Turkish Experience with Totalitarianism and Fascism: Tracing the Intellectual Origins

Many facets of ideological transformation in Turkey between the 1910s and 1930s have been extensively discussed but many more still remain to be studied and contextualised.

One of these aspects concerns the existing disagreement in the scholarship over Turkey’s experience with another manifestation of totalitarianism, and particularly with fascism. The present paper explores this generally overlooked dimension and argues that even the limited research on fascism in Turkey has been mainly done from comparative perspec-tives.

This dominant methodological approach has long prevailed the field and diverted scholarly attention from the essence of the problem. Therefore, the author aims to explore the problem by not identifying similarities and differences of the Unionism of the Young Turks era and Kemalism with their contemporary totalitarian currents; instead, the analy-sis will be mainly limited to the Turkish context and practices in order to trace the local manifestations of “global fascism”. He also argues that there is a compelling continuity of totalitarian ideological and political practices between the Young Turks and the Kemalists.

Vahram Ter-Matevosyan l Poskok.info

American University of Armenia, Yerevan

LOCATING FASCISM IN TURKEY

The question of “How fascist the Kemalist Turkey was”, that Fikret Adanır (2001: 313-361) and many others have raised, still remains a valid and per-tinent one. Adanır poses this question and basically leaves it unanswered relying on Mete Tunçay’s warning that a specific compound, which brings about fascism did not exist in Turkey during the inter-war period. He fur-ther claims that a definition, as well as an all-encompassing and generally accepted theory of fascism do not exist (ibid.: 359). Thus, agreeing with the applicability of the term “fascism” in essence and accepting that the Kemalist political system of the inter-war years had a strong fascist con-tent as, in many respects, it had a parallel development to that of fascism elsewhere, he points to the limitations of the paper in exhaustively an-swering the above-mentioned question (ibid.). He also demonstrates his inclination towards following Roger Griffin’s claim to establish a “mythic core” of generic fascism. He brings the following ingredients of “minimum fascism” and tends to agree with them while trying to reflect on the Turk-ish context: a) anti-liberal, b) anti-conservative, c) tending to glorify cer-tain epochs in nation’s history, d) inclined to charismatic leadership, e) deifying such mythical concepts as the nation, the leader, national iden-tity, etc, and f) idealising homogeneity in the national community (ibid.: 360). Adanır efforts, however, stop half-way although he comes extremely closer to the essence of fascism in Turkey.

Such an approach is not unique, as other instances to delve into this subject led to more or less the same conclusions. Taha Parla and Andrew Davison choose to prefer the analytical categories of “partly fascist”, “partly totalitarian” and, more holistically, “rightist tendencies” to study specific parts of Kemalism, which they refer to as a solidaristic corporatist ideology. They consistently refuse to apply these categories without at-taching the word “tendencies” to them. They further claim that, even though some of the political ideological aspects of Kemalism exceeded “the limits of the solidaristic corporative perspective”, they, however, were not full-fledged developments, but rather leanings (Parla/Davison 2004: 244). The authors also claim: “Fascistic and totalitarian ideological tendencies do not dominate Kemalism, but they are present and were ac-tive so that fascistic tendencies could form themselves within and out of Kemalism, as the existence of deeply rightist, Kemalist tendencies in the history of the republic shows” (Parla/Davison 2004: 247). Thus, they ac-cept the presence and active nature of “rightist tendencies” but are reluc-tant to relate Kemalism to fascism or totalitarianism. However, when de-scribing Mustafa Kemal’s own discourse and certain judgments they indi-cate that at the ideological level fascism was visible (ibid.: 256).

Hitler, Ataturk, and German-Turkish Relations

Bozarslan (2006: 29) claims that between 1930 and 1938 the Kemalist regime was an openly and self-consciously anti-liberal and anti-demo-cratic regime thereby projecting itself “as the third pillar of an anti-demo-cratic world, Fascism and Bolshevism constituting the two other poles”.

Gökmen (2006: 678). lists a few features of the Kemalist regime between 1931 and 1945, which, according to him, overlapped with fascism: “a single party, a strong reaction against the old regime, the existence of solidarist and corporatist and later on, totalitarian tendencies, coalescence of state with party, adoption of a national leader system, and increasing state in-terventionism in the economy”. However, he does not fully support the idea of fascism in Turkey, as he refers to the assumption that Kemalism was a pragmatic ideology and, unlike fascism, “it did not have thorough-going totalitarian pretensions” and did not possess “the complex com-pound that made fascism possible in Italy” (ibid.). Others claimed that the Kemalist revolution secured far-reaching social changes and made Turkey “free from sharp social cleavages and class conflicts”, which exited in Germany and Italy (Parker/Smith 1940: 75). In his discussions of Kemalism religion, Mateescu (Mateescu 2006: 225-226, 238) describes the compari-sons between Kemalism and fascist and communist dictatorships as “na-ive”. He further explains that the Kemalist regime “falls in the democratic category” and, therefore, “original Kemalism cannot be defined as authori-tarian in itself, and it was far from totalitarianism”.

A similar argument about the lack of “specific” or “complex com-pounds” of fascism in Turkey have long dominated the scholarship. This lacuna becomes more complex when we consider the rather convincing arguments of Stanley Payne and Roger Eatwell about fascism being the vaguest of the major political terms, about the lack of agreement about its definition, and the greater differences between “fascisms” (Payne 1995:15, 20). The experts of Turkish history have generally refrained from dealing with the totalitarian essence of the Unionist and Kemalist regimes. Quite interestingly, many scholars simply relied on the fact that neither of two consecutive regimes ever referred to themselves as dictatorships, there-fore, according to them, these regimes should not be qualified as such. In reality, there have been different accounts by contemporaries who quali-fied these regimes as dictatorships, and many other qualifications were done retrospectively. For instance, there is a general consensus in the scholarship that the dictatorship in Turkey was firmly put in place since January 1914 and was heavy headedly applied until 1918 (Kevorkian 2011: 191). For the Kemalist period it had a bit different manifestations, albeit on different occasions (the once recorded in 1923, 1929 and 1935), Mustafa Kemal refuted claims of the media, which coined him a dictator.¹

SETTING А FRAMEWORK FOR STUDYING FASCISM IN TURKEY

The study of fascism and totalitarian regimes of the 20th century had a cyclical development. In the 1920-30s, it had a mainly descriptive nature; in the 1940-50s, it had a condemning feature and sought a generic totali-tarian system; in the 1960s, as Richard Overy claims, historians started to focus on a narrative that emphasised the peculiar character of each na-tional dictatorship, and played down the resemblances (Overy 2004: xxxii). The interrelation between totalitarianism and fascism has always been complex. In the Turkish context the fine lines between them are more difficult to draw because of overstretched ignorance of the subject. In some instances, researchers have no choice but to use these two con-cepts interchangeably, while in some cases the definitional approaches are so neatly drawn that one needs to follow them to get the arguments through. The impact of that gap will not affect our analysis and the two concepts will be used separately, albeit in some cases their parallel usage is unavoidable. However, for methodological clarity fascism will be viewed as a radical type of totalitarianism and deriving from that, first it will be proved that dominant ideological currents in Turkey in the first half of the 20th century fall into the category of totalitarianism, whereas in certain periods and timeframes the fascist nature of the ruling regimes were becoming more discernible.

It needs to be underlined that the basic shortcoming of those ap-proaches, which reject the fascist nature of any regime, is that they take “Italian Fascism as the point of departure for every comparative study” (Adanir 2001: 359). Turkish experience is no exception because, in study-ing fascism there, conceptual, semantic, methodological and theoretical flaws were present. Most of the time, when comparing it with Italian fas-cism and to a lesser extent with German Nazism, the Turkish experience was put mainly under a positive light and was left out of the picture for not qualifying as a fascist regime. Another misconception, dismissed by Kieser (2007), was that the Young Turk leadership almost always was presented “as naïve, benevolent, and relatively powerless in the face of an overwhelming political crisis”. In another instance, after the Young Turk Revolution in 1908, an official from the German embassy reported to Ber-lin: “The broad term ‘Young Turks’ covers those people who are consumed by and infatuated with western European concepts without having a real understanding of them”.² Other accounts also regarded the Young Turks as “a little band of mad anarchists”, “foolish visionaries”, “dreamers” and their movement as “innocuous” and “bogus” (Knight 1909; Miller 1913). The impact of these approaches had methodologically limited the framework of the general discussion of the problem. Those studies also fell short of uncovering the elements of the Unionist and Kemalist regimes, political systems and cultures, which had significant parallels with likeminded regimes of the 1910-1930s.

Another problem in the scholarship was the overconcentration on the 1930s in trying to find the fascist nature of Kemalism, whereas Kemalism, as a system of thought, was the outcome of developments unfolding long before its emergence. Extending the Young Turks’ period of governance from 1908 until 1945 (instead of 1908-1918), suggested by Zürcher (1992: 237-253), is yet another indication that there was tangible continuum of ideas, practices and cadre resources between two regimes. Thus, Kemal-ism in the 1930s was only one of the phases of Turkish experience with fascism. Sternhell (1987: 32) mentions at least three levels of analysis while approaching fascism: looking at it as an ideology, as a political movement, and as a form of government. These levels also illustrate the evolution of fascism in different contexts. In the Turkish context these three levels have also been clearly visible as the examples below illustrate.

Six basic features or traits of a totalitarian regime, suggested by Frie-drich/Brzezinski (1956: 9, 10), serve as helpful guidelines for identifying the essence of such a regime. For the authors the following “universally acknowledged … features” are important to be termed totalitarian dicta-torships: “a) an ideology, b) a single party typically led by one man, c) a terroristic police, d) a communications monopoly, e) a weapons monop-oly, and f) a centrally directed economy”, which altogether aim at the “total destruction and total reconstruction” of the state and society. They also warn that there might be others, “now insufficiently recognized”. Through the effective control, indoctrination and manipulation of the population, the totalitarian regimes strive to achieve socialisation and ideological homogenisation. Thus, they possess a more radical pro-gramme of change, deliberately mobilised masses, equipped with ideol-ogy, “a quasi-religious philosophy with a claim of exclusivity” (Bracher 1984). The majority of scholars are inclined to claim that those regimes were anti-modernists and they wanted to reassert the old community, whereas others insist that they were progressive forces interested in rapid development in all spheres of social and economic lives (Eatwell 2001: 17-18). Totalitarianism has also been criticised for its wide variety of applica-tions for different regimes and also for being normative, analytical and non-teleological (ibid.).

Speaking of classifications and common objectives of totalitarian re-gimes, Stephen Lee argues that at least four sectors—individual/societal, ideological, political and economic—need total reorganisation and con-trol to qualify as a totalitarian regime. On the individual/societal levels to-talitarian regimes sought to create new men empowered by a radical change of attitudes and beliefs. These changes would ultimately subordi-nate “new men” through coercion, propaganda, indoctrination and con-trol.³ Lee further posits that totalitarian regimes aim to control man’s and society’s existence according to doctrinal goals. As for the objectives of political systems of the totalitarian regimes, Lee continues, they were composed of a single party backed by the army and aimed at mobilised mass support, particularly among the youth. The political system is also characterised by the executive branch controlling the legislature and the only single party being headed by a strong leader with clear inclinations towards personality cult. Concerning the economic system, Lee argues, totalitarian regimes strove to have complete control over the economy and to provide “bureaucratic co-ordination of formerly independent cor-porate entities” (Lee 2005:300, 305-307). Being confident that these are re-liable criteria for differentiating between “strong and weak models of to-talitarian systems”, he arrives at two interdependent conclusions: a) there has never been a strong totalitarian model;⁴ b) all other regimes in Spain (under Franco), Greece (under Metaxas), Poland (under Pilsudksi), Aus-tria (under Dollfuss), Portugal (under Salazar), and Hungary (under Gom-bos) were aptly termed authoritarian regimes and not even partly totali-tarian, because “they lacked any consistent attempt to mobilize the masses behind the regime; some of them even relied upon traditional ideas and distrusted anything which was remotely radical and revolution-ary; there were hardly any attempts at mass indoctrination” (Lee 2005: 301). Turkey, and for that matter no other regime outside Europe, was not even considered as weak totalitarian or even authoritarian regimes by Lee and many other authors dealing with the problem.

• The detailed breakdown of the subordination tools as provided by Lee is helpful to lay down the cognitive map of the totalitarian ideologues―coercion (a system of physical and psychic terror, effected through party and secret police control), propaganda and in-doctrination (complete monopoly of mass communication, manipulation of culture, his-tory, a destruction of cultural pluralism and shaping of education, literature, art and music according to the political ideology) and control (terror, brutal forms of repression, purges and penal, labour or concentration camps, identification and elimination of all enemies (racial or class)).

In addition to Griffin’s “mythic core”, another identification of a “fas-cist minimum” was provided by Ernst Nolte (1965), who combined three ideological trends: anti-Marxism, anti-liberalism and anti-conservatism, plus two movement characteristics (the leadership principles and the party-army) all oriented toward a final goal, “totalitarianism”. Payne’s other approach, which was aimed to refine different definitions and man-ifestations of fascism, brought yet another working definition: “a form of revolutionary ultra-nationalism for national rebirth that is based on a primarily vitalist philosophy, is structured on extreme elitism, mass mo-bilization and the Fuhrer-prinzip, positively values violence as end as well as means and tends to normalize war and/or military virtues” (Payne 1995: 14). Michael Mann (2004: 10) refers to Payne to define the list of essential components the fascist core contains “nationalism, authoritarian statism, corporatism and syndicalism, imperialism, idealism, voluntarism, roman-ticism, mysticism, militarism, and violence”. Criticising Payne’s definition on several counts, Eatwell (2001: 33) proposes his own definition of fas-cism: “an ideology that strives to forge social rebirth based on a holistic-national radical third way, though in practice fascism has tended to stress style, especially action and the charismatic leader, more than detailed program, and to engage in a Manicaean demonization of its enemies.” Mann (ibid.: 11) sides with Eatwell’s third-way definition of fascism (not as anti-modern, like Nolte does, but as an alternative vision of modernity) and considers it closest to his own definition. These two definitions con-tain a lot in common and, therefore, should be seen as mutually rein-forcing, particularly having in view the fact that fascism in the interwar period had different durations for different regimes with different mani-festations. Paul Wilkinson (1987: 227-228) mentions more tenets of fascist ideology: “the belief in the supremacy of the chosen national group over all other races and minorities; the total subordination of the individual to an absolute state… etc.” Wilkinson adds another feature of fascism—ex-altation of the role of youth.⁵

• According to Lee (2005: 301), Stalinist Russia was a weak totalitarian model, Nazi Ger-many was an imperfect totalitarianism, Italian Fascism was on the borderline between the weak model of totalitarianism and authoritarianism, Ustashi regime in Croatia and Szalasi’s regime in Hungary were partially totalitarian.

Another dominant assumption was that since fascism was born in Eu-rope and it had European intellectual, social, organisational and political origins, fascism outside Europe was treated with skepticism. Fascism of the inter-war period was largely seen as a purely European-epochal phe-nomenon being alien to non-European political systems (Eatwell 2001: 33), a generic argument, which largely deviated attention from non-Euro-pean manifestations of totalitarian/fascist movements and regimes. In addition, totalitarian dictatorship/fascism is historically “unique” and sui generis (Friedrich and Brzezinski 1956: 5), which, in turn, suggests that in different contexts different causal origins and dynamics should be sought. Hence, the temptation of seeking “a generic definition that might apply across many times and places” (Mann 2004: 5) initially limited various scholarly undertakings.

It goes without saying that different movements and ideas active out-side Europe, with their regional, historical, social and local identities, ab-sorbed the European models with certain modifications, therefore, fascism, like other similar currents existing hitherto, could not appear in different contexts as exact copies (Larsen 2001: 717). Based on that warn-ing, Stein U. Larsen further urges to acknowledge this difference in order to grasp “the essence of the [fascist] phenomena” (ibid.). Formation, as-cendance and application of fascism in Turkey was a different experience, therefore, the most important question remains how consistent and dif-ferent were the components of Kemalist Turkey from Italian Fascism, German Nazism or other fascisms elsewhere.

• This became a prominent feature of the Kemalist regime as in his 1927 “Great Speech” (Nutuk) Mustafa Kemal dedicated a whole page to the youth reminding them “to save Tur-key’s independence and the Turkish Republic” by finding the noble blood in their veins (Kemal 2008: 715-716).

Payne’s definition looks far more Eurocentric, drawing mostly from Italian and German experiences, whereas Eatwell’s take is driven more from a universalist approach even though it does not preclude the fact that some non-European fascist movements could have gone through the typically European, “classical” fascist pathway. Although different compo-nents of both Payne’s and Eatwell’s definitions are helpful in locating fas-cism in Turkey, Eatwell’s approach is more helpful to explain the Turkish experience with fascism between 1910s and 1930s.

INTELLECTUAL ORIGINS OF FASCISM IN TURKEY

The history of fascism as a system of thought began at the end of the 19th century with the intellectual revolution and with the entry of the masses into politics (Sternhell 1987: 148-150). This approach is different from the one, which seeks to locate fascism in the interwar era. Even though this claim is made for the European context, many of its features are applica-ble to our study too.

At the turn of the century, common fears and passions specific to Eu-rope did not bypass the declining Ottoman Empire. Expanding communi-cations since the 1860-90s peculiar for that period allowed the Otto-man/Turkish/non-Turkish intellectual and political elites to be aware of the intellectual atmosphere, which “was saturated with Darwinian biology and Wagnerian aesthetics, Gobineau’s racialism, Le Bon’s psychology, as well as the black prophecies of Nietzsche and Dostoevsky, and, later, the philosophy of Bergson” (Sternhell 1998: 171). In turn, the intellectuals, ide-ological currents and “native intelligentsia”, which for fifty years, through persistent efforts had created the soil for political, legal, cultural and eco-nomic transformations, immensely influenced both the Unionists and the Kemalists (Kohn 1943: 254). Ideological quasi-discourses starting from the Tanzimat period (from 1839 until 1876) and the subsequent or parallel waves of ideological currents like Pan-Turanism, Pan-Islamism, Pan-Ot-tomanism, Westernists (Garpçılar) constituted a fertile ground for devel-opment and further empowerment of the Unionist and the Kemalist dis-courses. In some spheres the Kemalists continued the job where the Un-ionists left off, while in other aspects the republican policies constituted either a clean break with the ideas of the previous era or went way too far (Zürcher 2005: 16, 18).

Active members of Turkish émigré centers in Europe like the ones in Switzerland⁶ and, particularly in France, which Sternhell identifies as “the real birthplace of fascism” (Sternhell/Sznajder/Asheri 1994: 4), played a key role in transforming the intellectual and political climate in the Empire. In addition, the leaders of the Young Turks were affected by the increasing tide of French nationalism, which called for revenge in order to overcome the 1871 humiliation. The leaders and intellectuals of the Young Turk movement, headquartered in Paris, were influenced by the writings of the popular intellectuals and thinkers of the period such as Albert Sorel and Emile Boutmy, Gustave Le Bon, Charles Darwin, Emile Durkheim, philoso-pher and historian Ernest Renan, Auguste Comte, Pierre Laffitte, Herbert Spencer, Pittard, Alexander Helphand (Parvus), and many others (Hanioğlu 2006: 10-11). For instance, Le Bon’s writing on the role and psychology of the masses, on race and the need to lead masses by an elite (otherwise they could be ruled to irrational behaviour), were deeply-seated convictions of the intellectual elite of the time. Also the questions of guided transfor-mation/revolution from above, not popular unrests and upheavals from below, were omnipresent among Young Turks (Zürcher 2005: 12). Laffitte’s version of an ideal society envisaging “an orderly progress through a divi-sion of labour under the enlightened guidance of a ‘scientific’ elite” was broadly embraced by many Young Turk intellectuals (e.g. Ahmet Riza, one of the leaders of the Young Turks, was an outspoken proponent of that idea) (ibid.: 21). The first Turkish nationalist thinkers and later CUP intellectual publications (Genç Kalemler) were much influenced by the racial theories of Arthur de Gobineau (Akçam 2006: 53). Influenced by the German concepts of nation, based on race, blood and culture, Ziya Gökalp has devel-oped the expansionist version of Turkish nationalism (ibid.: 53). The Young Turks became aware of the Marxist revisionism by Georges Sorel who replaced the rationalistic, Hegelian foundations of Marxism with anti-materialist, voluntarist and vitalist elements. Sternhell also refers to Sorel’s preposition to activate masses through intuition, the cult of energy and élan, activism and heroism, as well as through myths, systems of im-ages, which strike the imagination (Sternhell 1987: 148-149). Speaking of the impact of those authors (historians, racial and physical anthropolo-gists) and their writings on the formulation of the republican ideas and concepts (science, race, social-Darwinism, progress, etc.). Hanioğlu (2011: 160-198) brings a long list of authors who influenced Mustafa Kemal (to mention only a few—Wells, Alfred Cort Haddon, George Montandon, Eugene Pittard, etc.). It needs to be also stressed that starting from the 19th century, especially the last quarter of it, “the French language had a very significant cultural dominance on the Ottoman meaning system” (Göçek 1996:121). Hence, penetration of French revolutionary ideas and literature to the Empire, as well as the exposure of the literate people and the Ottoman intellectuals to them was an unhindered process.

Thus, the Ottoman elite of the time became the witnesses of a period what Sternhell referred to as an intellectual revolution, which paved the way for mass politics and mass revolt against “the world of matter and rea-son, against materialism and positivism, against the mediocrity of bourgeois society, and against the muddle of liberal democracy” (Sternhell 1998: 170). Like their European pairs, Turkish intellectuals were also obsessed with the prevailing contention that sentiment and feeling count for more in political questions than reasoning (Ibid.: 171). Turkish political elite en-tered WWI under a deep influence and inspiration of these mentioned cur-rents. WWI did not bring these ideas to halt, they played a critical role in the 1920s and 1930s as well. Some of these vogue authors and names became even more popular in Turkey parallel to the rise of totalitarian regimes in Europe.

These ideas and thoughts, actively circulating in different corners of Europe, influenced the writings of Turkish nationalists and intellectuals such as Ali Suavi, Ahmed Riza, Tekin Alp, Ziya Gökalp, Mehmet Emin, Ahmet Riza, Abdullah Cevdet, Halide Edip (Adıvar), Mehmed Fuad (Köprülü), Ahmet Hikmet. Particularly Turkish-speaking Muslim immi-grants from Russia like Yusuf Akçura, Ahmet Ağaoğlu (Agayev), Mehmed Reşid Şahingiray, Ali Hüseyinzade, Musa Akiyiğitzade, Halim Sabit trans-ferred the revolutionary atmosphere and transplanted many fashionable writings of Russian revolutionary movements into the Turkish context and circumstances and thereby decisively influenced the Turkish national movement (Kieser 2011: 127). These are only a few of the names who left an important impact on the Young Turks, on the late Ottoman state and Re-publican ideological currents. Some of these preachers were radical na-tionalists who were very well integrated into the CUP power system, some had key administrative positions (e.g. Reşid Şahingiray was the governor of a few provinces including Karesi and Diyarbakır) in the government or were the members of CUP’s Central Committee (merkez-i umumi) (as was the case with Gökalp and Agaoglu), which gave them practical leverages to implement their ideals. Understandably, these scholars had different perspectives on most of the urgent issues that the Ottoman state was facing at the time—minority questions, nationalism, religion, etc.

Another avenue for spreading these revolutionary and scientific ideas were periodicals published inside and outside of the Ottoman Empire. Most well-known periodicals of the time were “Türk Derneği” (Turkish Associa-tion), “Genç Kalemler” (Yong Pens), “Türk Yurdu” (Turkish Homeland), which were founded since 1908 and gained wide recognition. Articles pub-lished in these journals promoted cultural and linguistic pan-Turkism through promotion of Turcological studies. Almost all the intellectuals of the time discussed above, which one way or another were affiliated with the Young Turks, contributed to these journals urging the need for awakening, attaining national pride, self-help, defining the boundaries of Turkishness and purifying the Turkish language by getting rid of Persian and Arabic loan-words (Araji 1992). The ideas and ideals discussed in these journals were instrumental in shaping the fundamentals of the Unionist and the Kemalist worldviews particularly in the matters related to nation-building and construction of national identity. Names of the contributors re-appeared in the republican era too.

For a while, the Ottoman Empire and the early republican period were also viewed as largely weak and hence marginalised from global affairs, and that assumption affected the way the political and social processes were understood. Following this erroneous line, it was a general supposi-tion that the rulers of the Ottoman Empire were conscious about the up-coming collapse of it and incapable of doing anything. That line of rea-soning also entailed that Turkey was alienated from prevailing intellectual and political currents. Whereas, in reality, Turkey was a part of Weltpoli-tik, hence global affairs and intellectual currents could not by-pass it. Meanwhile, thoughts, lifestyles and forms of production originating in Europe had peculiar pathways of adoption and adaptation in Turkey in the first decades of the 20th century. Therefore, positioning the theory of totalitarianism in Turkey without due consideration of local origins and country-specific causes of totalitarianism is a vain endeavour. Since de-tailed analysis would lead us too far afield, a few general dimensions should be discussed.

For decades, the leaders of the Ottoman Empire were striving to exe-cute systemic reforms, which were either slow and non-efficient or super-fluous. The famous questioning of the time “How can this state be saved?” (Bu devlet nasıl kurtulur?) was the main driving force for many of the Young Turks, initiatives both in the opposition and in the government. For the Young Turks and Kemalists many reforms by the earlier decades created more problems than solutions and eventually led to the collapse of the Empire. Being the victims, and to some extent responsible for the previous experience, the republican leadership chose to distance itself from the immediate past to create a new state, a new nation and a new society. In the eyes of the Kemalists those objectives could not be achieved through mere adoption of laws. The society had to be inculcated with new ideals, ideas and visions. However, even after those measures the political elite in Turkey questioned the efficacy of its own efforts. Be-ing dissatisfied with the results, they became the staunchest defenders of the heavy-handed policies of Kemalism in the 1930s.

Once in power from 1908 to 1918 (with a brief interlude in 1912) and particularly after 1913, the Committee for Union and Progress had the chance to experiment with some of the constitutive elements of the fas-cist ideology, although the word came into existence later. The political and social implications of the Balkan Wars and most importantly WWI served as historical opportunities to implement some of the ideological and political objectives that were proposed by different political and intellectual circles of the period. It would be an overestimation to claim that the political leaders of the CUP were acting as if they represented fascist forms of government. However, the way some of the political objectives were carried out were of no difference of those developments that had taken place in Europe decades later. Moreover, the pace of transformation of theoretical and scientific understandings into practice was short enough, which resulted in spontaneous application of many policy fea-tures (Pan-Turkism, unification of all Turks to build the Turkish father-land, expansionist ambitions, homogenisation, assimilation, resettlement of population). Sternhell (1987: 149) correctly claims that the constitutive elements of the fascist ideology, elaborated prior to August 1914, re-appeared in an almost identical form in the 1920s and 1930s both in Italy and elsewhere. It may reasonably be supposed that all three levels of fas-cist phenomenon, as identified by Sternhell above (ideology, political movement and form of government) were exemplified in Turkey between 1910s and 1930(40)s. One may point to certain interludes during these decades, however, that does not change much the central argument.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

• Adanır, F. (2001), “Kemalist Authoritarianism and Fascist Trends in Turkey during the Inter-war Period”, S.U. Larsen(ed.), Fascism Outside Europe: The European Impulse against Domestic Conditions in the Diffusion of Global Fascism, Boulder, Social Science Monographs: 313-361.
• Akçam, T. (2006), A Shameful Act: The Armenian Genocide and the Question of Turkish Responsibility, New York.
• Araji, M. (1992), Turkish Nationalism in the Young Turk Era, Leiden.
• Atatürk’ün Söylev ve Demeçleri. (2006), cilt 1-3. Ankara.
• Bozarslan, H. (2006), “Kemalism, Westernization and Anti-Liberalism”, H–L. Kieser (ed.), Turkey Beyond Nationalism, London: 28-36.
• Bracher, K. (1984), The Age of Ideologies: A History of Political Thought in the Twentieth Century, London.
• Eatwell, R. (2001), “Universal Fascism? Approaches and Definitions”, (see Adanır 2001): 15-45.
• Friedrich, C. / Zb. Brzezinski (1956), Totalitarian Dictatorship and Autocracy, Cambridge, Mass.
• Göçek, F. M. (1996), Rise of the Bourgeuisie, Demise of Empire: Ottoman Westernization and Social Change, New York.
• Gökmen, Ö. (2006), “Turkey”, A Historical Encyclopedia, ABC Clio.
• Hanioğlu, Ş. (2006), “Turkey and the Young Turks, 1889-1908”, (see Bozarslan 2006): 3-19.
• ——(2011), Atatürk: An Intellectual Biography, Princeton University Press.
• Kevorkian, R. (2011), The Armenian Genocide: A Complete History, London.
• Kemal, G. M. (2008), The Great Speech (Nutuk), 2nd ed., Ankara.
• Kieser, H-L. (2007), Sammelrezension Der Völkermordan den Armeniern 1915/16: Neueste Publikationen, Sehepunkte7 (3) (http://www.sehepunkte.de/2007/03/10400.html).
• ——(2008), Türklüğe Ihtida: 1870-1939 İsviçre’sinde Yeni Türkiye’nin Öncüler, Istanbul.
• ——(2011), “From ‘Patriotism’ to Mass Murder: Dr. Mehmed Reşid (1873-1919)” (see Weitz
• 2011): 126-150.
• Knight, E. F. (1909), The Awakening of Turkey: A History of the Turkish Revolution, London.
• Kohn, H. (1943), Revolutions and Dictatorship, 3rd ed., Cambridge.
• Larsen, S. U. (2001), “Was there Fascism Outside Europe? Diffusion from Europe and Do-mestic Impulses?” (see Bozarslan 2006): 705-818.
• Lee, S. (2005), European Dictatorships, 1918-1945, 2nd. ed., London.
• Mann, M. (2004), Fascists, Cambridge University Press.
• Mateescu, D. (2006), “Kemalism in the Era of Totalitarianism: A Conceptual Analysis”,
• Turkish Studies 7 (2): 225-241.
• Miller, W. (1913), The Ottoman Empire 1801-1913, Cambridge University Press.
• Nolte, E. (1965), Three Faces of Fascism, London.
• Overy, R. (2004), The Dictators: Hitler’s Germany and Stalin’s Russia, Allen Lake.
• Parker, J. / Ch. Smith (1940), Modern Turkey, London.
• Parla T. / A. Davison (2004), Corporatist Ideology in Kemalist Turkey: Progress or Order?, Sy-racuse University Press.
• Payne, S. (1995), A History of Fascism, 1941-1945, Madison.
• Sternhell, Z. (1987), “Fascism”, D. Miller (ed.), The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Political Thought, Oxford.
• ——(1998), “The Crisis of fin-de-sciecle Thought”, Roger Griffin (ed.), International Fascism:
• Theories, Causes and the New Consensus, London: 169-174.
• ——/ M. Sznajder / M. Asheri (1994), The Birth of Fascist Ideology, New Jersey.
• Weitz, E. D. (2011), “Germany and the Young Turks: Revolutionaries into Statesmen”, R.
• Suny, F. Müğe Göçek, N. Naimark (eds.), A Question of Genocide: Armenians and
• Turks at the End of the Ottoman Empire, Oxford: 175-199.
• Wilkinson, P. (1987), “Fascism”, V. Bogdanor (ed.), The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Political Institutions, Oxford: 227-228.
• Zürcher, E-J. (1992), “The Ottoman Legacy of the Turkish Republic: An Attempt at a New
• Periodization”, Die Welt des Islams 32: 237-253.
• ——(2005), “Ottoman Sources of Kemalist Thought”, E. Özdalga (ed.), Late Ottoman Society: The Intellectual Legacy, London: 13-26.