The Ottoman Endgame

The Mid East seems in constant turmoil with much blame given to western powers who drew the wrong lines for their own greedy reasons.  There has always been a lot of blame to pass around.  Sean McMeekin gives a different perspective going back just before the Great War with a focus on the Ottoman Empire.  "The Ottoman Endgame" was recommended by Fareed Zakaria.

At its peak the Ottoman Empire extended to eastern Europe, northern Africa, the Arab lands and included many Jews and Christians.  Jews fled Europe for greater safety in Ottoman areas with over a million Jews there in 1900.  By the dawn of the twentieth century the Ottoman Empire was considered "sick" and ripe for picking off territory.  They did control access to the Black Sea which was key for trade with Russia.  Russia, an antagonist to Turkey over centuries saw an opening.  Italy saw an opportunity in Libya.  Fighting in the Balkans, including Serbia and Bulgaria against the Ottoman Empire preceded World War I.

The Great War was precipitated with the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria and his wife in Serbia on June 28, 1914.  The Ottoman Empire could not afford to be involved as it had a severe financial problem.  Germany, Russia, Britain, France all had their motives.

A German dreadnought outran a British ship in the Mediterranean to end up in Istanbul as an inducement to declare war on Russia and to allow him to patrol the Black Sea.  Also an Egyptian leader wanting to liberate from Britain was vacationing in Bosphorous.  Churchill was anxious to attack Turkey, but was blocked by Kitchener who was concerned about Egypt and India, but not before commandeering two Turkish dreadnoughts that had been built by British ship builders.   Russia, although blocked in was reluctant to push Turkey to war as they had their own Muslim subjects and wanted a better deal before taking sides.

Germans wanted Turkey to declare war, but Turkey had financial constraints including paying military staff.  Germany did some calculations and decided to finance the Ottoman Empire including large amounts of gold.  Turkey waited until they received gold before declaring war.

The British, like the Americans a few decades later saw the oppressed Iraqis  hoping for liberation from the Ottomans.  They found it more difficult than anticipated to fire up the Arabs.

The Armenian Genocide that is sometimes acknowledged is more complicated than I casually thought.  The Armenians were Christians in a Muslim country and wanted to be free.  The Russians were sympathetic and were reached out to by Armenians.  The Ottomans decided it was best to deport Armenians away from where the Russians were, but did set up guidelines that were meant to be humane.  Many of the guidelines were forgotten and Armenians suffered being sent to faraway inhospital sites and died from starvation, exhaustion and Turkish hatred and fear.  To further aggravate the situation Russians were successful in overcoming a Muslim Ottoman city with the help of Armenians.  Turks took revenge and directly killed many Armenians.  Historians argue over how many Armenians died, but it was in genocidal proportions.  

Ironically the British had been requested to ally themselves with Armenians and Russians for a strategic attack.  Armenians from Egypt were ready in large numbers to help this effort, but the British were stuck in a mindset that led to disaster in Gallipoli and ignored the Russians and Armenian requests, despite advice that in hindsight seemed a better use of their resources.  One of a few dissenters was T. E Lawrence, at the time a mere interpreter.

Mustafa Kemal is considered the founder of modern Turkey.  He developed his credibility serving well in the military including Gallipoli.   He is credited with saying "I did not order you to attack.  I ordered you to die." reportedly before a battle.

The Germans tried to stir up a holy war against Brits and Russians but with little success.  Brits suggested Arabs could take over caliphate.

In the 1917 Russian Revolution one of early events was mutinies among soldiers and sailors.  Lenin reached Petrograd (St Petersburg)  with a German military escort in April and immediately demanded an end to imperialist wars, but there was still political maneuvering.  The Russian navy still wanted to conquer Istanbul.  A ceasefire was declared in Nov 1917 which European armies accepted readily.  A little slower on the Ottoman front as Russians were relatively successful.  This allowed a shift of troops, but more importantly helped retain some land.  Leon Trotsky sat down to negotiate and was fairly clever about it, but both Germans and Ottoman military forces tried to seize with some success lands under Russian control.

At the end of the war, the allies ganged up on the Ottoman Empire with Greece, Italy, France  Russia (under Bolsheviks)  and Britain staking out claims to large amounts of land.  Britain (against the advice of Churchill) occupied Istanbul.  Mustafa Kemal rallied military leaders to resist.

America had entered the war in April 6, 1917, but not against the Ottoman Empire.  They were seen as possible peace brokers, but they backed away from the responsibility.  President Wilson was now an invalid.

The Greeks had an advantage for awhile and conquered a lot of what we know as Turkey today.  However, Kemal made some very smart moves gaining gold and weapons from the Bolsheviks, making an agreement with Italy and neutralizing Britain.  Arnold Toynbee testified that the Greeks had committed atrocities against Muslims.  There ended up being an exchange of Turks from Greece and Greeks from Turkey.  Turkey lost Christians and Jews that had helped elevate their cultural level.  Greeks and Turks have argued against one another ever since.  One bright note was an artistic alliance between Zulfu Livanelli and  Mikis Teodorakis, two great artists who performed together many years later.  

France, Britain and Russia negotiated what became known as the Sykes Picot agreement signed on May 16th, 1916 that split up parts of the anticipated concessions by the Ottoman government after their defeat.  Britain was to control what we know as Palestine and over to Jordan and including part of Iraq.  France was to govern the northern part of Iraq, Lebanon, Syria and part of southern Turkey.  Russia was to control Istanbul and Armenia.  On November 2nd, 1917 Foreign Secretary Arthur James Balfour declared in a statement to Walter Rothchild, a representative of the British Jewish community that Britain would accept an facilitate a Jewish homeland in Palestine, but without prejudice to civil and religious rights of non Jewish communities.  Undoubtedly these commitments and their interpretations have affected modern conflicts.  The author contends that ethnic and religious animosities would still have caused conflict almost no matter what boundaries were established.

Mustafa Kemal abolished the caliphate in 1924 and was denounced many years later by Osama bin Laden for doing so.  He is noted for running roughshod to modernize Turkey.

What can history tell us about today's turmoils?  While finishing this up I heard Fareed Zakaria's guest Robert A Worth and then checked a book review.  There is a lot of anger in the Mid-East.  They all want change, but are not tolerant of different views.  One view is that modernization has progressed technically, but socially the pace has been very slow.  Sean McMeekin proclaims that the hatred has existed for a very long time, but had been controlled under the Ottoman regimes.  Although boundaries may have been redrawn imperfectly they only complicate a difficult situation.

A Turkish Delight in book and movie form

Looking for something interesting to view I stumbled on "Bliss" in the Hamilton Library system. After some research (really just skimming) I reserved a DVD thinking at least I would get a perspective on movies from Turkey. When it actually came I wasn't initially very excited, but before too long I was hooked. I watched it a second time and started reading about it and the writer of the original novel. More recently I read the book.

It is common for movie goers to say the book is better than the movie and mostly I would agree. For this comparison I would say they are different with their own merits and demerits.

The key person in all this is the author Zulfu Livaneli. He had not crossed my radar, but he seems like a modern Renaissance man, deserving of wider recognition. Zulfu has written several books, and also screenplays, many of which have achieved international recognition. He leveraged his literary success into also directing successful movies. All that is interesting, but lots of writers can boast a similar resume. He is also a well regarded folk singer/musician who composes, also at an international level (by international I am not necessarily including North America in a big way). A concert featuring him in Ankara, the Turkish capital attracted over 500,000 visitors.

His history goes on. He has been involved in cross cultural projects such as collaborating with famous Greek Mika Theodorakis. He is a regular newspaper columnist. For one term he was an elected parliamentarian where he broke with his party and finished his term as an independent.

His concerns include that Turks should think of themselves as a nation (of many backgrounds) rather than a race. Another issue is youth and their predisposition to go astray.

The two versions of "Bliss" present an interesting contrast. I think I was fortunate to have seen the movie first and then read the book and would advise any curious readers to follow that example. There is some mystery involved so I will try to avoid giving too many clues that will spoil the two different endings.

Both are centered around what are often called "honor" killings. In reality this tradition, still prevalent in some European and Asian cultures, is where the victim is blamed for something shameful. In this case a young girl is raped and chooses not to publicly blame the guilty party. It is set in a rural, isolated part of Turkey and when females are raped it is considered shameful for the whole community. The young girl, Maryem, although encouraged to do so decides not to take her own life.  Cemal, just returning from army service is chosen to take her away to the big city of Istanbul, where he is instructed to kill her.

From there a few other characters are introduced and the plot moves along. Soon they enter the life of the third main character, Irfan, a professor who has escaped from a life of unhappiness (despite much material success and intellectual acceptance). The three of them impact each other in profound ways until the story is resolved.

That brief outline defines both movie and book, but there is a world of difference between them.  I felt both were very enjoyable and satisfying in their own way.

The movie contains a mystery. In the book the mystery is resolved at the beginning and the author deals with what he considers to be more important. The novel's message has more to do with how people inter act and deal with traditions. All three characters are dealt with in much more depth in the book and you understand their perspective much better on the whole. Some of the minor characters are also explained better.

If you read the book first you would take a better understanding of the three principal characters and what they are up against. But you would be missing a story tension that in the end highlights the hypocrisy of the tradition in the movie version. There is definitely tension in the book that compels you to carry on, but I would argue it is not as strong.

In the book the mystery (already answered to the reader) works out differently and plays a different role in the dynamics. There is a little more social politics in the book regarding the Kurds and Alawites (a relatively minor religious group, but with disproportionate power in nearby Syria). The book has one character that gives the professor an opportunity to discuss various thoughts on Turkish social and political mores that is missing from the movie. The author also shows his musical inclinations with a few references (one, Jean- Pierre Rampal which I am listening to as I write this).

The movie ending is actually referred to in the book. One character actually suggests it and the professor replies that that would be a Hollywood ending, implying not realistic. I was predisposed to like the movie ending as suspenseful and poetic justice, but Livaneli was striving for a different message and was equally effective to my way of thinking.

The movie is also enjoyable, not only for how the mystery adds suspense, but for a number of mechanical details.  Livaneli as a well regarded writer and director of movies was given the option of writing or directing the movie and he rejected both. Instead he opted to write the music (which he had done for several other movies). That was one of the enjoyable mechanics I noticed before realizing the composer was also the novelist. I had read and now agree that it seems a combination of folk music modernized.

Another mechanic factor is the cinematography. I had read about one trick in the introduction and watched that part several times afterwards. It is an aerial view of a flock of sheep circling counter clockwise that is mesmerizing. The movie/DVD viewer gets some gorgeous views of Turkey, both rural and Istanbul that are captivating (sorry about the cliches, but they do apply).

Two more elements I would include are the acting and the writing. The girl, Ozgu Namal is very well played and likable, but in the movie seems a little more mature than in the book. The two main males, Talat Bulut and Murat Han seem to fit what I later read in the book. The minor film characters all seem believable and lend some realism.   Another movie of Ozu:  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2021/09/beynelmilel.html

The book has more characters than the movie and they advance different themes effectively and in some cases take the story in a different direction. The idea of any movie is to condense the more time consuming book into something that can impact a viewer in an entertaining and possibly educational manner. The script of this movie does pull the viewer in and does deal with the "honor" killing issue and in some ways more effectively points out the hypocrisy. It certainly is entertaining and a joy to recall.

Movie executives are inclined to make a story more attractive to non readers and save expense (by cutting out characters and distracting subplots). Sometimes it works and in this case had some benefits.

The book is richer in character and political/social commentary. In conclusion I recommend both the movie and the book. To get maximum enjoyment I suggest you see the movie first--if it doesn't entertain you and intrigue you, well I suggest you move onto something more promising.  I am glad I read the book and understand the underlying thinking a little better. I will be looking for more outputs of Zulfu Livaneli, whether it be books, films or music.