The Forgotten Revolution: The Young Turks and the Fall of the Ottoman Empire – Explaining History
When we think of the revolutions that shaped the 20th century, our minds naturally drift to 1917. The collapse of the Romanov dynasty and the rise of the Bolsheviks is the central drama of modern history. However, almost a decade earlier, another great empire underwent a convulsion that was just as significant for the future of the Middle East and Europe.
In this week’s podcast, I explored the Young Turk Revolution of 1908, a moment of profound hope and bitter disappointment that set the stage for the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. Using Eugene Rogan’s The Fall of the Ottomans as our guide, we looked at how a group of junior officers and intellectuals tried—and ultimately failed—to save a dying empire through constitutional reform.
The Sick Man of Europe
By the turn of the 20th century, the Ottoman Empire was in terminal decline. It had lost territories in the Balkans and North Africa to European powers, and its internal politics were frozen by the paranoid autocracy of Sultan Abdul Hamid II. The Sultan had suspended the constitution of 1876 and ruled through a network of spies and censorship.
However, resistance was brewing. The Committee of Union and Progress (CUP), a secret society of military officers and civilians, began to organize in the empire’s European provinces. In July 1908, faced with discovery, they launched a desperate revolt in Macedonia.
The “Napoleon” of the Revolution
The uprising was led by figures like Enver Pasha, who was hailed by crowds as a “new Napoleon.” The revolution succeeded not through bloodshed, but through a loss of nerve at the top. Realizing he could no longer count on the loyalty of his army, Abdul Hamid capitulated and restored the constitution.
The scenes that followed were extraordinary. In cities across the empire, censorship vanished overnight. Turks, Arabs, Armenians, and Jews celebrated in the streets, embracing a shared identity as “Ottomans.” For a brief, shining moment, it seemed that the empire could be reborn as a modern, multi-ethnic constitutional monarchy.
The Failure of Reform
But the tragedy of 1908 lies in its limitations. As I noted in the podcast, this was a political revolution, not a social one. The CUP left the Sultan on the throne and the old bureaucratic structures in place. They naively believed that a constitution alone could solve the empire’s deep structural problems.
It couldn’t. The economic crisis worsened, inflation soared, and strikes broke out as workers realized the revolution offered them little material gain. Moreover, the unity of the “Ottoman” identity soon fractured. The CUP, increasingly dominated by Turkish nationalists, alienated the empire’s Arab and Armenian subjects.
This alienation would have fatal consequences. As Jonathan Schneer notes in his work on the Balfour Declaration, Arab leaders like Sharif Hussein of Mecca initially viewed the Young Turks not as liberators, but as godless modernizers who threatened the traditional Islamic order. This tension would eventually explode into the Arab Revolt during World War I.
A Lesson for Revolutionaries
The Young Turk Revolution offers a stark lesson in the difference between seizing power and transforming society. Like the Provisional Government in Russia in 1917, the Young Turks tried to manage a crisis with the tools of the old regime. They failed to understand, as Lenin and Trotsky did, that a political revolution must be followed by a social one if it is to survive.
By leaving the old order largely intact, the Young Turks paved the way for their own radicalization and the eventual destruction of the empire they sought to save. 1908 was a dress rehearsal for the tragedies of the 20th century—a reminder that hope, without a plan for structural change, is a fragile thing indeed.
Transcript
Nick: Hi there and welcome again to the Explaining History podcast.
There are forgotten revolutions in the 20th century. We often think of the revolutions that ended the First World War—the Russian and German revolutions—but there are two that predate the war and have equally lasting consequences: the Ottoman Revolution of 1908 and the Chinese Revolution of 1911.
They don’t fit the model of “war leads to revolt.” Instead, they fit a narrative beginning with the Meiji Restoration in Japan: Asian and Middle Eastern powers looking at Europe’s success and thinking, “We’re done for if we don’t modernize.” Both the Ottoman and Qing empires were in terminal decline. Today, we are diving into Eugene Rogan’s amazing book, The Fall of the Ottomans, to look at the revolution that ended the Sultan’s autocratic power.
Rogan writes that the Ottomans had lost vast territories to European powers: Cyprus to Britain in 1878, Tunisia to France in 1881, and Egypt to Britain in 1882. These losses convinced Sultan Abdul Hamid II that he needed to rule with a strong hand to protect the empire from further dismemberment. To his credit, between 1882 and 1908, he largely succeeded in this, but at the cost of his citizens’ political rights.
This autocracy gave rise to the Young Turks, a coalition of parties bound by the goal of restoring the constitution of 1876. Prominent among them was the Committee of Union and Progress (CUP), a secret society of civilians and military men.
The 1876 constitution had been a result of the “Bulgarian Outrages,” where liberal ministers constrained the Sultan’s power. By 1908, the CUP’s center of operations was in the Balkans—Albania, Macedonia, and Thrace. In June 1908, facing imminent discovery by the Sultan’s spies, CUP officers in the Ottoman Third Army decided to act.
On July 3rd, Major Ahmed Niyazi led 200 soldiers in revolt, demanding the restoration of the constitution. They expected to die, but instead, they captured the public mood. Whole cities in Macedonia rose in rebellion. Another officer, Major Enver (later Enver Pasha), proclaimed the constitution in provincial towns. The Third Army threatened to march on Istanbul.
Just as in February 1917 in Russia, there is a military tipping point where the autocrat realizes his tool for repression has slipped from his grasp. Abdul Hamid convened his cabinet on July 23rd. Intimidated ministers avoided the issue until the Sultan himself broke the deadlock, announcing: “I will follow the currents… I now wish for the ministers to prepare a proclamation restoring the constitution.”
The Young Turks were credited with a revolution. It took a moment for the significance to sink in, but soon crowds gathered across the empire to celebrate. Enver took a train to Salonika, where crowds cheered him as a “champion of freedom,” even calling him “Napoleon.”
What I find interesting is the widespread popularity of this constitutional return. Usually, constitutional revolutions are driven by the bourgeoisie who like rules because they are good for business. But here, the jubilation was universal. It suggests that the desire for the rule of law went far beyond the middle classes.
Rogan notes that the revolution briefly united the diverse Ottoman population—Turks, Arabs, Kurds, Armenians, and Jews—in a moment of shared patriotism. One activist wrote that “Arabs embraced Turks wholeheartedly… everyone had become an Ottoman with equal rights.”
This is the power of constitutional revolutions: they create a sense of citizenship. If you participate in the life of the nation, you feel the nation belongs to you.
However, this unity was fragile. The revolution was political, not social. The CUP left Abdul Hamid on the throne because he was revered as Caliph. They lacked the confidence to take power directly, instead acting as an oversight committee.
Disillusionment set in quickly. The political instability caused the currency to crash, and inflation soared to 20%. Workers organized strikes for better pay, but the treasury was empty. The new government responded with crackdowns.
This is an interesting parallel with the Russian Provisional Government of 1917: the powerlessness of a new regime to deal with inherited problems. The CUP naively assumed the constitution itself was the solution to the empire’s decline. It wasn’t.
Lenin and Trotsky argued that political revolution must be followed by social revolution—by class war—or you end up with the same system doing the same things. Whatever the Young Turks were, they were not social revolutionaries.
We don’t scrutinize 1908 with the same intensity as 1917, but it is an integral part of the process that transformed the Middle East. It also alienated traditionalists like Sharif Hussein of Mecca, who saw the CUP as godless modernizers, eventually leading to the Arab Revolt.
I’ll return to this topic soon. I’ll catch you on the next podcast, and we’ll be doing another review of the year probably on Monday. Take care folks, all the best. Bye-bye.
30.2s
Use Arrow Up and Arrow Down to select a turn, Enter to jump to it, and Escape to return to the chat.
Leave a Reply