Mustafa Kemal Ataturk:
The Founder of Modern Turkey

An Introduction to his life and ideas: A Discovery Activity

Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, dominates the history of Turkey in the twentieth century. Today, most of Turkey’s social, political and legal institutions can be traced back to him. Since Turkey has been one of the most stable and progressive nations in the Middle East he is still held in high esteem by the Turks. Pictures or statues of him can be found everywhere. So admired is he that the Turkish Parliament even voted to give him the name, Ataturk which means father of the Turks. Why is he so admired? Who was he? What did he do for Turkey? What challenges did he face? What is his legacy for modern Turkey? The following primary and secondary sources have been chosen to allow you to do the work of the historian and answer these and other questions. Included with each set of sources are questions intended to guide your use of the sources. At the end are further questions to help you draw some final conclusions about Ataturk and his place in history.

(From J. Pettifer, The Turkish Labyrinth, London 1997)

Source No. 1: Ataturk: From "Speech to the Assembly, October, 1927"

This source and several other sources used here have been taken from Ataturk’s 36 hour

speech delivered to the congress of the Republican People’s Party from 15 to 20 October 1927. Beginning in the 15^th century the Ottoman Turks dominated what later became modern Turkey. The Ottoman Sultan was finally removed from power in 1922. Here Ataturk describes some of the weaknesses of the Ottoman Empire.

We know that the Ottoman Empire, whose succession the new Turkish State had accepted, was fettered by the Capitulations which existed in the name of ancient Treaties. The Christian elements enjoyed numerous privileges and favours. The Ottoman Government could not exercise the administration of justice in regard to foreigners dwelling in the Ottoman Empire. It was forbidden to impose taxes on foreigners as were raised from our own citizens. The Government was also prevented from taking steps against those elements in the interior that undermined the foundations of the State.

The Ottoman Government was also prohibited from securing the means of carrying on their existence in a manner worthy of human beings by the Turkish people, the original element from which they emanated. They could not restore the country, could not build railways and were not even free to establish schools. If we tried to do so the foreigners immediately interfered. In order to secure a luxurious existence for themselves, the Ottoman sovereigns and their Courts had not only placed all the revenues of the country and the nation at their disposal, but they had in addition floated numerous loans, thereby sacrificing not only all the resources of the nation, but even the honour and dignity of the State. And this was done to such an extent that the Empire had become incapable of paying the interest on these loans and was regarded in the eyes of the world as being in a state of bankruptcy.

The Ottoman Empire, whose heirs we were, had no value, no merit, no authority in the eyes of the world. It was regarded as being beyond the pale of international right and was, as it were, under the tutelage and protection of somebody else ( From W. H. McNeill and M.R. Waldman, The Islamic World, Chicago, 1983; page 437).

Questions:

1. What were Capitulations?

2. Why do you think the Sultan agreed to give foreigners such privileges in the Ottoman

Empire?

(From A. Palmer, The Decline and Fall of the Ottoman Empire, London 1993)

Source No. 2: Ataturk: From Speech to the Assembly, October, 1927

After graduating from the General Staff College in 1905, young Mustafa Kemal (he was not given the name Ataturk until 1934) was posted to Syria then still a part of the Ottoman Empire.

It was here that I got a close look at the wickedness of the state administration, the deficiencies in training the army and the adversity and difficulties forced onto the people by the administration. I traveled all around Syria whenever I found the opportunity. (From I. Aksit, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk , Istanbul, 1998, page 20)

Questions:

1. What did Ataturk learn while a young officer?

Source No. 3: Ataturk: From speech to the Assembly, October, 1927

… (We) set up the "Motherland and Freedom Society." I took on the duties of organizing the society in Syria and the rest of the region. With the excuse of conducting training with various military units, I was able to carry out with this task of organizing the society in Beirut, Haifa and Jerusalem. However, this business in Syria did not reach the desired level. I had thought that it might catch on faster in Macedonia, so I started searching for a way to get there. (Aksit, page 20)

Questions:

1. What territories of the Ottoman Empire does Ataturk mention here?
2. How did Ataturk use his time as a young officer in the Ottoman Army?

Source No. 4: Ataturk: From Speech to the Assembly, October, 1927

On leave from his posting in Syria, Kemal traveled to Salonika to help establish a secret society there. The Padishah was a Persian word sometimes used for the Sultan.

I told them, "The purpose for gathering all of you here this evening is thus; I do not think it is necessary to tell you about the dangerous moments that this country experienced. You are all aware of these. We have some urgent obligations to carry out against this unlucky nation. Our sole objective is to save it. Today, they wish to separate the Rumelia region in Macedonia from the homeland. Foreigners are now exercising their partial and actual influence and control over parts of the country. The Padishah is one who is capable of committing all evils, who thinks of nothing but his pleasures and sultanate. The people are being crushed under tyranny and oppression. There is death and collapse in a country in which there is no freedom. The reason for all advancement and formation is liberty. Today, history is burdening us, her sons, down with some major tasks. I established a society in Syria. We have started the struggle against tyranny and oppression. I came to set up the foundations of this society here as well. It is imperative to work in secrecy and awaken the organization. I expect self-sacrifice from all of you. I invite you to the task of revolting against this damning oppression, tearing down this rotten, worn-out administration, the people to rule themselves, in short, to save the motherland. (Aksit, page 22-23)

Questions:

1. What were Ataturk’s motives for rebellion?
2. What did he propose to do?

Source No. 5: Ataturk: From "Speech to the Assembly, October, 1927

World War I exploded onto the scene while I was the Sophia Military Attaché on July 28, 1914. I was following the events as they unfolded and thought. "This war is not going to end as quickly as the Germans have calculated. It is not enough to end the war if they capture Paris by wiping out the French Army and marching all the way to the English Channel. Even if the British fleet is beaten, the great expanse of territory that stretches to Moscow is going to put as much a strain on Germany as it did during the Napoleonic Wars. From this point of view, there is no reason to rush into joining this war." I was able to convey my thinking to the authorities but I was not able to make them listen.

It was not long before we entered the war on the side of the Germans. Would there be any possibility for me to spend my life in ballrooms in the comfort of the diplomatic corps in Sophia while realizing the fact that the homeland was being thrown into an impending disaster and also realizing the fact that there would be no way out unless the entire Turkish Army was ready to spill its last drop of blood to avoid this most certain calamity. (Aksit, page 36)

Questions:

1. Why was Ataturk opposed to alliance with Germany and entry into World War I?
2. How did he respond when war was declared?

Here Ataturk is seen inspecting ceremonial troops in 1921, three years after the end of world war I. Note the helmets of the Turkish troops (From Aksit p. 69).

Source No. 6: Ataturk: From "Speech to the Assembly, October, 1927

Kemal made a reputation for himself as a successful military commander in 1915 during the Gallipoli Campaign.

After losing the sea battle on March 18^th, the enemy wanted to gain control of the Straits by launching an assault on the Gallipoli Peninsula. It was then that an army under the name of the Mediterranean Allied Forces started to gather on Limni Island. This army, which was under the command of Sir Ian Hamilton, was made up of Australian and New Zealand troops, English and French units and an Indian Brigade.

As for us, we had our 2^nd Army to counter this force. The German Marshall, Liman Von Sanders was appointed to head this army. The army commander thought that the attack would occur from the Asian side and Gallipoli, and had his troops positioned according to this idea. I thought that the enemy was going to attack from Seddulbahir, which was the further most point from Kabatepe and Gallipoli. The 19^th Division, of which I was given the command of, was positioned as a reserve army at Bigali .

Finally, the enemy began landing at the places I had mentioned previously on the morning of April 25^th.

It was really unfortunate that all the troops were positioned with the thinking that the enemy would be landing from Asia and Gallipoli. There was only one battalion facing the enemy. It was 6:30 in the morning. From the sound of shrieking cannon blasts, we could tell that the enemy had started his landing on our shores. I was not getting any information or orders from anywhere. (Aksit, page 38-39)

Questions:

1. Who made up the allied invading force at Gallipoli?
2. Why were the Turks taken by surprise at first?

Source No. 7: Ataturk: Speech to the Assembly, October, 1927

Eventually, the allies were forced to abandon their attack. Ataturk, here, continues to discuss the Gallipoli campaign…

I think that the enemy pulled out of the Dardanelles about 10 days after I left the region. Along with the reinforcements that constantly poured into the region, five hundred thousand troops on each side had piled up in this rather narrow space. In the end, the defense of this homeland cost us the lives of 250,000 soldiers. The enemy lost about as many troops as well. (Aksit, page 46)

Questions:

1. How many men lost their lives in the Gallipoli campaign?
2. Why do you think it was so costly?

Australian troops in action at Gallipoli.

(From D. Fromkin, A Peace to End All Peace, New York, 1990).

Source No. 8: Ataturk: Speech to the Assembly, October 1927

Although the Turkish army was successful in the Gallipoli campaign they were defeated elsewhere. The Ottoman Empire signed the Mudros Arimistice on October 30, 1918. In the document the Turkish garrisons in Palestine, Syria, Mesopotamia and Arabia surrendered to the Allies. Allied troops were also to occupy the forts in the Darnanelles and Bosphorus. The Turkish army was also demobilized. Within two weeks allied warships occupied Constantinople.

Everyone knows about this order’s enclosed Armistice. I carefully read the provisions of the Armistice from top to bottom and I came up with the opinion that the Ottoman Empire was quite willing to unconditionally surrender herself to the enemy with out any restrictions. Not only that, but there were also promises to help the enemy invade the country. This made me think very sad thoughts. I wanted to enlighten the government in Istanbul about these enormous circumstances. I think I tried to do that. However, there were two separate opinions drawn out on this foundation. I am not going to share this story. I saw just how crippling this Armistice was meant to be. In believing that it was necessary to work, I told the concerned offices that the correction of these crippling points should be championed. I pressed forward the opinion that as long as the Armistice is carried out in its present form, then the country will be exposed to endless invasions and occupation. I explained that if we accept everything that the enemies had demanded from us, this would have resulted in the total occupation of Turkey whereas they would have gone as far as getting involved in domestic policy. Soothsayers were not at all necessary for this. (Aksit, page 81-82)

Questions:

1. According to Ataturk, what would be the results of the Armistice?
2. To what did the Ottoman Empire agree in the Armistice?

Source No. 9: Ataturk: Speech to the assembly, October, 1927

Ataturk describes life in occupied Constantinople.

People could only go out of their homes to obtain their basic needs, whereas they had to cower and hunch over in fear along the walls lining the streets in order not to be on the receiving end of rather unpleasant insults. It seemed as though the voices of hundreds of thousands of those residing in the enormous city of Istanbul had been extinguished. The only things rising up through the Istanbul skyline were the voices, insults, flags and bayonets belonging to the enemy.

I was amazed there were still those aware that there was a Sultanate, a government and an existence. I had made up my mind to pass over into Anatolia. I did not tell anyone this idea, keeping it to myself until the time was right. One day, Ismet Bey called on me at my home in Sisli, whereas we had such a conversation:

--"What’s up?"

--"It is as bad as you think."

--"Can you pull me down a map of Turkey from over there and open it on this table?.. I want to talk about it," I said. Ismet Bey found the map and opened it. He also pulled out the compass he always kept in his pocket. I joked:

--"We haven’t got to the compass stage yet, let’s talk a bit without the compass!"

--"What are you going do?" he asked.

Meanwhile, I should say that one of those that I was always able to get along with really well was Ismet. For this reason, he thought that this meeting was vitally necessary.

--"Let’s say for the sake of argument, that someone without any official title or authority was to pass over into Anatolia and by awaking the nation, begin searching for ways for their salvation. What would be the most suitable area and the easiest way of reaching that area?" Ismet looked into my face and with a happy and hopeful laugh, asked:

--"Have you made up your mind?" (Aksit, page 92-93)

Questions:

1. Describe Istanbul during allied occupation?
2. What did Ataturk decide to do in this passage? Why?

(From Palmer)

Source No. 10: Ataturk: Speech to the Assembly October 1927

Ataturk describes the situation in 1919 upon his arrival in Anatolia

I landed at Samsun on the 19^th May of 1919. This was the general situation at that time:

The group of Powers which included the Ottoman Government had been defeated in the Great War. The Ottoman Army had been crushed on every front and an armistice had been signed under severe conditions. The prolongation of the Great War had left the people exhausted and impoverished. Those who had driven the people and the country into the general conflict had fled and now cared for nothing but their own safety. Vahdettin, the degenerate occupant of the throne and the Caliphate, was seeking for some despicable way to save his person and his throne, the only objects of his anxiety. The Cabinet, of which Damat Ferit Pasha was the head, was weak and lacked dignity and courage. It was subservient to the will of the Sultan alone and agreed to every proposal that could protect its members and their sovereign. The Army had been deprived of their arms and ammunition, and this state of affairs continued. The Entente Powers did not consider it necessary to abide by the terms of the Armistice. Their warships and troops remained in Istanbul. The Vilayet of Adana was occupied by the French; Urfa, Maras and Antep were under British occupation; In Antalya and Konya were the Italians. There were British soldiers in Merzifon and Samsun. Foreign officers, officials and their agent provocateurs were very active in all directions. At last, on May 15^th, that is to say, four days before the following account of events begins, the Greek army, with the consent of the Entente Powers too, had landed in Izmir with the consent of the Allied Powers. (Aksit, page 96-99)

Questions:

1. How did Ataturk describe the government of the Ottoman Empire?
2. What allied forces occupied Turkey?

Source No. 11: Ataturk: Speech to the Assembly October, 1927

In this passage Ataturk resolves to rebel against the Sultan, resist foreign domination and create a new Turkish state.

There was only one decision to make in this situation and that was to establish a new Turkish State based on national sovereignty, without any restrictions and without any conditions! Well, this was the decision I had considered before I even departed Istanbul and started putting into practice as soon as I touched Anatolian soil in Samsun.

The soundest and most logical arguments for arriving at this condition were as follows: The Turkish nation should live in honor and dignity. Such a condition could only be attained by complete independence. No matter how wealthy and prosperous a nation may be, if it deprived of its independence, it no longer deserves to be regarded as anything more than a slave in the eyes of the civilized world.

To request the protectorate of a foreign power is to admit to a lack of all human qualities; it is to admit to weakness and incapacity. Indeed, it is unthinkable that any group of people should ever voluntarily accept the humiliation of being ruled by a foreign master.

But the Turk is dignified and proud; he is also capable and talented. Such a nation would prefer to die rather that subject itself to a life of slavery. Therefore--independence or death! This was to be the password for those who wanted true salvation... (Aksit, page 106)

Questions:

1. How did Ataturk justify rebellion?
2. Where have you encountered these arguments before?

Source No. 12: Ataturk: Speech to the Assembly October, 1927

A National Assembly was set up by Ataturk and his followers as a rival government to the Sultan’s in Istanbul.

Another important question which I also brought before the Assembly related to the formation of the Government. You will admit that this question was at that time a very delicate one. In reality, it was a question of acknowledging the collapse of the Ottoman State and the abolition of the Caliphate. It meant the creation of a new State standing on new foundations. (Aksit, page 140)

Questions:

1. What does Ataturk for see for the Ottoman Empire?
2. What do you believe Ataturk meant when he spoke of a "new state on a new foundation"?

Source No. 13: Ataturk: Speech to the Assembly October, 1927

The Nationalist forces lead by Ataturk fought for two years to expell French, Italian and Greek troops from Turkey. The clashes with the Greek Army, in particular, lead to bloody battles and the exchange of huge numbers of Greek and Turkish refugees between the two countries.

Finally, in late 1922 the allies agreed to meet with Turkish representatives in Lausanne to recognize Turkish victory. However, there were still two governments in Turkey, the pro- Allies Sultan’s government in Constantinople and the Nationalists government in Anatolia.

On October 28^th, the Allies invited us to a peace conference, which was to meet in Lausanne. But these powers insisted on recognizing the existence of a government in Istanbul and inviting them also to attend the conference. This double invitation led to the final abolition of the Monarchy--the Caliphate and the Monarchy were separated from one another by an act of November 1, 1922, by which the sovereignty of the nation, which had been exercised over the previous two and a half years, was confirmed. The Caliphate remained for some time, but without any particular rights. The Assembly did not convene on October 31, 1922. On that day, a meeting of the Party for the Defense of Rights took place. I made some statements there to prove the necessity for the abolition of the sultanate. The same question formed the subject of extended debates in the Assembly on November 1, 1922. I considered it necessary to make a long statement here also on this question. (Aksit, page 220)

Questions:

1. What problem did the Turks have with the Lausanne Conference?
2. How did Ataturk plan to rectify the problem?

Source No. 14: Ataturk: Speech to the Assembly October, 1927

Turkey was completely freed from foreign occupation and had thus confirmed her territorial integrity. It now remained to determine the location of the seat of the Government of the new Turkish State.

Consideration of all kinds categorically demanded that it could only be in Anatolia and furthermore, that it should be in Ankara.

Geographical and strategical position was of the very first importance. (Aksit, page 238)

Questions:

1. Why did Ataturk believe that the new capital of Turkey should be in Ankara?
2. Might there be other reasons not mention? Explain.

Source No. 15: Ataturk: Speech to the Assembly October, 1927

Ataturk begins to create the secular state of modern Turkey.

The discussion lasted for nearly five hours. When the discussion concluded at 6:45 in the evening, the Grand National Assembly had passed Laws No. 429, 430 and 431. In virtue of these laws the "Grand National Assembly of Turkey and the Government formed by it is authorized to give legal form to the stipulations which are in force in the Turkish Republic with reference to public affairs and to carry through their application," and " The Ministry for Religious Affairs (Ser’iye) and the Ministry for Mortmain Estates (Evkaf) have been suppressed." All scientific and educational institutions on Turkish territory...all ecclesiastical schools, are transferred to the Ministry of Public Instruction.

The Caliph is declared deposed and the dignity abolished. All members of the deposed Ottoman dynasty are forever forbidden to reside within the frontiers of the territory of the Turkish Republic…

…Gentlemen, while the law regarding the Restoration of Order was in force, there took place also the closing of the Tekkes (dervish lodges), of the zaviyes (convents), and of the Turbehs (mausoleums), as well as the abolition of all sects and all kinds of titles such as Sheikh, Dervish, Mevlevi, Occultist, Magician, Sorcerer, Mausoleum Guard, etc. One will be able to imagine how necessary the carrying through of these measures was, in order to prove that our nation as a whole was no primitive nation, filled with superstitions and prejudice. (Aksit, 250, page 252)

Questions:

1. What does secular mean?
2. How did Ataturk try to create a secular state?
3. Why did he think it was necessary for Turkey?

Source No. 16: From "Speech to the Assembly, October, 1927

Following the treaty of Laussane, Ataturk and his followers had the daunting task of rebuilding and modernizing Turkey. Until 1929 he relied upon the law for the Restoration of Order and the Courts of Independence to silence all opposition. He defends them in the following section.

Honourable Gentlemen, when, in consequence of serious necessity we became convinced for the first time that it would be useful for the Government to take extraordinary measures, there were people who disapproved of our action.

There were persons who disseminated and sought to gain credence to the thought that we were making use of the law for Restoration of Order and the Courts of Independence as tools of dictatorship or despotism.

There is no doubt that time and events will show to those who disseminated this opinion how mistaken they were, and put them to shame.

We never used the exceptional measures, which all the same were legal, to set ourselves in any way above the law.

On the contrary, we applied them to restore peace and quietness in the country. We made use of them to insure the existence and independence of the country. (McNeill, page 445)

Questions:

1. How does Ataturk justify the use of the law of Restoration of Order and the Courts of Independence?
2. Are you persuaded by his arguments?

Source No. 17: Ataturk: From "Speech to the Assembly, October, 1924

See the picture of Sultan Abdulhamid for an example of a fez.

Gentlemen, it was necessary to abolish the fez, which sat on our heads as a sign of ignorance, of fanaticism, of hatred to progress and civilization, and to adopt in its place the hat, the customary headdress of the whole civilized world, thus showing, among other things, that no difference existed in the manner of thought between the Turkish nation and the whole family of civilized mankind. We did that while the law for the Restoration of Order was still in force. If it had not been in force we should have done so all the same; but one can say with complete truth that the existence of this law made the thing much easier for us. As a matter of fact the application of the law for the Restoration of Order prevented the morale of the nation being poisoned to a great extent by reactionaries. (McNeill, page 446)

Questions:

1. According to Ataturk what was wrong with the Fez?
2. What does Ataturk’s attack on the Fez tell you about his vision for the future of Turkey?

Source No. 18: A brief Survey of Ataturk’s policies.

This selection is taken from a modern guidebook of Turkey, The Rough Guide. It summarizes some of Ataturk’s social policies used to westernize Turkey.

Kemal embarked on a campaign against traditional headgear, in particular women’s veils, the turban and the fez. Although the caliphate had been dissolved with hardly a murmur, the sartorial laws outlawing the turban and fez, and requiring the donning of the hated European hat, were met with stiff resistance; dress for the Ottomans had always served as a vital indicator of rank. Not a few offenders were hung from lampposts by the reactivated Independence Tribunals, but the secularists have never to this day succeeded in altogether eliminating the cloaking of women in the rural areas.

More drastic measures followed at a dizzying pace. By 1926, the Gregorian calendar had replaced the Muslim lunar one for official use, and the seriat or Islamic law code was replaced by adaptations of the Western European versions. The same year, the Jewish, Armenian and Greek minorities relinquished the last vestiges of their communal laws; henceforth all citizens of the Republic were to be judged by a uniform legal system. Parallel with the introduction of a secular law code came the relative emancipation of women: marriage and divorce became civil rather than religious or customary, polygamy was abolished, and within four years women were given the vote ( R. Ayliffe, M. Dubin and J. Gawthorp, Turkey: The Rough Guide, London, 1994, page 760).

Source No. 19: Alphabet Reform

Here a secondary source describes another of Ataturk’s measures. Until this reform the Turks used the Arabic script. Gazi was an honorary title given to him by the Grand National Assembly after his victories in the war of Independence. It means fighter against the Infidel.

Kemal now felt secure enough to press on with his agenda, and chose his next field alphabet reform. A special commission prepared a Roman script within six weeks in 1928, and by the end of the year its universal use was law, with the Gazi himself touring the country to give lessons in public parks (The Rough Guide, page 761)

Questions:

1. Why do you think Ataturk believed that alphabet reform was so important?
2. Would you have agreed with him if you had lived in Turkey at that time?

1. 

2. This Photograph was taken in 1928 while Ataturk visited the city of Kayseri.(From Aksit, p. 140)

Source No. 20: Ataturk: Speech to the Assembly October, 1927

Ataturk continues his reforms.

Gentlemen, at the same time the new laws were worked out and decreed which promise the most fruitful results for the nation on a social and economic plane, and in general in all forms of expression of human activity...the Civil Code, which ensures the liberty of women and stabilizes the existence of the family. Accordingly, we made use of all circumstances only from one point of view, which consisted therein; to raise the nation on to that step on which it is justified in standing in the civilized world, to stabilize the Turkish Republic more and more on steadfast foundations... (Aksit, page 254)

Questions:

1. What were some of Ataturk’s other reforms?
2. How did he justify them?

Here Ataturk meets with members of Parliament in July 1927 (Aksit 133)

Source No. 21: Ataturk: Speech to the Assembly October, 1927

Here Ataturk finishes his great autobiographical speech.

Gentlemen, I have taken the trouble to show, in these accounts, how a great people, whose national course was considered as ended, reconquered its independence; how it created a national and modern State founded on the latest results of science. (Aksit, page 254)

Questions:

1. What did Ataturk believe should be the foundation of a modern state?
2. Why do you think he believed this?
3. Do you agree?

General Conclusion Questions:

1. Do you think Ataturk deserves the name father of the Turks? Why or why not?
2. What problems did Ataturk face in creating a modern state?
3. Why do you think Ataturk was successful?
4. Do you approve of his conception of a modern state?
5. What benefits as well as problems did Ataturk leave for his successors today?

Chronology

1881 Kemal is born

1893 Kemal enters military school

1913 Kemal serves as military attache in Sofia

1914 Ottoman Empire enters World War I

1915 Kemal successfully defends Gallipoli

1918 Armistice of Mudros ends World War I for the Ottoman Empire

1919 Kemal organizes resistance to allied occupation of Turkish territory

1922 Greek troops driven from Turkey

1922 Sultanate is abolished

1923 Kemal is elected president of the new Republic of Turkey

1925 Critics silenced

1929 Alphabet reform begins

1934 Kemal takes the name Ataturk

1938 Ataturk dies

Bibliography

Fromkin, D.. A Peace to End All Peace (New York, 1989).

Goodwin, J..Lords of the Horizons

Kinross, L.. Ataturk: A Biography of Mustafa Kemal, Father of Modern Turkey (London 1964).

Landau, J.. Ataturk and the Modernization of Turkey (1984)

Lewis, B.. The Emergence of Modern Tukey (Oxford, 1968).

Palmer, A.. The Decline and Fall of the Ottoman Empire (London, 1992).

Zurcher, E.. Turkey: A Modern History (London, 1997)