Race, Assimilation and Kemalism: Turkish Nationalism and the Minorities in the 1930sSONER CAGAPTAY Turkish nationalism in the 1930s is an important episode in Turkish history, whose legacy seems to have imprinted itself on modern Turkey. During that decade, which witnessed the rise of nationalism in the European continent, but especially in Eastern Europe,1 the idea that the Turks were a glorious nation rose to prominence in Turkey. ‘Turkish History Thesis’ and ‘Sun Language Theory’ emerged in a series of official conferences and publications, emphasizing the role of race in defining the nation. While there are many excellent earlier studies of Turkish nationalism,2 works on nationalism in the 1930s are few and only recent.3 This article aims to contribute to our knowledge of the 1930s by analysing the interaction between Turkish nationalism and race in this decade. It examines the extent to which race shaped nationalism throughout the period. As late as the 1920s, Turkishness had been mostly defined independently of race. At that time Turkey was busy trying to recover from the devastating destruction of a decade of wars, spanning the Balkan Wars of 1912–13 and the Turco-Greek War of 1920–22. At that time, millions of Turkish and nonTurkish Muslim immigrants, expelled to Anatolia and Thrace from Europe and the Black Sea basin since the eighteenth century, banded with the Anatolian Turks and Muslims. These defended Turkey, a land that they saw as their home.4 In 1922, Turkey was liberated, and in 1923, a republic was established. An important demographic change at the time had been the death and emigration of most Anatolian Christians over the previous decade. (As late as 1912, Christians made up 20 per cent of Turkey’s population; in 1927, they were merely over 2 per cent).5 Yet, even then, Turkey still had a heterogeneous population. This included Turks, Jews and Christians, but also diverse non-Turkish Muslim groups such as Kurds, Arabs, Lazes, Muslim Georgians, Greek-speaking Muslims, Albanians, Macedonian Muslims, Pomaks, Serb Muslims, Bosnians, Tartars, Circassians, Abkhazes, and Middle Eastern Studies, Vol.40, No.3, May 2004, pp.86 – 101 ISSN 0026-3206 print/1743-7881 online DOI: 10.1080/0026320042000213474 # 2004 Taylor & Francis Ltd. the government resorted to various methods to alienate them. In 1931. and his adopted daughter.TURKISH NATIONALISM IN 1930s 87 Daghestanis. emerged in 1930–31. this did not prevent Ankara from attempting to assimilate various minorities. among others.12 Thus. to study the role of race therein. the TOTTTH was reorganized as the Society for the Study of Turkish History (Tu ¨ rk Tarihini Tetkik Cemiyeti – TTTC). Ankara looked the other way. With this. the . when Christians left the country. the Turkish Hearths’ Committee for the Study of Turkish History (Tu ¨rk Ocakları Tu ¨ rk Tarihi Tetkik Heyeti – TOTTTH) had nurtured the thesis. in the 1930s. the ‘Citizen Speak Turkish’ campaign. regardless of religion and race. For instance. comprised of ethnic Turks and others? Moreover. Inasmuch as race became a primary marker of Turkishness in the 1930s. Initially. it treated Kurdish resistance with considerable force.10 Yet. Then I will scrutinize the affairs between Ankara and the Jews (and Muslim minorities) in this era. I will first examine the ascent of the notion of race under Turkish nationalism in the 1930s. was published in 1930. established on 28 April 1930. which marked the ascent of race under Turkish nationalism. Once these communities renounced their ageold privileges in 1925.13 This was a survey of Turkish history by Turkish scholars. far from using race to alienate the Jews and the non-Turkish Muslims. had been instructed by Atatu ¨rk to produce works on Turkish history. the rise of the notion of race ushered in questions: how would this phenomenon affect the practices of the state vis-a ` -vis the minorities. The committee. I will take one aspect of this relationship.9 As for the Jews. Atatu ¨ rk dictated a ˙nan) (1908–85). The Society was responsible for disseminating Turkish national history ‘to its real owners. Ankara hoped for their assimilation. I will conclude that. Its first major study. as in the case of the Armenian exodus of 1929–30. The ‘Turkish History Thesis’.11 On the other hand. a prominent programme for the new organization to Afet (I member of the organization. Ankara employed it as a vehicle to co-opt them and.’7 Ankara wished to consolidate as many of the country’s minorities as possible into the Turkish nation. are Turks as regards citizenship. a 606-page book titled. Would Ankara create a two-tier society. into the Turkish nation. Here. Ankara shared the legacy of a decade of hostility with them. the attitude was much different towards Greek and Armenian Christians.6 The 1924 Constitution of the republic aimed to address this diversity: ‘The People of Turkey.8 The government expected that non-Turkish Muslims would be assimilated. unexpectedly even the Christians. It used legal measures to make their life difficult. too. Tu ¨ rk Tarihinin Ana Hatları (General Themes of Turkish History). would the desire to assimilate the Jews and the non-Turkish Muslims vanish? In answering these questions. Minister Galip. an Ottoman Armenian.23 Secondly. Minister of Education.16 A second responsibility of the TTTC was to ‘synthesize and build’ the study on. the delegates discussed ‘the history of Turkish civilization. the programme gave the TTTC a number of other responsibilities.88 MIDDLE EASTERN STUDIES Turkish people’. then the Turkish homeland. since the Turks were its original. and Italy in the west. Mesopotamia.22 This narrative had four implications.19 They also conferred on the ‘Turkish History Thesis’. In Central Asia. In this regard. Persia. ˆ lfu Martayan. among others.15 Then. where they had lived thousands of years ago.17 Then the organization produced a revised version of this work titled. the Society for the Study of the Turkish Language (Tu ¨rk Dili Tetkik Cemiyeti – TDTC). who was described as a ‘revolutionary intellectual enthusiastic for change’. which contended that the Turks ˙nan detailed this further: the Turks were were a great and ancient race. to Egypt. The Main Themes of Turkish History. produced perhaps the most radical interpretation of Anatolian history. and Greeks.24 Finally.25 had a meeting with Agop Martayan (Dilac ¸ ar) (1895–1979). At this congress. the Turkish race had created civilizations in all the lands.14 It would accomplish this ‘under the supervision and responsibility of the government authorities and the municipal governments’. to India in the south. and Greece. whose roots went back to Central Asia. they left their original home and moved in all directions to civilize the rest of the world. autochthonous inhabitants. they were the owners of the earliest Hittite civilization in Anatolia. the thesis added that all Anatolia’s inhabitants were Turks. the Turks were the ancestors of all the bracycephalic peoples including the Indo-Europeans. They went to China in the east. Atatu ¨rk was convinced that Turkish and the Indo-European languages were related and that Turkish was the root of these languages. which would conduct historical research on Turkish. Tu ¨ rk Tarihinin Ana Hatlarına Methal (Introduction to the General Themes of Turkish History). professor at the Istanbul Daru ¨ nun (University). they had created a bright civilization around an inner sea. Anatolia. and a Bulgarian citizen. When this inner sea dried up due to climatic changes.18 Next. had recently come to Turkey to write a book on the ‘common origins of the Turks and the . First. the contemporary Turks were the inheritors of the glories of ancient Sumerians. anthropological characteristics of the Turkish race. The organization would establish a committee. Dr Res ¸it Galip (1897–1934). The TDTC would launch a comparative study of these languages to show that ‘the Turkish language was the most influential factor in the development and progress of all the world languages’. Consequently.20 Afet I 21 a bracycephalic people. In addition. and most importantly. and Turkish language and literature’. Egyptians. it called for a conference in Ankara for 2–11 July 1932. whose origins went back to central Asia. to which the Turks had migrated. During 1932. In this view. . as Pittard’s Les Races et l’histoire: Introduction Ethnologique a ´ galite ´ des races well as Joseph Arthur Comte de Gobineau’s Essai sur l’Ine humaines. In this matter. . Although.32 Since Turkish had conserved the characteristics of the nation.30 among others. cultural characteristics. could claim Turkish racial descent. This accent on race is striking. Dr Galip told his Armenian counterparts that ‘anthropological comparisons and ancient historical data leave no room to doubt.’ The Minister’s persuasion about the common origins of the Turks and the Armenians was rooted in the ‘History Thesis’. staunch . the Turks had ‘crossed with other races’. According to Atatu ¨ rk and I were ‘unity in political existence and homeland. as well as historical and ethical affinity’. Only. the Swiss expert on racial studies. Jamanak (Time). the Turkish intellect. and everything else that made them a nation. If. One. speak Turkish.D. Turkish race and ethnicity united all the inhabitants of the country. since their emigration from Central Asia. there was now no mention of Islam as a component of Turkishness. only those. including their most cherished possession. who regards himself as a member of the Turkish nation. dissertation on the Turkish race. who spoke it.26 At this meeting.that the Armenians have the same ethnical origins as the Turks’. the Turkish language had preserved their memories.31 The First Turkish History Congress ended with the affirmation of the History Thesis.29 On the other hand. they would be eligible for membership to the nation. as ˙nan and Atatu well as I ¨ rk. Atatu ¨rk had pointed this out even before the congress: One of the significant characteristics of the nation is language.33 Such emphasis made language-through-ethnicity and race the main markers of ˙nan. For ˙nan had personal connections with Euge instance.TURKISH NATIONALISM IN 1930s 89 Armenians’. This was because during the 1920s. should first of all and in every case. other foundations of Turkishness Turkishness.27 Then he added: ‘In expressing my conviction on this point I believe I have sufficiently indicated the logical line of conduct which the Armenians in Turkey should follow with regard to the performance of their duties as Turkish citizens. Atatu ¨ rk is known to have read a number of seminal works on race. I ` ne Pittard (1867–1962). including ` l’histoire. he became his doctoral adviser in the Department of Anthropology at the University of Geneva.34 Consequently. who does not speak Turkish. where he wrote a Ph. the two were joined by a representative of the Istanbul Armenian daily. In the 1930s. and Alfred Cort Haddon’s Les Races humaines. claims membership to Turkish culture and community. the historians in the TTTC. seem to have been inspired by various West European scholars. someone. it would not be right to believe in this. who did much of the actual work behind the 28 Thesis. the TDTC became the . a gap existed between written and spoken Turkish. The words. At this point. and the Indo-European languages. The first signal of this came on 12 July 1932. Turkish had ‘died out as a written language’. Turkish had to be reformed based on the spoken language. MP Mehmet S ¸ eref (Aykut) (1874–1939) (Edirne) emphasized the need to revive Turkish to its splendour. in favour of pure Turkish words. Dr Res ¸it Galip added that due to this gap.37 They used phonetic similarities to assert affinity between Turkish and other languages. Accordingly.40 Now. who constituted 97.35 Following the History Congress. ‘the language being taught at present’ could hardly be called Turkish ‘since it is intelligible only to one-tenth of the entire population of the country’. Next. This could be done. aras ¸tırma.90 MIDDLE EASTERN STUDIES Kemalism had pushed Islam to the margins of society. Islam.36 The conference discussions confirmed these observations. needed a new collective self. (research or investigation) and kurum (society). Such arguments ranged from declaring that Turkish was an IndoEuropean language38 to claiming connections between Turkish. were dropped from the name of the organization. Kemalist secularism offered them ethnic Turkishness as an alternative identity. it had flourished in the spoken. Ahmet Yıldız argues that Muslims. when the TDTC purified its name. For instance. the Language Congress argued that most major languages were of Turkish origin. this was an extension of the History Congress. Kemalism took another important ideological step with the convening of the first Turkish Language Congress in Istanbul. lay language. (study. on 26 September 1932. In view of this. finally the renaissance under the Republican regime of the Turkish people and language respectively. tetkik.5 per cent of the population at this time. both of Arabic origin. In many respects. by purifying the language. the participants emphasized the need to compare Turkish with other languages. First. A US diplomatic correspondent noted: Both the History and Language congresses tended to prove the potency and historical significance in ancient times. While ‘throughout the recent centuries’. the decline under the influence of foreign influence of foreign factors and elements and. the Language Congress unleashed an interest in language purification.39 Just as the History Congress had asserted that most major nations descended from the Turks. research) and cemiyet (society). first by bridging the chasm between spoken and written Turkish. Sumerian.41 To alleviate this. the participants focused on language purification. and then. Secularism aimed to strip the Turkish Muslims of their predominant collective identity. investigation. Words. These respectively. who were ‘the oldest race in the world’.46 and had developed a language based on . had been sun worshippers. the origin of which remained unknown’ had led to consideration among Turkish linguists. This example revealed the purification strategy: Arabic and Persian words would be replaced with pure Turkish ones. ‘the multitude of words in every etymological dictionary. ‘While comparing ancient Turkish words with the vocabulary of other languages’. and milli (national) from Arabic. which was publicized at the Third Turkish Language Congress. originally Turkish. They had ‘derived their conceptions of life from the idea of the sun’. On the other hand. By late 1935. the ‘Sun Language Theory’.42 With nationalistic fervour running high. harb (war). This was the epitome of a linguistic break between Turkish on the one hand and Arabic and Persian on the other. The latter would be gathered first. the TDAK organized the Second Turkish Language Congress. by coining new words. In answering this dilemma. the organization published a dictionary. held in Istanbul. and ulusal. the purification movement faced a practical problem: the campaign had been carried out with such haste that many words had been purged from Turkish. became barıs ¸. Among examples were sulh (peace). Furthermore. words. Osmanlıca-Tu ¸ e Cep Kılavuzu (Ottoman-Turkish Pocket ¨ rkc Guide). The ‘Language Theory’ mirrored the ‘History Thesis’.TURKISH NATIONALISM IN 1930s 91 Society for Research on the Turkish Language (Tu ¸tırma Kurumu ¨ rk Dili Aras – TDAK).44 This heralded the next significant thesis of 1930s Kemalism. there was no reason to get rid of them.43 Almost in acceptance of the hasty nature of the purification efforts. among others. in fact. such as that between ancient Turkish word siliy (sun) and the French word soleil (sun). the Turkish linguists contended that the earliest Turks.45 it declared that all major world languages descended from Turkish. Consequently. which had been developed by Atatu ¨ rk. were purged. they had been puzzled by ‘a series of analogies encountered’. some of which had existed in Turkish for a millennium. during 1932–34. during 18–23 August 1934. Most people were unable to understand pure Turkish. germ (hot) and efsun (magic) from Persian were replaced with sıcak and bu ¨ yu ¨ from pure Turkish. were. in May 1935. savas ¸. This was a final forum for discussing the purification efforts. by collecting substitutes from the spoken language and second. Secretary General of the According to I TDAK. which had earlier been regarded as borrowings from other languages. which listed replacements for a wide range of Arabic and Persian words. ˙brahim Necmi Dilmen (1889–1945). Consequently. Thus. the TDAK declared that not all words needed to be replaced right away. 24–31 August 1936. without a publicly accepted replacement in place. and the purification movement at its zenith. the TDAK gathered and coined thousands of new words with the help of the government. Based on a complex set of assertions and etymological arguments. his proclivity to connect the Hittites to the Turks became explicable during 1937. and it has been established. . The paper read by I ground-breaking. Indicative of his role in the purification movement. Greek. in the Second History Congress.50 Now. At this time. which he wrote during the congress. In her expose ´ titled. in addition to the Ural-Altaic group. in lieu of his Armenian name. Armenian. studies on race had become popular in Turkey. brought forth subsequently the Arab. Etruscan. ‘Tu rk Tarih Kurumunun Arkeolojik ¨ Faaliyeti’ (The Archaeological Activity of the Turkish History Association). a team of TTK scholars had excavated the grave of the famous Ottoman architect Sinan. The Second Turkish History Congress was organized in Istanbul. which had stipulated that all citizens adopt Turkish last names. was his insistence to link the Armenians and Hittites to a common origin with the Turks. given his aforementioned 1932 encounter with Galip. Hasik.47 Consequently. Atatu ¨ rk had given Professor Martayan a pure Turkish last name. Hittite. Egyptian – that is all the languages in the world. in ˙nan emphasized Turkey’s historical riches. German. has been studied. the original ‘Turkish ‘‘Sun Language’’ was the parent of all other tongues’. Davidian [sic]. which has been a cradle. I recently recovered in various archaeological excavations. to carry out ‘scientific research’ on his skeleton in order to investigate his ‘morphological and scientific personality’. ‘tongue/ language opener’ in Turkish). Meanwhile. Bantu. . Professor Dilac ¸ ar elaborated on the implications of the ‘theory’: The question of searching for the race and the predominant culture of this land. on 20–25 September 1937 by the TTTC. Anthropometrical . (Following a 1934 law. Professor Martayan’s new last name meant.92 MIDDLE EASTERN STUDIES it. Dilac ¸ ar.49 What is striking in Dilac ¸ ar’s arguments. in addition to the Kemalist claim to trace all major cultures in the world to the Turks. Central Asia to which scholars have attempted to connect the Sumerian race and language and the mohenjodaroes has. On 6 August 1935.that the material home of those who are the dominant race in this country – as regards culture and language – was Central Asia. which had been her presentation.48 One of the main proponents of the ‘theory’ was Professor Agop Martayan (Dilac ¸ ar). In a newspaper article. Kludian. Dilac ¸ ar’s interest in doing this for the Armenians is understandable from his perspective. for instance. now renamed Turkish Historical Society ˙nan at this meeting was (Tu ¨ rk Tarih Kurumu – TTK). which was inhabited by Alpine bracycephals – the Turks. she pointed out TTK’s and Atatu ¨ rk’s new ideological inclinations. Indo-European. 661 Pomak. spoken by 13. 32. of whom 15. 22. 12.899. In conclusion.381 French speakers. All of its past inhabitants.965 others.099 Abkhaz speakers. the ideologues of Kemalism established a specific definition of the Turkish nation. They claimed that all Turkey’s past and present inhabitants were ethnically and racially Turkish. 10.157. which had originally started in January 1928. the campaign rose with a push from the Jews of Izmir. Excavations showed that the Turkish race had been in Anatolia from very early historical ˙nan hailed Anatolia as the land. and 12. 15.687 Arabic.754 Albanian. 18.046 Greek Orthodox.253 Laze. However. Armenians. 57.452 spoke the Serbian and Croatian variants). were members of this race.TURKISH NATIONALISM IN 1930s 93 research on bones at these excavations proved the lineage between contemporary Turks and the earliest inhabitants of Anatolia. Kurdish was the second. ‘whose racial times.073 people. the ‘Kurds.51 Euge ` ne Pittard added that while Anatolia had been invaded and inhabited by many different waves of settlers throughout the centuries. the ‘Citizen Speak Turkish’ campaign. 78. whether or not they spoke Turkish. at least a large part of these people. 4. spoken by 1. I characteristics have always preserved the Turkish core’.424 Spanish. Moreover.246 people.52 The History Congress concluded that Anatolia had been embedded with the Turkish race since the ancient times. A test case for this is the ‘Citizen Speak Turkish’ campaign. The rest of the population included 125.730 Jews. and 5.599 Armenian. In addition.325 Georgian. such as the Armenians. After the departure of Greeks and Armenians. The 1935 census gives detailed data on this. 63. who are. primitive mass’. while Turkish was the first language in the country. Turkey was by no means an ethnically homogenous state.480.155 Catholics.53 On the other hand.55 In 1931– 32. In the 1930s. definitely belonged to the same original Turkish race.972 Circassian. Lazes and the others. there were 153. 8. but waned later on.673 were Muslims. 29.615 (Crimean) Tatar.855 Romani speakers. 57. bracycephalic’. including the Hittites. 7. Jews had become . 32. 108. Turkey’s second largest city. all derived their origins from ‘the same original. ‘it is best to accept that these generations of invaders spoke different languages and carried different names’. Hence. Anatolia’s current populations. 91. were also Turks by the virtue of race.725 Greek.065 Bosnian (of whom 4.245 Bulgarian.838.54 Given such diversity.607 Judeo-Spanish. At the climax of the euphoria over the ‘History Thesis’ and language purification. the question was how Turkish nationalism of the 1930s would accommodate this. gained momentum.526 Gregorian Armenians. 44.725 classified as Christians. the country had 16. who had invaded Anatolia over the centuries.486 Protestants. In that year. 42.450 people. largely. However. Besides. In a speech to the Turkish Parliament on 7 June (U ¨ naydın said. Perry. culture. adopted a language that did not belong to them. the head of the city’s Jewish community to discuss the ‘Speak Turkish’ movement. after the decay of the Byzantine Empire. In December 1932. when the opposition Free Republican Party (Serbest Cumhuriyet Fırkası–SCF) had emerged to be massively popular in Izmir. the Jews had thrown their support behind it. ‘The Israelites will not be an ethnic minority among the Turks. they had not been disloyal to the country.56 All this had built a nationalist bitterness against them. Asım concluded. At this time. In as much as the religious legacy of the old Ottoman regime seemed to set them apart from the Turks. and that it is now national in extent. with a good share in its economic life.59 The chief editor of the influential Istanbul daily Vakit. the American Consul in Izmir. Unlike the Greeks and the Armenians. The Consul was told: The movement was quietly started more than a year ago by a group of young Jewish intellectuals. and when they join to the Turkish nation. reacted positively to the Jews’ desire to assimilate. The unique aim is to open up greater opportunities in public life for Jewish leaders: perhaps reminiscent of the time when. They had. first in Milas and later in Izmir. ‘who were highly talented in commerce to merge with the Turks. the ‘Speak Turkish’ campaign was their strategy to alleviate antipathy against them. remained as a minority in Turkey. ‘Failing this’ he declared ‘we shall have to emigrate’. Mehmet Asım supported Mr Sidi’s arguments.58 Now.94 MIDDLE EASTERN STUDIES Izmir’s most significant non-Muslim community. Jewish business capacity obtained a recognition in the then new Turkey that proved markedly beneficial to the race. ‘As if it was not enough that they [the Jews] did not 1934. they were Izmir’s largest nonTurkish speaking community. in 1930. The Jews needed to assimilate into the ‘Turkish language. they have. there was no ground for such separation in the secular republic. One of the staunchest proponents of the ‘Speak Turkish’ campaign was Atatu ¸en Es ¸ref ¨ rk’s Executive Secretary. They made up more than ten per cent of the city’s population. they will understand that they are happy and that they will not be able to find that pride in their previous self’. which they had picked up at the Alliance Israe ´ lite schools.’60 The Kemalist regime. The Jews ‘will one day learn that they are Turks. too. and ideals’. had a meeting with Emanuel Sidi. most Turkish Jews spoke Judeo-Spanish.57 and/or French. also.’ Atatu ¨ rk had taught them that they are genuine Turks. U speak Turkish. MP Mehmet S ¸ eref (Aykut) (1874–1939) (Edirne) continued and asked that the Jews. to us. Then. however. These . George W. in accordance with our Civil Law’. journalist Rus ¨ naydın) (1892–1959. 69 The ‘Speak Turkish’ campaign was especially fierce in Mersin. Munis Tekinalp (1883–1961).71 The antipathy against those who did not speak Turkish was so strong in this town that. the provincial elements gave in. and Kurds in the country were being targeted for not speaking Turkish. the impact of the ‘Speak Turkish’ campaign was also felt among Muslims. Moise Efendi. First.’62 Bursa Jews followed: ‘Uhuvet’ (Fraternity). claiming that it was possible for Jews to become Turkish through assimilation. British diplomatic correspondence from 1934 noted that Arabs. On 23 November 1933.67 In addition to Jews.instead’. Cretans. who did not speak Turkish. a Turkish Jewish intellectual. Arabs and Syrians’ were being fined for speaking languages other than Turkish. who endorsed the Turkification movement in Milas.’61 Turkish Jews gradually reacted to such expectations. a small town in Turkish Thrace. who had earlier adopted a Turkish name. rallied to this cause. Finally. in Southwestern Turkey. Cretan Muslims. There is no other way for their representation.TURKISH NATIONALISM IN 1930s 95 could assimilate into Turkishness: ‘while the pride they would get from Turkishness is infinite. was beaten up by some of his coreligionists. many ‘hundreds of persons’ were arrested ‘for speaking languages other than Turkish’.72 . In 1934.68 In Mersin. for instance. the organization of the city’s Jews. the Jews of Istanbul rallied. they joined the Greeks and the Armenians in the city to further the dissemination of the Turkish language. decided to impose a fine on members. in July 1934.70 a town with a large community of Muslim and Christian Arabs and a sizable population of Greek-speaking Cretan Muslim immigrants. In January 1933. the American Embassy in Istanbul reported that ‘the inhabitants of a village near Mersina [sic] have decided to give up speaking Arabic and to speak Turkish – undoubtedly pure Turkish . there was resentment among the masses over this. together with some prominent members of the Jewish community.65 Inasmuch as the community leaders swiftly adopted Turkish. the advantages they will derive from the Turks are many. a Jewish schoolteacher. the rabbi of that they adopted Turkish.63 Ankara Jews came in next and declared ˙lyas Efendi. In February 1933. Circassians. ‘Kurds.66 Yet. at this time.64 At the end of the year. told his congregation at the end of services: ‘I beg you from today to speak the beloved language of the noble Turkish race and civilized proprietors of the great country in which we live. For instance. some young vigilantes demanded that non-Turkish speakers be ‘beaten up and forced to speak Turkish only’. the rabbi of Kırklareli. I Diyarbakır. made a tour of the Eastern provinces ‘calling upon the Jews to be baptized into the new Kemalist faith’. Reportedly. Tekinalp founded the Turkish Culture Association (Tu ¨ rk Ku ¨ ltu ¨ r Cemiyeti) to promote the use of Turkish in public. who spoke ‘a language other than Turkish within the precincts of the club’. Monsignor Roncalli (1881–1963) (the papal nuncio in Istanbul and the future Pope Jean XXIII) gave a sermon in Turkish. The paper Re noted alarmingly that failure to learn Turkish ‘may trouble the harmony of social coexistence’. because of the vigilance of the campaign. will speak Turkish. during Yom Kippur services in September. we will not keep quiet. the nationalist daily La ´ publique published a piece on ‘Turks unable to speak Turkish’. passed decrees to fıne those who spoke languages other than Turkish in public. Bursa and Lu ¨ leburgaz.79 Nationalist articles. as the ‘Speak Turkish’ campaign demonstrates. Signs were posted in public places to ask everybody to speak Turkish. was mainly on the Jews.’74 Following this. banned the use of languages other than Turkish in public. This unofficial campaign aimed to make Turkish the sole language heard in the country.76 Christian minorities responded to this new wave by further promoting the use of Turkish.80 The ‘Speak Turkish’ campaign survived after Atatu ¨ rk’s death well into the 1940s.77 In 1935. Rifat Bali. At this time. who were well connected to the CHP. In reaction to increasing pressure. Jewish community leaders in Istanbul recommended the community members to speak Turkish. the Kemalists turned to ethnicity as the underlying factor of Turkishness. All citizens. the ˘. a series of nationalist articles appeared in various papers in support of the campaign. started to decrease. According to Rıfat N. although Kemalism increasingly favoured ethnicity as a . ethics.73 The Prime Minister emphasized the need for everybody in Turkey to speak Turkish: ‘From now on. and socialization as the denominators of the nation.96 MIDDLE EASTERN STUDIES In 1935. the ‘Speak Turkish’ campaign gained new momentum with a fiery ˙no speech given by Prime Minister I ¨ nu ¨ at the ruling Republican People’s Party’s (Cumhuriyet Halk Partisi – CHP) Fourth Congress. aesthetics. set up the Turkish Association of Secular Christians ˘ i) in an attempt to promote assimilation. In 1936. a small number of Greeks and Armenians. who spoke languages other than Turkish. Bali. from 1937 onwards. and Taha Parla argue that in its view of Turkishness. the number of Jews and others.82 Yet. (Tu ¨ rk Laik Hristiyanlar Birlig the pressure of this new wave.81 Ayhan Aktar. towns with Jewish municipal governments of Edirne and Tekirdag communities. the National Union of Turkish Students ˘ i – TMTB) initiated a drive to invite the public to (Milli Tu ¨ rk Talebe Birlig speak Turkish only. targeting the Jews for not speaking Turkish. For example. Kemalism broke away from Ziya Go ¨ kalp’s (1876–1924) thinking. Those who did not speak Turkish were openly harassed. While Go ¨ kalp had mostly emphasized religion. two other towns with Jewish communities. appeared in the press in 1937. too.78 Yet. who live with us. On 26 February 1936.75 For instance. It expected them to integrate by adopting the Turkish language. this was an immutable concept. a staunchly pro-Kemalist and nationalist journalist.84 Thus. and ideals by birth and not through voluntary selection or socialization represented a break with Go ¨ kalp’s idea of voluntary Turkification. bloodline. True. genetics. language. the desire to integrate the Jews was especially significant. Kemalism’s idea of ‘organic culture’ that is culture. in 1938. Naziism and other racist ideologies transformed the term race. Ankara regretted the fact that the Jews did not speak Turkish and had not been assimilated. it appears that under the rubric of Turkish race. as well as the proceedings of the Second History Congress demonstrated this desire vis-a `vis the Armenians. in practice. If the ‘Speak Turkish’ campaign were taken into account. Nadir Nadi ˘ lu) (1908–1991). Race referred not to a biological community. especially the Jews and non-Turkish Muslims. it was defined through language and not genetic factors. unlike in many other European countries. even the Armenians into the body of the Turkish nation. but to a national one. racial anti-semitism seemed impossible in Turkey even at the brink of the Second World War.TURKISH NATIONALISM IN 1930s 97 marker of Turkishness in the 1930s. This points out that not racism. However.83 Inasmuch as Kemalist ideology focused on the Turkish race. it never closed the gates to voluntary Turkification. and physical attributes. 1930s’ Kemalism favoured the conventional. Subsequently. Ankara kept the avenues of assimilation open to those who were not ethnically Turkish. in the mind of the Kemalists. The merits. assimilation was enforced.85 In the early twentieth century. wherein biological race is the basis of the national community. but nationalism shaped Turkey’s attitude towards the Jews in the 1930s. when race had been synonymous with nation. . On the other hand. yet it was inclusive. This refutes Erik Zurcher’s argument that. In another example along this line. (Abalıog argued it was scientifically proven that Armenians and Turks had the same racial origins. Kemalism was willing to accept not only the Anatolian Muslims and Jews. limits to. this definition does not seem to have been central to Ankara’s practices. with modifiers such as biology. nineteenth century usage of this term. but. True. Yet the way Ankara co-opted the notion of race suggests that. thinking wishfully. Consequently as the example of the ‘Speak Turkish’ campaign reveals. this is also the view of race one sees in the ‘Turkish History Thesis’ and the ‘Sun Language Theory’. In this regard. The aforementioned exchange between Minister Galip and Professor Martayan. where race divided the Jews from the Gentiles in the interwar era. Kemalism’s vision of the Turkish nation in the 1930s included even the Christians. At first glance. Yet. and possibilities of this attitude ought to be discussed in another study. at least in theory. it would appear that what the Kemalists saw in ‘race’ was closer to the word’s nineteenth century connotations than to its twentieth century meaning. pp. and Masami Arai. 1995). 7. Pan-Turkism: From Irredentism to Cooperation (Bloomington.2 1929] TC Bas ¸vekalet ˙statistik Umum Mu I Istatistik Yıllıg ˘ ı: 1934–5 ¨ d. ˙ Istatistik Yıllıg ˘ ı: ˙ Ikinci Cilt 1929 [Statistics yearbook: Vol. and Taha Parla. 265–7. consult Popovic ´ . 1999). and Alexandre Toumarkine. IN: Indiana Univ. and comp. 260–4. 1986).1: s. 1992). Historija Bos ˇnjaka Zajednica Kulture Sarajevo. which examine Turkish nationalism before the 1930s. see ˙ Istatistik Yıllıg ˘ ı Cilt 10 (Statistics ˙statistik Umum Mu ˘u yearbook. Montenegrin. Constitution. Varlık Vergisi ve ‘Tu ¸tirme’ Politikaları [The wealth tax ¨ rkles ˙letis and the ‘Turkification’ policies] (Istanbul: I ¸im. Vol. Arabs.183–7. Jacob M. 73–8. For general works on the persecution of the Ottoman Muslims in Europe and the Black Sea basin. 77–94.159. Turkey. Kemalist Tek-Parti ˙ Ideolojisi ve CHP’nin Altı Ok’u [The single party ideology of ˙letis Kemalism and the Six Arrow of the CHP] (Istanbul: I ¸im. For some recent examples of these works. 1937?). 207–8. 135–47. pp. consult Ivo Banac and Katherine Verdery (ed. ˙ ˙statistik G. see Justin McCarthy. 1938–9). The Little Dictators: The History of Eastern Europe Since 1918 (London: Routledge. For a few notable examples of these works. and ˇnjaka [History of the Bosniaks] (Sarajevo: Bos Mustafa Imamovic ´ . (S. (Ankara: Hu ¨ snu ¨ tabiat. Musa’nın Evlatları Cumhuriyet’in Yurttas ¸ları [The children of Moses. pp. and Antony Polonsky. 2.n. 257–60. Bali. Landau. 1929). pp.). 1989).108–12. For more on nationalism in Turkey’s European neighbourhood in the 1930s. 1997). pp. For more on various Muslim communities in Anatolia. Ayhan Aktar. National Character and National Ideology in Interwar Eastern Europe (New Haven: Yale Center for International and Area Studies. For more on the destruction and expulsion of the Ottoman Muslims from Central Europe in the seventeenth and the eighteenth centuries. 1995).64–5. typescript. Les Migrations des Musulmanes Balkaniques en Anatolie (1876–1913) (Istanbul: Isis. Bali. For a breakdown of the country’s population according to linguistic groups in the 1930s. see in particular: Hasan Kayalı.10) Bas ¸bakanlık I ¨ du ¨ rlu ¨g ¨ . revealing the diversity of Muslim communities. Turkish Nationalism in the Young Turk Era (Leiden: Brill. see Alexandre Popovic ´ . 1997). C ¸ ag article. 2001). unpublished 5. 74–7. L’Islam Balkanique (Berlin: in Komission bei Otto Harassowitz–Wiesbaden. 113–– 34. 1995). For the persecution of the Balkan Muslims during and after the establishment of Greek. NOTES 1..7] (Ankara: Bas ¸ bakanlık I p.D. Rıfat N. The definition of the nation-through-language and the country’s demographic diversity seemed bound to clash in the future. Death and Exile: The Ethnic Cleansing of the Ottoman Muslims. p. see Peter Alford Andrews and Ru ¨ diger Benninghaus (ed. and Islamism in the Ottoman Empire. 1821–1922 (Princeton: Darwin Press. ‘Translation into English of the Turkish Constitution of 1924. 4. 6. Serbian. citizens of the republic] (Istanbul: ˙letis I ¸im. Cilt 7 [Statistics yearbook: 1934–5. .45. 1995).). 127–56. 1995). ‘Consequences of the Exchange of Populations for Turkey’. Press.280–99.98 MIDDLE EASTERN STUDIES ethnicity-through-language emerged as one of the primary planks of Turkishness in the 1930s. 1934–5). 1975).9. Cumhuriyet Yıllarında Tu ¸tirme Seru ¨ rkiye Yahudileri: Bir Tu ¨ rkles ¨ veni (1923–1945) [Turkish Jews under ˙letis the Turkish republic: an episode of Turkification (1923–45)] (Istanbul: I ¸im.1–62. ˘ lar Keyder. L’Islam Balkanique. Arabs and the Young Turks: Ottomanism. p. consult: Rıfat N. Ethnic Groups in the Republic of Turkey (Wiesbaden: Dr Ludwig Reichert Verlag. 2000). Vol. This created certain dilemmas for the minorities that did not wish to assimilate by adopting Turkish. embodying such amendments to the text as have been made to date’. 294–6. 302–11. 3. and 66– 73. 1908–1918 (Berkeley: University of California Press. (Istanbul: Cumhuriyet Matbaası. and Bulgarian states in the nineteenth and the twentieth centuries and the Balkan Wars. 8. 17. 1930). 27.2 (Fall 2002).644. Ibid.50–8.1–24. and I ¨ rk Eg ¨ rk’u ¨ n Emriyle Hazırlanan Program’. Annual Report for 1932 (hereafter Foreign Office). Embassy (Istanbul) to the State Department (Washington). FO 371/16983. . Yale University). 1981).528.26–30.2 (Summer 2002). 30 October–12 November 1932. (Berlin: Berliner Institut fu ¨ r vergleichende Sozialforschung. Vol..105– 8. For Atatu ¨ rk’s role in the creation of the Turkish History Thesis. Members of the Society for the Study of Turkish History (eds. Turkish Studies Association Bulletin. 10. unpublished paper. and Martin van Bruinessen Origins and Development of Kurdish Nationalism in Turkey. Mosse. ‘Population Resettlement and Immigration Policies of Interwar Turkey: A Study of Turkish Nationalism’. 1930). Great Britain..156 (Dec. The Inequality of Human Races. Tu ¨ rk Tarihinin Ana Hatlarına Methal [Introduction to the General Themes of Turkish History] (Istanbul. 11. ‘Anatolian Armenians in the 1920s: Religion. For more on the Kurds in the 1920s. consult Soner Cagaptay. typescript. Tu 13. Dissertation in progress. Vol. ˙nan]. the Homeland of the Turkish Race and a Survey conducted on 64. ‘Race. ‘Tarihten Evvel ve Tarih Fecrinde’ [In Prehistoric Times and at the Dawn of 21. 1999). No. pp. see Alexis Alexandris. [I 24. see Bali. Tu ¨ rk Tarihinin Ana Hatlarına.644.. Records of the Department of State Relating to the Internal Affairs of Turkey 1930–1944. 1947). 12. pp. 1983).TURKISH NATIONALISM IN 1930s 99 ˙lk Yıllarında Uygulanan Tu 8.C. No. The Greek Minority of Istanbul and Greek–Turkish Relations 1918–1974 (Athens: Center for Asia Minor Studies. see Ergu ¨ n.144–73. ˙nan]. 1933). (New York: H. 867. and ‘Reconfiguring the Turkish Nation in the 1930s’. Maarif Vekaleti. Devlet Matbaası. 28. al. No. Digest of Turkish News. 1996). [Turki¨ rkles fication policies during the early years of the republic] Tarih ve Toplum.126. 22. 23. p. p. Religion. For available copies of some of these works. Cumhuriyet Yıllarında.4016 ARMENIANS/8. and Ethnicity under High Kemalism’ (Ph.). 27 Jan. 29.647. see Euge ` ne Pittard.000 kis ¸i u ¨ zerinde Anket [The Anthropological Character of the People of Turkey and Turkish history: Anatolia.7. See Soner Cagaptay. see M.644. pp. p. Fertig. with preface by George L. Identity and Security in Early Republican Turkey’. Arthur de Introduction Ethnologique a Gobineau. 1932 (hereafter State Department). p. pp. ˙nan]. ˙g ˘ I ˘ demir. 1981). Mustafa Ergu ˘ itimi (Turkish Education under Atatu ¨ n. Ulug ¨ rk’u ¨ n Emriyle Hazırlanan Programme’ (A programme prepared on Atatu ¨ rk’s orders) in Belleten. 18. et. 26. Embassy to the Foreign Office (London).9111/383. The Races of Man and Their Distribution (New York: Gordon Press. Tarihten Evvel ve Tarih Fecrinde. p. Foreign Office: Political Departments: General Correspondence from 1906. Afet [I ¨ rk Tarihinin Ana Hatları (General Themes of Turkish History) (Istanbul: Devlet Matbaası. Nationalism and Ethnic Politics. p. also consult Soner Cagaptay. 16 Nov. ‘Atatu Tu ˘ itimi. Vol. and Alfred Cort Haddon. Tu ¨ rk Tarihinin Ana Hatlarına. Ibid. Atatu ¨ rk Devri ˙g ˘ demir. SD 867. Ayhan Aktar. Tu ¨ rk Tarihinin Ana Hatlarına.31. 1933. 1982).26. p. For the story of the Greeks in the 1920s. 1924). pp. No.1–242..000 people] (Ankara: Tu ¨ rk Tarih Kurumu. ‘Five Stages of the Construction of Kurdish Nationalism in Turkey’. Vol. State Department. Les Races et l’Histoire ` l’Histoire (Paris: Le Renaissance du Livre. 15. ‘Cumhuriyet’in I ¸tirme Politikaları’. 8 Nov. 20. Tu ¨ rkiye Halkının Antropolojik Karakteri ve Tu ¨ rkiye Tarihi: Tu ¨ rk Irkının Vatanı Anadolu 64. p. pp. 25.8. 30. Ibid. Hakan Yavuz. Turkey. For Armenians in this period. Atatu ¨ rk Devri Tu ¨ rk Eg ¨ rk) (Ankara: DTCF. 1932. 19.125–132. Sherill (Istanbul) to the State Department (Washington).3 (2001).27 (1963). Afet [I History] Birinci Tu ¨ rk Tarih Kongresi [First Turkish History Congress] (Ankara: T. For more on this. 16. Nationalism and Ethnic Politics.34. 9. pp. ‘Atatu 14.D. ‘La Bibliothe ˙letis (Istanbul: I ¸im. 1936. The Turkish Language Reform. 16 Nov. 1999). News of Izmir – 1930. p.33. Ahmet Yıldız. pp. 54. 51. 49. In formulating the ‘Sun Language Theory’. (Paris: Association pour le De ´ tudes Turques. ‘Man first realized his own identity when he conceived the idea of establishing what the external objects surrounding him were.402/48. 1935. p. 1933).64–5. pp. Language Reform. 867.20. ˙ Ikinci Tu ¨ rk Tarih Kongresi. Vatandas 34.77.393–5.64–5. This language is essentially medieval Spanish (and to a much lesser extent Portuguese) with a Hebrew influence in its vocabulary. Translation of article from La Re 50. 57. Heyd.100 MIDDLE EASTERN STUDIES 31. 56. ˙nan. 1932. Cumhuriyet. pp. Tarih I Tarihten-evvelki Zamanlar ve Eski Zamanlar [History I Prehistoric and Ancient Ages] (Istanbul. Over the centuries. Language Reform in Turkey (Jerusalem: Israel Oriental Society. Ibid. Bulgarian. 18 Sept.371.. and Arabic. Morgan (Istanbul) to Eden (London). p.57. Greek. 44.H.). I ¸ık Tutan Bazı Konus ¸maları’ [Some Homilies ¨ rk’u ¨ n Gu ¨ nu ¨ mu ¨ z Olaylarına Is by Atatu ¨ rk that Shed Light on our Era]. pp. Italian. 1931). p. 40. 1936. is the language of the Sephardic Jews.94–104. who fled from Spain and Portugal during the late fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries. 43. Partisi Basımevi. pp. (Gaziantep: C. Shaw (Istanbul) to the State Department (Washington). 9 Sept. p. No. 53. State Department. p. 18 Sept. pp. 2001). who had argued that.249–50. Collection Turcica 1. 1932. ‘Atatu 33. 2. 17 Oct. Ibid.165–6. Shaw (Istanbul) to the State Department (Washington). The Turkish Language Reform (Oxford: Oxford University Press. 29 Aug. From the Embassy (Istanbul) to the State Department (Washington). see Gu ¸ Dil Teorisi ve U ¸u ¨ nes ¨ ncu ¨ Dil ¨ mer Besim Aksoy Tarafından 26 Eylu Kurultayı: Gaziantep Saylavı O ¨ l 1936 Dil Bayramında Verilen Konferans [The Sun Language Theory and the third Turkish Language Congress: a ¨ mer Besim Aksoy (Gaziantep) on the occasion of the language conference given by MP O day on 26 Sept. pp. State Department. or Ladino. FO 371/20094/E5890. Foreign Office. Ne Mutlu Tu ¨ rku ¨ m Diyebilene [Happy is he. For a good review of the language purification movement.71–80. Digest of Turkish Press 30 Oct. Birinci Tu ¨ rk Dil Kurultayı. State Department. pp. 1936. p. FO 371/20094/E5890. 45. 867. 1932. French. 39.8–15. 867.402/74. 17 Oct.30. Cilt 10. 867. 38. Judeo-Spanish. pp. Yıldız. Ne Mutlu Tu ¨ rku ¨ m. 35. 1932. 47. 1937). Afet I ¨ rk’u ¨ n El Yazıları [Civics and Atatu ¨ rk’s Manuscripts] (Ankara: TTK. 55. Foreign Office. Belleten. 52. 1981).’ Lewis. and settled in various parts of the Ottoman Empire. Memorandum. 9 ´ publique. 48. Ibid. 1936]. 1969). 41.–12 Nov. Sept. ˙smail Arar. Devlet Matbaası.00/2048. 1936.26–9. pp. Medeni Bilgiler ve Atatu 32. Kvergic ´ of Vienna.9111/353. 1930. see Geoffrey Lewis.38. and Artun U ` que Politique Franc ¸ aise d’Atatu ´ -Grammont and Paul Dumont (eds. it has also been laden with words from Turkish. For a Kemalist-era work ¨c that summarizes the Sun Language Theory succinctly. ˙ Istatistik Yıllıg ˘ ı. who can say he is a Turk) ¨ nsal.42. Bursky (Izmir) to the State Department (Washington). Uriel Heyd. 867.23–4. 37. Embassy (Istanbul) to the State Department (Washington). Vol. 867. 36. State Department. Language Reform.45–6. Medeni Bilgiler.402/74. State Department. Afet [I ˙nan].13.402/48. 1 Nov. p. 1936. Birinci Tu ¨ rk Dil Kurultayı (First Turkish Language Congress) (Istanbul: Devlet Matbaası. State Department. 42. 1954). the Turkish scholars had been inspired by Austrian linguist Dr Hermann F. 6 Aug.. La Turquie et la ¨ rk’. . Ibid. p. Embassy (Istanbul) to the State Department (Washington).. 1931). No. p. d’E ˙nan..177 (1981). Morgan (Istanbul) to Eden (London). 46. in Jean-Louis Bacque ´ poque d’Atatu France a L’E ´ velopment ¨ rk. Heyd.159. I ¸lık ˙ Ic ¸ in Medeni Bilgiler [Civic Guidelines for Citizenship] (Istanbul: Devlet Matbaası. ‘Young Turks. State Department. consult Aron Rodrigue. and Parla. 1933. 59. p. Tekinalp: Bir Tu ¨ rk Yurtseveri (1883–1961) [Tekinalp: a Turkish patriot ˙letis (1883–1961)] (Istanbul: I ¸im. 1934.21. pp. 1934. Embassy (Istanbul) to the State Department (Washington). 85. 67. Ibid.–18 Feb. 69.281–7. Digest of Turkish Press 5 Feb. 8 March 1933.9111/392. Embassy (Istanbul) to the State Department (Washington). FO 371/16985/E2053. session IV. 1996). 867. 27 July 1934. Catton (Mersina) to Loraine (Angora). Germany: Auswa ¨ rtiges Amt.9111/ Embassy (Istanbul) to the State Department (Washington). 13 Dec. Ottoman Muslims and Turkish Nationalists’. in Kemal Karpat (ed. Tekinalp. 1933. Cumhuriyet Yıllarında. 867. 79. Cumhuriyet Yıllarında. p. 12 Aug. p. 19 July 1934. CHP Do ¸meleri Tutulgası [Records of the sessions of CHP’s ¨ rdu ¨ ncu ¨ Bu ¨ yu ¨ k Kurultayı Go ¨ ru ¨s Fourth General Congress] (Ankara: 9–16 May 1935). Varlık Vergisi ve ‘Tu ¸tirme’. 66. 1933. 11 Jan. and Foreign Office. 70. FO 371/17958/E4912. Bali. 7 July 1934. 64.23. 6 April 1934. Digest of Turkish Press 16 July–11 Aug. Aug. 1933. 867. Records of the German Foreign Office received by the Department of State. FO 371/17969/E5028. 1928). For the fluctuating meanings of the term ‘nation’ over the last few centuries.269–72. State Department. p. for more on the ´ lite Alliance schools. Feb. pp. On the other hand. pp. Modern Turkey and Ottoman Past (Leiden: Brill. TBMM Zabıt Ceridesi. Digest of Turkish Press 5 Nov.60–6. 867. Ibid. pp. Jacob. (1975). Bali.. Embassy (Angora) to the Foreign Office (London). 72. Cumhuriyet Yıllarında. pp. 1938. Embassy (Istanbul) to the State Department (Washington). Embassy (Istanbul) to the State Department (Washington). 3 Oct. 1933. Digest of Turkish Press.377–9. pp. 20 Dec. State Department. State Department. T–120 4900. Foreign Office. Erik Jan Zurcher. 1920–1945.–22 Sept. 7 July 1934.. 21 Feb. Foreign Office. 867. 65. 8 Aug. Foreign Office. Vatandas ¸ Tu ¸ e Konus ¸ [Citizen Speak ¨ rkc Turkish] (Istanbul: Hu ¨ sn-i Tabiat Matbaası.9111/405. Embassy (Istanbul) to the State Department (Washington). George (Izmir) to the State Department (Washington). FO 371/21915/E4624. 62. 1933. State Department. 80. 1934. Ibid. 78. Foreign Office. 84.–2 Dec. 83. FO 371/17958/ E4912. Landau.9111/410. Loraine (Angora) to the Foreign Office (London). 60. 2 Aug. 1933. see American Heritage Dictionary. p.275–6. Foreign Office. Aktar. Catton (Mersina) to Morgan (Angora). 77.179. Embassy (Constantinople) to the Foreign Office (London).9111/422. Copy of letter.–4 March 1933. 867. 82. 63.176–221. FO 371/17958/E6178.9111/390. 1933. 76. 2000).TURKISH NATIONALISM IN 1930s 101 58. 75. Kemalist Tek–Parti ˙ Ideolojisi.–4 Feb. 1934. p. 74. 1932. 61. Digest of Turkish Press.874. For a work from the 1920s. FO 371/17969/E5028. Bali. Davis (Smyrna) to Loraine (Angora). AA T–120 4900. 103–8.9111/391. 6 April 1933. 867. Digest of Turkish Press 22 Jan.149. Loraine (Angora) to the Foreign Office (London). French Jews. Loraine (Ankara) to the Foreign Office (London). 71. Digest of Turkish Press 19 Feb.20. 867. 81. 1990).273. which explains the historical reasons as to why the Turkish Jews spoke Judeo-Spanish and French.70.). ¨ rkles pp. Rosenberg (Ankara) to German Foreign Ministry (Berlin). 1933. Cumhuriyet Yıllarında. 11 Dec. M. Bali. Embassy (Istanbul) to the State Department (Washington). p. State Department.4016 JEWS/3. State Department. 1933. see Avram Galanti. Turkish Jews: The Alliance Israe Universelle and The Politics of Jewish Schooling in Turkey (Bloomington: Indiana University Press. State Department. Foreign Office. . Vol.502–3. FO 371/16985/E2053. Davis (Smyrna) to Loraine (Angora). 73. 17 Sept. 68. Landau.
Report "Soner Cagaptay (MIddle Eastern Studies)_2004_Race, Assimilation & Kemalism Turkish Nationalism & the Minorities in the 1930s"