rk Tarihinin Ana Hatlarına Methal [Introduction to the General Themes of Turkish History] (Istanbul. Nationalism and Ethnic Politics. Dissertation in progress. 20. see Ergu ¨ n. p.1–24. For available copies of some of these works.3 (2001)..644. Members of the Society for the Study of Turkish History (eds. Digest of Turkish News. p. For Atatu ¨ rk’s role in the creation of the Turkish History Thesis. Yale University).34. with preface by George L. 15. p. 26. (Berlin: Berliner Institut fu ¨ r vergleichende Sozialforschung. pp. Tu ¨ rk Tarihinin Ana Hatlarına. 9. Tarihten Evvel ve Tarih Fecrinde. . [I 24. Foreign Ofﬁce: Political Departments: General Correspondence from 1906.8. Devlet Matbaası. Afet [I ¨ rk Tarihinin Ana Hatları (General Themes of Turkish History) (Istanbul: Devlet Matbaası.9111/383. For more on this. 22. Mustafa Ergu ˘ itimi (Turkish Education under Atatu ¨ n. pp. 27 Jan. typescript. ˙nan]. and I ¨ rk Eg ¨ rk’u ¨ n Emriyle Hazırlanan Program’.D. Turkey. The Races of Man and Their Distribution (New York: Gordon Press. No. Sherill (Istanbul) to the State Department (Washington). 29. Annual Report for 1932 (hereafter Foreign Ofﬁce). 1933.2 (Summer 2002). Mosse.31. ‘Tarihten Evvel ve Tarih Fecrinde’ [In Prehistoric Times and at the Dawn of 21.144–73. No. p. ‘Cumhuriyet’in I ¸tirme Politikaları’.644. Embassy (Istanbul) to the State Department (Washington). 867.4016 ARMENIANS/8. Tu ¨ rk Tarihinin Ana Hatlarına. SD 867. ‘Race. FO 371/16983. 1999). Great Britain. consult Soner Cagaptay. Cumhuriyet Yıllarında. the Homeland of the Turkish Race and a Survey conducted on 64.
.42. 39. 56. 9 Sept. Belleten. pp. Sept. see Geoffrey Lewis. pp. Cumhuriyet.94–104. 1999). .20. 867. Heyd. Shaw (Istanbul) to the State Department (Washington). Judeo-Spanish. and Artun U ` que Politique Franc ¸ aise d’Atatu ´ -Grammont and Paul Dumont (eds. Language Reform.249–50.26–9. ˙smail Arar.100 MIDDLE EASTERN STUDIES 31. in Jean-Louis Bacque ´ poque d’Atatu France a L’E ´ velopment ¨ rk.64–5. State Department. 40. Ibid. 55. Morgan (Istanbul) to Eden (London). Collection Turcica 1. pp. 45. the Turkish scholars had been inspired by Austrian linguist Dr Hermann F. FO 371/20094/E5890. and settled in various parts of the Ottoman Empire. 29 Aug. 6 Aug. Medeni Bilgiler. 36.402/48. Ahmet Yıldız.30. Italian.177 (1981). 1932. Bulgarian. 2. 1 Nov.. 1936. This language is essentially medieval Spanish (and to a much lesser extent Portuguese) with a Hebrew inﬂuence in its vocabulary. p. 1930.45–6. Vol. 41. Foreign Ofﬁce. I ¸lık ˙ Ic ¸ in Medeni Bilgiler [Civic Guidelines for Citizenship] (Istanbul: Devlet Matbaası. p. 867. 46. Yıldız. Language Reform. Embassy (Istanbul) to the State Department (Washington). Cilt 10.371. Afet [I ˙nan].64–5. 38.77.9111/353. Foreign Ofﬁce. 47. it has also been laden with words from Turkish. Memorandum. 1932. 1936]. 16 Nov. No.71–80. 42. (Gaziantep: C. p. Greek. Over the centuries. 17 Oct. pp. 53. State Department. ˙ Ikinci Tu ¨ rk Tarih Kongresi. Medeni Bilgiler ve Atatu 32. p. FO 371/20094/E5890. State Department. pp. 1933). see Gu ¸ Dil Teorisi ve U ¸u ¨ nes ¨ ncu ¨ Dil ¨ mer Besim Aksoy Tarafından 26 Eylu Kurultayı: Gaziantep Saylavı O ¨ l 1936 Dil Bayramında Verilen Konferans [The Sun Language Theory and the third Turkish Language Congress: a ¨ mer Besim Aksoy (Gaziantep) on the occasion of the language conference given by MP O day on 26 Sept. State Department. Translation of article from La Re 50. 1936. p. pp. 1931). The Turkish Language Reform.393–5. I ¸ık Tutan Bazı Konus ¸maları’ [Some Homilies ¨ rk’u ¨ n Gu ¨ nu ¨ mu ¨ z Olaylarına Is by Atatu ¨ rk that Shed Light on our Era].57.. 1969). 17 Oct. Bursky (Izmir) to the State Department (Washington). For a good review of the language puriﬁcation movement. 1936. d’E ˙nan. pp. 54. ˙nan. pp. 52. 1981). Language Reform in Turkey (Jerusalem: Israel Oriental Society.402/74. Ibid. 867. or Ladino.159. Ibid. 1932. 1931).38. Ne Mutlu Tu ¨ rku ¨ m. Ibid. 44.23–4.13. 48. Uriel Heyd. pp. ˙ Istatistik Yıllıg ˘ ı. p. 18 Sept. Devlet Matbaası. State Department. 49. ‘La Bibliothe ˙letis (Istanbul: I ¸im.402/48. Shaw (Istanbul) to the State Department (Washington). Tarih I Tarihten-evvelki Zamanlar ve Eski Zamanlar [History I Prehistoric and Ancient Ages] (Istanbul. 1936. 18 Sept. p. Digest of Turkish Press 30 Oct. In formulating the ‘Sun Language Theory’. Embassy (Istanbul) to the State Department (Washington). 51. 867. p. 57. who had argued that. who ﬂed from Spain and Portugal during the late ﬁfteenth and early sixteenth centuries. 1935. No. and Arabic. p. La Turquie et la ¨ rk’.33. ‘Man ﬁrst realized his own identity when he conceived the idea of establishing what the external objects surrounding him were. 1954). 867. pp. Ne Mutlu Tu ¨ rku ¨ m Diyebilene [Happy is he.–12 Nov.). is the language of the Sephardic Jews. Heyd. 1937). State Department. From the Embassy (Istanbul) to the State Department (Washington). 37. Kvergic ´ of Vienna. For a Kemalist-era work ¨c that summarizes the Sun Language Theory succinctly. 867.00/2048. Vatandas 34. French. News of Izmir – 1930. who can say he is a Turk) ¨ nsal.’ Lewis. Morgan (Istanbul) to Eden (London).402/74. (Paris: Association pour le De ´ tudes Turques. p.H. 1936. 35.. 2001).165–6. Birinci Tu ¨ rk Dil Kurultayı (First Turkish Language Congress) (Istanbul: Devlet Matbaası. The Turkish Language Reform (Oxford: Oxford University Press. Afet I ¨ rk’u ¨ n El Yazıları [Civics and Atatu ¨ rk’s Manuscripts] (Ankara: TTK. 9 ´ publique. 1932. 43.8–15. Partisi Basımevi. Birinci Tu ¨ rk Dil Kurultayı. ‘Atatu 33.
Records of the German Foreign Ofﬁce received by the Department of State. 6 April 1934. 1934. 1928). 79. For the ﬂuctuating meanings of the term ‘nation’ over the last few centuries.–4 March 1933. 1934. 867.273. FO 371/17958/E4912. George (Izmir) to the State Department (Washington). and Foreign Ofﬁce. 1932..269–72. 72.60–6. 67. Embassy (Istanbul) to the State Department (Washington). 11 Jan. p. 1933.). pp. 1996). consult Aron Rodrigue. 867.275–6. 1933. FO 371/21915/E4624. 867. Loraine (Angora) to the Foreign Ofﬁce (London). Embassy (Istanbul) to the State Department (Washington). Kemalist Tek–Parti ˙ Ideolojisi. see Avram Galanti. Feb. which explains the historical reasons as to why the Turkish Jews spoke Judeo-Spanish and French.. Ottoman Muslims and Turkish Nationalists’. 1933. 21 Feb.874. 17 Sept. in Kemal Karpat (ed. Catton (Mersina) to Morgan (Angora). 867. Digest of Turkish Press 5 Feb. 7 July 1934. 1920–1945.281–7. Embassy (Istanbul) to the State Department (Washington). Jacob. Digest of Turkish Press 22 Jan.4016 JEWS/3. Aug. CHP Do ¸meleri Tutulgası [Records of the sessions of CHP’s ¨ rdu ¨ ncu ¨ Bu ¨ yu ¨ k Kurultayı Go ¨ ru ¨s Fourth General Congress] (Ankara: 9–16 May 1935). FO 371/17958/E6178. State Department. p.377–9. Embassy (Angora) to the Foreign Ofﬁce (London). 7 July 1934. 64. 62. Foreign Ofﬁce. 82. 1990). 66. 76. Erik Jan Zurcher. For a work from the 1920s. State Department. 81. Rosenberg (Ankara) to German Foreign Ministry (Berlin). Cumhuriyet Yıllarında.–2 Dec. Ibid.9111/391. Davis (Smyrna) to Loraine (Angora).21. Foreign Ofﬁce.9111/ Embassy (Istanbul) to the State Department (Washington). State Department. TBMM Zabıt Ceridesi. Digest of Turkish Press 5 Nov. 78. 74. State Department. 63. 71.176–221. Aktar. 1938. Foreign Ofﬁce. 68. Digest of Turkish Press. pp. 103–8. Vol. State Department. 2 Aug. Copy of letter. Tekinalp: Bir Tu ¨ rk Yurtseveri (1883–1961) [Tekinalp: a Turkish patriot ˙letis (1883–1961)] (Istanbul: I ¸im. 6 April 1933. p. p. pp. 80. 1933. 1933. . Vatandas ¸ Tu ¸ e Konus ¸ [Citizen Speak ¨ rkc Turkish] (Istanbul: Hu ¨ sn-i Tabiat Matbaası.TURKISH NATIONALISM IN 1930s 101 58. 3 Oct.20. and Parla.9111/422. Davis (Smyrna) to Loraine (Angora). Germany: Auswa ¨ rtiges Amt.179. 867. 19 July 1934. Digest of Turkish Press 16 July–11 Aug. Embassy (Istanbul) to the State Department (Washington). 867. 61. AA T–120 4900. Bali. State Department. State Department. Embassy (Istanbul) to the State Department (Washington). 85. Digest of Turkish Press 19 Feb. 11 Dec. Landau. 1933.9111/390. Foreign Ofﬁce. 1933. 13 Dec. 1933. 65. for more on the ´ lite Alliance schools. 1934. p. 8 Aug. 2000). Cumhuriyet Yıllarında. French Jews. (1975). 12 Aug. ‘Young Turks. Turkish Jews: The Alliance Israe Universelle and The Politics of Jewish Schooling in Turkey (Bloomington: Indiana University Press. 867. 77. Embassy (Constantinople) to the Foreign Ofﬁce (London). 70. session IV. p. FO 371/17969/E5028. T–120 4900. 27 July 1934. ¨ rkles pp. p. M. FO 371/17958/ E4912. 69. 20 Dec.502–3.9111/405. Cumhuriyet Yıllarında. see American Heritage Dictionary.23. 84. Embassy (Istanbul) to the State Department (Washington). FO 371/16985/E2053. Digest of Turkish Press. Foreign Ofﬁce.–22 Sept. 1933. Loraine (Angora) to the Foreign Ofﬁce (London). Landau.–4 Feb. 60. 867. Cumhuriyet Yıllarında. Foreign Ofﬁce. 8 March 1933.9111/410. On the other hand. 1933. Loraine (Ankara) to the Foreign Ofﬁce (London). 75. pp. 83.149. Modern Turkey and Ottoman Past (Leiden: Brill. pp. FO 371/16985/E2053. State Department. Tekinalp.–18 Feb. 73. Ibid. pp. Bali. Bali. 1934. Ibid. FO 371/17969/E5028. Varlık Vergisi ve ‘Tu ¸tirme’. Catton (Mersina) to Loraine (Angora).9111/392. Bali. 59.70.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.