In this essay I will discuss what caused the Turkish war of independence and the history leading up to the Turkish revolution. I will discuss the failures of the Ottoman Empire and how it played an interesting role of brief reform during the Tanizmat period. I will also discuss, the lead up to a constitutional government, which lasted briefly due to the death of the longest serving Sultan, resulting in the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. Finally, I will analyse the development of political division and social disorder, alongside other events leading up to the Turkish war of independence.
This essay will discuss in detail the following:
Firstly, how the Turkish war of independence brought major developments into the creation of a constitution. How the Ottoman Empire lost a large portion of their lands and colonies during World War I; including the buildings they built was ruined and a large number of their soldiers died. This major loss also brought in the birth of nationalism. Further, how the new ideology of democracy was difficult for political parties to accept, both the government in Istanbul and the new founding government in Ankara.
Secondly, how the heavy battle between Turkey and Greece seemed never ending. Istanbul and Ankara’s Grand National Assembly entered into Lausanne conference negotiations, as they wanted to settle the blood heavy battle; which was lead initially by the last family members of the Ottoman Sultanate and finished by the new-born government in Istanbul.
Thirdly, how the battle wasn’t only for other leaders trying to concur Turkey, it was also a battle within Turkey; their domestic community. The Turkish war of independence affected the political, social and the cultural aspects of Turkey. How the problems between communities and adopting the new ideology of nationalism caused tactical problems of sustaining peace inside of Turkey’s only surviving state. Further, how the lack of unity amongst the communities within Turkey caused problems for the important population in Greece. Turkey was accepted by the international community and its defined Turkish republic borders, finally establishing ties with the West.
Finally, this essay will look at the renowned revolutionist leader Mustafa Kemal Atatürk and how he had a profound effect on developing and moving Turkey forward. Details on what influences Mustafa Kemal had on the new Turkish republic. How his new ideologies known as ‘Kemalisim’ were born and his thorough commitment to political and social reforms within Turkey are still evident. Concluding, what Turkey’s current social and economic prospects are; referring to recent activities Turkey has been exposed to through the media.
By the turn of the nineteenth century the Ottoman Empire was under a lot of radical change. Both left and right wing political parties had suffered major loss in the Balkans region and land in the African continent. The collapse of the Empire was a result of major tactical failures, which resulted in the loss of the Balkans war and a large portion of their victorious lands and colonies. In around the mid nineteenth century the ageing old Ottoman Empire was known as the ‘sick man of Europe’. Prevention tactics were enforced by the Ottomans so the Russian Empire did not try and invade and take over the Ottoman mother heartland of Anatolia. There was a period of restorations in the Ottoman Empire and between the years of 1839-1876 intense reformation took place to revive economic, social, cultural and political authority. The first constitutional era and the second constitutional era created significant advancements to society’s understanding of the Ottoman Empire and state. “They took the first step in November 1839 when they issued a charter known as the Noble Rescript of Gulhane. This document promised, amongst other things, that the government would pass laws as part of the reorganisation of society which would guarantee ‘to our subjects, perfect security for life, honour and property’.” According to Feroz Ahmad, the importance of these changes and promises in 1839 would develop Turkey into an internationally recognised country. The changes included; political governance, economic stability, social order and generally a better quality of life. This was the era of the Tanizmat reform.
“Defects in the Ottoman governmental system contributed greatly to the development of national identity feeling and rebellion in the Balkans. The disorder within the Ottoman Empire and the lack of control in the Balkans contributed to the citizens feeling unwanted and therefore became rebellious against their leader. There were years of anger and hatred towards the Ottoman Empire. They had mixed so many religions and cultures together that communities sought national identity, thus creating mayhem.
In 1839, there was a society named ‘Turanisim’, whom were Turkish nationalists and wanted Turkish unity. According to Nami Kemal, the ideology of the young Turks were, “long live Vatan, long live Liberty”(Vatan means motherland). This very powerful quote spread quickly amongst the Turkish youth and was chanted during protests. The Turkish movement in Paris 1907 was very important because it was there the Turkish youth became exposed to western culture and learnt modern ideologies such as nationalism, Ottomanism etc.
“Thus when Mustafa Kemal came to spread the word of Fatherland and Liberty early in 1906, he was welcome.” This shows, that new changes were welcome to affect immediately, as is evident through the revolution of the young Turks which took place in 1908. Essentially, this was progression for Turkey. However, the first constitutional era was very short; only enforced during 1876 to 1878. It was reversed by the Sultan Abdul Hamid the II to monarch ruling for the following thirty years, until 1908’s Young Turk revolution.
The young Ottomans and the Young Turks were two groups whom believed and followed different political parties during the nineteenth century. There were major failures to reform the economy in the early nineteenth century. A secret organisation known as the ‘Committee of Union and Progress’, was established in the year of 1889 by a group of medical students. This body led the movement in 1908 and re-established the Turkish constitution. Suppression and uprising occurred many times over the political parties between the inter war periods within the Ottoman Empire (political, constitutional, rebellious and civil war).
“May 1908 the immediate aims of the CUP were both clear and simple: the removal of the corrupt regime installed by Sultan Abdul Hamid and the restoration of the constitution.” According to A.l. Macfie, their ultimate objective was to restore the previous constitution. The importance of the 1908 conditional revolution of the Young Turks in the Ottoman Empire was the immediate impact and success of the restoration of the constitution. Evidently, this reflected through the changes in the cities and inner kingdom of the Ottoman Empire.
“According to Aubery Herbet, in Istanbul, a city tense with excitement, Muslims walked the streets arm in arm with Christians; the old order and the new mingled; and high hopes were held for the future.”This was a very diverse social condition, and in many parts of the world, very rare. Istanbulers wanted the same ideologies of peace, from the new political transition.
Tanizmat era was under the ruling of Sultan Abdulmedic I. He wanted to make reforms and stop the movement of the Young Turks in order to install the idea of ‘Ottomanism’. This movement was important as it elevated and changed the course of the Ottoman history; seeing its effects influence later political agendas which started to arise during the heated revolutionary years.
Political turmoil during the years of 1908 and the years leading up to 1923, led to many radical changes. Turkey had lost many of its land during this period and the rise in the prominent leader Mustafa Kemal ‘Ataturk’ was necessary and impeccable to the driving force of modern Turkey.
A major sense of nationalism was rising in the Ottoman Empire especially within the Turkish communities. There were different fractions forming within the Empire’s political ideologies.
The Young Turks revolution in 1908 was an important stepping stone for what was going to happen in the year of 1919, the Turkish war of independence. Evidently, there were many causes which accumulated to the rise of the war. In April 1908 there was a constitutional revolution between the members of the CUP; “the CUP, threatening the Ottoman government with armed intervention, succeeded in forcing the Sultan to restore the constitution and reconvene parliament.” According to Erik J. Zurcher, restoring the constitution was the most important element to change and rationalise the Turkish youth. After this victory, the CUP party became the most powerful political part in the years of 1908 and the early months of 1909. This illustrates how progressive and powerful the CUP party had become in only a few months.
Furthermore, the “31 Mart vakasi” (31 of March incident) was an unforgettable event where a religion named Islam was able to shake the foundations of the regime; this sent shock waves to the CUP political party. Even in present day Turkey, the trauma of the “31 march incident” 1909 revolt is still a constant reminder of the danger of the ‘Islamic fundamentalism’ in modern day Turkey. The counter revolution on the nights of the 12-13 of April of the year 1909 was filled with intense battling in Istanbul. “The crisis of April 1909 lasted for 11 days.” “Kamil Pasha, who like the Liberals resented the pressure of the CUP, allied himself with this group and relations between him and the CUP become increasingly strained.” This quote illustrates that the political dimension between the old Ottoman regime and the new Young Turks political party had rivalries. Their manifestos were different, and it was the winning party which was to improve Turkey’s leverage.
1909 – 1913 was the years of political battling for domination. Many parties suffered and lost confidence and many new parties came to stand for election. “Despite all this political infighting and the rising tensions of the past months, it came as a complete surprise to Unionists and foreign observers alike, when on the night of 12 April 1909, an armed insurrection broke out in the capital in the name of restoration of Islam and seriat.” These events led up to the Turkish war of independence. Six options where presented to the government; the Mohammedans unions and various large groups of the Softas and students from religious schools, who all marched upon the government. Further, the dismal grand vizier, the minsters of war and the navy, the replacement of a number of union leaders and a change of unionist president of the chambers of deputies (Ahmed Riza), the restoration of the seriat and the amnesty for rebellious troops. These events were huge and it was these events which reformed the central government and paved ways for re-elections during the 1909 rebellion era. It was important that social demands were listened to and Turkish revolution was present. The Ottoman parliament’s political rivalry of the right and left wingers demonstrated that politicians caused major mayhem leading up to the Turkish independence war.
There was much political competition between the years of 1909-1913, as “the first five years of constitutional government were marked by a constant struggle for political power in which the CUP finally emerged victorious.” This illustrates the lengthy political struggle and fluctuations happening throughout the rivalry constitutional government. However, there is still the same political rivalry, with the same political ideologies happening in modern day Turkey as we know it.
“The political, economic, and military situation in mid-1913 was quite critical.” According to Feroz Ahmed the lead up to World War I, was going into full motion because the Ottoman Empire was a falling state at that time during the 1913 even more so as their political, economic, and military stability was at its worst. “But the CUP had hopes to reverse this process by carrying out radical reform and becoming the ‘Japan of the Near East.” This gave the Ottoman Empire and the CUP philosophies, that Japan was the ultimate eastern power and went into negotiations to strengthen the nations together, so that the Ottoman Empire could show the west that the Ottoman Empire is still alive and strong
One of the main reasons for the Ottoman Empire to join World War I was to regain strength and their interests in the former Ottoman lands. It was also to regain their honour and respect; regain their dominance and influence European regions and the Middle East.
On January 23th 1913, coup d’etat was an interesting change for the CUP party. This major change suppressed other parties within the Ottoman Empire and brought in reforms to the social, economic, political and religious aspects of Turkey. After the January 1913 coup d’etat, the CUP was in complete control of the internal political situation.” Through the coup d’etat, a Pasha and other important members of the parliament were assassinated by the Young Turks during the revolution at the time. The unionist gained much power. “The regime that developed had often been called the ‘Triumvirate’ of Enver, Cemal and Talat.” This became the new power house of the Ottoman Empire, and continued from 1913 until the end of World War I. The CUP party had become centralised and strengthen their power within the nations and the unionist. By the unionist being in power, they tried to make alliances. After many years of war in Balkans, they lost many land plots.
Balkans war left the Ottoman Empire in ruins. The loss of more key lands in the Balkans and the assignations being held, made it a very weak country. CUP used their leader Cemal pasha to try and make alliances with France and the United Kingdom. They did this to show their interest and effort to work with the West. However, western countries were not interested at the time as they had built good alliances with Russia. As a result, the Turkish unionists decided not to make alliances and instead give their attention to the central powers of Turkey. This was a bold and great move; picking a side before World War I commenced.
Following form World War I, there was a major political transformation within Turkey.
There were many great scholars in the late Ottoman Empire such as Namik Kemal. He and others understood the ideologies of the West and tried to implement them into ‘new’ ideologies such as the ‘Ottomanism’. They tried to reform and create unity in the Ottoman Empire, creating a single Ottoman identity. Pan-Turkisim came around in the years of 1880. It was founded by the Young Turks, and its principles were, nationalism, single language and identifying borders of Turkey. The unification of Turkish states!
However during World War I, there was a prosperous leader for the republic of Turkey named Mustafa Kemal Attaturk. During World War I he become the savvier during the campaign of Gallipoli and defended the Ottoman Empire’s western front.
On the other hand, the Armenian nationalist movement arose in the late years of the Ottoman Empire; from the year of April 1915. According to an historian called Macfie, the Turkish nationalism party CUP was in office of the ‘three pasha’s’, which turned into a dictatorial power during World War I. The troubles that were brewing between the Armenian national movement and between the Ottoman Empire were damaging Turkey’s reputation amongst international states.
The Armenian movement questioned how “by the summer of 1915 eastern and central Anatolia had been cleared of Armenians.” It started off as a deportation programme to a movement of Armenian genocide. Evidently, this movement has haunted Turkish republic even in the present times. This is because the Turkish community and country failed to acknowledge the wrong doing of the Ottoman Empire and refuses to accept reasonability. “It also marked the beginning of suppression of the Ottoman Armenians, still controversial issue 75 years later.” This historical event is still a very sensitive subject, even to this present day. Turkey does not accept that even the term ‘Armenian genocide’ can be castrated against their state.
During the course of the Turkish war of independence, one of the major losses was in the years of 1918, the Ottoman surrender. A major humiliation had occurred in the Ottoman Empire, a strong interference of entente powers wishing to enforce harsh measures on the failed Ottoman Empire arose. The armistice of Moudrous was an important factor for the end of World War I. The Turkish war of independence was a build up to the mobilisations of the Ottoman lands outside of Anatolia including any remaining fortifications and demobilisation of air base, railways, forts, barracks and major ports and strategy points. There was also a change of Sultans as Sultan Mehmet V died in July 1918. His brother succeeded the throne; he was called Vahdettin effendi. Sultan Mehmet Vandettin VI had a different type of agenda. His strategy was to save the Osman dynasty and not to move the Empire forward. He wanted authority over the Middle East; as an (caliph) he waged a holy war against the union and nationalists. (REF) This illustrates that there was political division and personal agendas on both sides of the government. The Ottomans and Turks went their spate ways and from this led another domestic Turkish war of independence. Mustafa Kemal wanted to save the remaining land, whereas the Ottomans wanted the dominance they once had but realistically were not able to achieve. The Ottoman Empire had ended, and Turkish leaders needed to acknowledge and move on from their defeat.
The Turkish war of independence is a national resistance movement which started its course from Anatolia. There was a major problem between the Greeks and the Turks during the course of the Turkish revolution. The Greeks were worried with the movement happening in Turkey because they feared a revival of the old Turkish domination being resurrected. This worry led them to mobilise their units in Turkey and begin invasion of Anatolia. The British government promised the Greeks land from the regions of West Anatolian near the Aegean Sea. The landing at Smyrna was the start of the Greek forces landing in the Asia Minor. Troubles were brewing between both sides in the Asia Minor; Greece and Turkey had a very bitter relationship. Greece was also the biggest objectors to the Turkish national movement. The British government agreed to let Greece occupy Izmir, by granting the right to occupy around the area. The build up to the year of 1920 and the treaty of Sevres gave Greece certain provinces over the former Ottoman Empire; some in the western and some of Asia Minor. This is an important factor for the Turkish war, evidently because there were great tensions on both sides. Greece was furthering their occupants into the lands of Anatolian, and the Turkish national movement began creating their own nation state.
“Animosity between the Greeks and Turks was a consequence of the Balkans wars.” According to Justin McCarthy, there were grievances from both sides at the end of the Balkans war. This left both states in hatred and in disputes with each other. This led to further friction and caused problems leading up the Turkish war of independence.
Furthermore, the major conflict between Greece and the Turkish national movement put Turkey into vulnerable exploitations. “The invasion of Anatolia by the Greeks, and corresponding occupations of the east by the Armenians and the south by the French, galvanized and united Turks in a way that had never been possible before.” This quotes shows how the invasion influenced national interests and triggered a sense of ‘nationalism’ and unity amongst the Turks. The Turkish war of independence wasn’t just a hatred battle, it was a struggle to save their ‘motherland’. This common goal amongst Turks created a single objective and unified everyone to fight for only one thing, as opposed to many. Thus, it rose the stakes of the war of independence and motivated the nation to succeed.
“Now the Turks could see a practical reason for unity.” This tells us that for the first time, Turkish communities of Anatolia were ready to forget their differences in tribes and regions in order to fight for a greater cause.
Furthermore, during the Turkish war of independence in 1920, Greece fought hard to implement harsh treaty terms in order to regain peace. Greece knew that Turkey was in a vulnerable position and tried to take advantage of the situation.
The battle of Inonu greatly contributed to the Turkish war of independence. It was Turks vs. Greeks. During this battle, Mustafa Kemal won a unanimous victory in the Turkish Parliament. This was a much needed win as he had rivals in Ankara and he needed to he concentrate and cement his place in the Turkish national movement. Furthermore, in October 1922 the British government invited Ankara, the Turkish nationalist party and Istanbul’s government to attend a conference in Lausanne. This meeting was to negotiate terms of a treaty. The treaty was not only for peace agreements it was also necessary for Turkey’s national stability. Once this treaty was agreed, Turkey was able to build foundations with Europe and re-start their economy and with a new Turkish state.
The Turkish national movement decided to elect a temporary leader. It was of course the leader which saved Turkey’s land from World War I, Mustafa Kemal. A Grand National Assembly was organised in Ankara in the year of 1919 and the spokesman/leader was Mustafa Kemal later as known (Ataturk). Alongside him were his sergeants Ismet Inonu and many others.
Due to the defeat of the Ottoman Empire, the Sultanate office was abolished from the Turkish nationalist movement. A new Sultan was democratically elected in Istanbul; however both the Sultan from Istanbul and Mustafa Kemal from Ankara were called into the conference in Lausanne and at this conference Mustafa Kemal was victorious. Only he and his Grand National Assembly would represent Turkey, not the previous government from Istanbul. The Sultan from Istanbul left the Grand National Assembly in the later years of 1924, and abolished the Ottoman Sultanate with him. The last Ottoman Sultan was Mehmet the VI whom was ordered to leave the ‘house of Osman’ and migrate from Turkey. The Ottoman Empire had brought both great victory and great misery to Turkey and their Empire was no longer tolerated by the people in Turkey.
However, the outcome of the Turkish war of independence was the unity of the Turkish community and a new found Turkish republic. These events illustrate the importance of political and social change within a society. There are many outcomes that have come out of the Turkish war of independence, such as the birth of a brand new country and an establishment of a national movement. Turkish people were previously dictated to by the Ottomans. Having rights and a voice within the ruling of the country was a completely new way of living.
Not only did Turkey win as a state, Turkey was the only power from left from World War I to win their treaty terms and be accepted equally by Europe. Turkey was lucky to uphold peaceful negotiations over the remaining lands, with the exception of Mosul and Hatay which was later disputed and settled; now in control of the Turkish government.
“The War of Independence left behind the first mass Turkish nationalism, forged in a war in which Turks were forced to stand as Turks against enemies who saw them as a national group.” This shows the idea that nationalism is a unity tool and belief of radical change, changed the course of history, founding a new Turkish nation. Furthermore, this quote supports the idea of unity and ‘Kemalism’. Turks are proud of their past heritage and are proud of being a ‘Turk’. “Ataturk and his followers believed that it was essential to develop that nationalism, both to unite the people and stand against the nationalism of others.” Ataturk is deemed as the founding member of the new republic of Turkey and also the first president of Turkey.
On 29th of October 1923 the Grand National Assembly proclaimed the republic of Turkey and named the first president of Turkey as Mustafa Kemal later known as Ataturk. The capital of Turkey was changed from Istanbul to the new capital of Turkey known as Ankara. The reason why the capital was changed is a tactical reason. Although Istanbul is a bigger region it is close to the border, which makes it more accessible for intruders, enemies etc. Also, as Ataturk was from Ankara and because it is in the centre of Turkey and the second biggest region, Ankara was declared the new Capital.
The new founded national state of Turkey was 1923 and this formally ended the Ottoman Sultanate. Istanbul’s government accepted Ankara’s government to be in charge and thorn the new ruler Mustafa Kemal. Furthermore, this conference also remerged Turkey back into the international community.
The Turkish war of independence also brought the exchange of nationalities from Greece and the new founded state of Turkey. The mutual exchange took place almost immediately after the treaty was signed; the Turks from Thrace and the Greeks from Istanbul.
“Why, then, were radical reforms accepted in Turkey? The answer may lay in the shock of death and destruction that had been visited on the Turks in the wars.” In support of this argument the Turkish war of independence lasted for a large number of years. It wasn’t just the attack from British and Greek armies, it was also a battle within Turkey itself. Turkish republicans welcomed the radical changes and transition from religious concepts; a culture reform had taken place.
Furthermore new ideologies were born in Turkey, such as the six pillars which is also known as the ‘arrows of Kemalism’. The six pillars represent: republicanism, nationalism, populism, revolution, secularism and statism. These pillars represent the foundations and principles that new modern Turkey was built on. The pillars were an icon to help secure security and a sense of national pride within the borders of the Turkish community. The idea of the pillars stemmed from the five pillars of Islam; which was and still is the religion which Turkey follows. The pillars are a guidance to practice Islam correctly. Similarly Ataturk’s six pillars were and still are guidance for the national government.
The radical change brought in many rights for Turkish people. It brought social reform, gave women equal voting rights, education was for everyone and enough food was produced to feed the whole country. Some of these changes had not even been enforced in European countries, yet Turkey had come out from a very difficult battle and gave their citizens a better and fairer quality of life. For these reasons, Turkish people are proud of being a ‘Turk’, are very hard working and protect the borders of their motherland.
However it is interesting that the submission and Ottoman’s debt, which had long infringed on the Ottoman rule, was abolished. The new founders of modern Turkey assumed forty percentage of the Ottoman debt and divided it amongst the former Ottoman provinces. The government did not accept the responsibility of the debt which the Sultans had created. (REF)
Furthermore the radical reforms also required Mustafa Kemal to create a new alphabet. The country was now behind compared to European countries and the government had to duty to bring it up to speed by: creating jobs, building schools and universities, building factories for people to work in and sustain a production line etc. The next 18 years illustrated major changes in Turkey. As the president, Mustafa Kemal had improved the social problems, modernity in religious culture, (i.e. clothing – not compulsory to wear a veil), changes in the written and spoken language, and a general change for a more secular and modern westernisation of Turkey. Despite the uplift of wearing a veil and the birth of women’s rights, the veil was in fact banned in Turkey. This of course was uplifted, however, only in the last decade has wearing veil’s in institutions such as universities has become acceptable.
“Ataturk’s Turkey, while authoritarian, was not a state in which government power was omnipresent and oppressive.” This quote shows Atatürk’s legacy is powerful. It illustrates the lengths he went to in order to secure victory in the Turkish war of independence. Securing freedom and breaking from oppression by the Ottoman rulers and western powers to gain a national state. Thus, Mustafa Kemal received an honouree title amongst the Turkish citizens of Turkey known as ‘Atatürk’ in the year of 1934. Although it may seem restrictive, out of respect, culturally no one else is allowed to name their child Ataturk.
“There was one more factor in building a constituency for change in the Turkish Republic, something that can only be understood emotionally. Ataturk had made the Turks proud.” This shows that Mustafa Kemal Ataturk rebuilt faith within the Turkish people of the new modern Turkey. It assisted his victory, as he showed his commitments and hard work throughout the cause of the Turkish war of independence and beyond.
However, post the Turkish war of independence there was a suppression problem between Turkish and Kurdish people. For many decades Kurdish people were denied simple rights of speaking in Kurdish, naming your child under a Kurdish name and holding cultural events. This created a terrorist group named the PKK. Ataturk was such a nationalist that he did not accept any citizen other than a Turk. There are many non-recorded stories that Ataturk has mistreated a large number of Kurdish people within Turkey. However, in light of the recent social and political movements in Turkey, the current government in power AK party, has settled the warfare between Turkey and the PKK.
Another concerning outcome from the Turkish war of independence is the ‘Armenian question’. Even after almost 100 years, Turkey still denies it was genocide. Even the mere mentioning of the Armenian genocide can be treated as treason amongst being a Turk. (REF)
Furthermore, if one were to use Mustafa Kemal ‘Ataturk’s’ name in vein or disrespect him, ‘the founding father of the Turks’, it could lead to prosecution or even a prison sentence. This type of activity is fierce and unnecessary. Evidently this only supresses the rights Ataturk once gave to his people, ‘freedom of speech’.
Turkish is a very nationalist country. It has been around for only 100 years; however its social, cultural and political situation has reverted back towards a more Islamic country. One would argue this is the majority religion in Turkey, another could argue this is a turn back towards ‘Ottomanism’ as ‘AK party is a party based on religious foundations.
After the Ottoman Empire new ideologies were born: the Young Turks, Nationalism, Islamism and the far right and left of politics. However, Turkey’s army has the power to enter into military coups if it finds that the public have lost confidence in the government and the government are failing to run the country. Even recently there were news about scandals and problems within the government. Turkey’s current president ‘Erdogan’ was known to be involved in the plot. There were protests that the current Islamic party should be thrown over and the national ‘Kemalism’ party should regain control. In Turkey Ataturk is such an iconic figure, that he will always be remembered as the savour and father of the Turks.
In conclusion, the Turkish war of independence is a culturally interesting topic. As a historian and an individual I have ties with Kemalism. The history of Turkey is fantastic. Turkish people have fought long and hard to get to the state they are today.
I believe Turkey should always remember its immensely interesting heritage. The Ottoman Empire ruled for over 100 years and was once the most powerful Empire in the world. This rule eventually ended and Turkey saw another great ruler, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk. He restructured Turkey by using his intelligence and resilience against threats from other countries. Now Turkey is a very modern state. A very popular country and it still remains a hot spot for historians.
Furthermore, it is interesting looking at the political situation between Eastern and Western Turkey. Their forefathers fought to challenge and change narrow thinking ideologies through a Turkish revolution. Turkey is situated in the heart of the world, connecting all four corners. It will be interesting to see how Turkey grows even more and the future of its government and people.
Kushner, David, The Rise of Turkish Nationalism 1876-1908 (London: Franks Class and Company Limited,1977)
Mango, Andrew, Ataturk (London: John Murray, 1999)
Kinross, Patrick, Ataturk the rebirth of nation (London: Butler & Tanner Ltd, 1993)
McCarthy, Justin, Historical Endings: The Ottoman Peoples and the End of Empire (London: Hodder Headline Group, 2001)
Winrow, M.Gareth and Kirisci, Kemal, The Kurdish Question and Turkey : an example of a Trans-State Ethnic Conflict (Oxton: Frank Cass Publishers,1997)
Zurcher.J, Erik, Turkey A Modern History (London: I.B Tauris & Co Ltd,2010)
Zurcher.J, Erik, The Young Turk Legacy And Nation Building: From the Ottoman Empire to Ataturk’s Today (London: I.B Tauris & Co Ltd,2010)
Kansu, Aykut, The Revolution of 1908 in Turkey (Leiden: Koninklijke Brill,1997)
Kasaba, Resat and Bozdogan, Sibel, Rethinking Modernity and National Identity in Turkey (America: University of Washington Press,1997)
Gawrych. W, George , The Young Atatürk: From Ottoman Soldier to Statesman of Turkey (London: : I.B Tauris & Co Ltd,2013)
Stephen M. Walt, Revolution and War (New York: Cornell University Press, 1996).
Renee Worringer, Ottomans Imagining Japan: East, Middle East, and Non-Western Modernity at the turn of the twentieth century (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2014).
Feroz Ahmad, The making of Modern Turkey (London: Routledge,1993).
Halide Edib, House with Wisteria: Memoirs of Turkey Old and New (Charlottesville: Leopolis Press, 2003).
Stanford J. Shaw, Ezel Kural Shaw, History of the Ottoman Empire and Modern Turkey: Volume 2, Reform, Revolution and Republic (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977)
Feroz Ahmad, The making of Modern Turkey (London: Routledge,1993).
A.L. Macfie , The End of the Ottoman Empire 1908-1923 (London: Addison Wesley Longdom Limited, 1998)
Andrew Mango, Makers of the Modern world From the Sultan to Ataturk Turkey (London: Haus Publishing Ltd, 2009)
Feroz Ahmad, The Young Turks The Committee of Union and Progress in Turkish Politics,1908-14 (London: C.Hurst co. Ltd 1969)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-25617637 [accessed on 22 of April 2014]
 Renee Worringer, Ottomans Imagining Japan: East, Middle East, and Non-Western Modernity at the turn of the twentieth century (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2014).pp.14
 Feroz Ahmad, The making of Modern Turkey (London: Routledge,1993).p.26
 A.L. Macfie , The End of the Ottoman Empire 1908-1923 (London: Addison Wesley Longdom Limited, 1998).P.42
 Halide Edib, House with Wisteria: Memoirs of Turkey Old and New (Charlottesville: Leopolis Press, 2003).p.204
Stanford J. Shaw, Ezel Kural Shaw, History of the Ottoman Empire and Modern Turkey: Volume 2, Reform, Revolution and Republic (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977).pp265
 Feroz Ahmad, The making of Modern Turkey (London: Routledge,1993).p.30
 A.L. Macfie , The End of the Ottoman Empire 1908-1923 (London: Addison Wesley Longdom Limited, 1998).P.28,29
Zurcher.J, Erik, The Young Turk Legacy And Nation Building: From the Ottoman Empire to Ataturk’s Today (London: I.B Tauris & Co Ltd,2010)p.75
 Zurcher.J, Erik, The Young Turk Legacy And Nation Building: From the Ottoman Empire to Ataturk’s Today (London: I.B Tauris & Co Ltd,2010)pp.75
 Zurcher.J, Erik, Turkey A Modern History (London: I.B Tauris & Co Ltd,2010).p.95
Zurcher.J, Erik, Turkey A Modern History (London: I.B Tauris & Co Ltd,2010).p.96
 Feroz Ahmad, The making of Modern Turkey (London: Routledge,1993).p.37
 Zurcher.J, Erik, Turkey A Modern History (London: I.B Tauris & Co Ltd,2010).p.110
 Zurcher.J, Erik, Turkey A Modern History (London: I.B Tauris & Co Ltd,2010).p.115
 Zurcher.J, Erik, Turkey A Modern History (London: I.B Tauris & Co Ltd,2010).pp.133
 Justin McCarthy, Historical Endings the Ottomans Peoples and the End of Empire (London: Hodder Headline Group,2001) p.130
 Justin McCarthy, Historical Endings the Ottomans Peoples and the End of Empire (London: Hodder Headline Group,2001) pp.136
 Justin McCarthy, Historical Endings the Ottomans Peoples and the End of Empire (London: Hodder Headline Group,2001) p.211
Stephen M. Walt, Revolution and War (New York: Cornell University Press, 1996).p.306
 Justin McCarthy, Historical Endings the Ottomans Peoples and the End of Empire (London: Hodder Headline Group,2001) p.214
 Justin McCarthy, Historical Endings the Ottomans Peoples and the End of Empire (London: Hodder Headline Group,2001) p.214