THE POLITICS OF SYMPATHY: GERMAN TURCOPHILISM AND THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE IN THE AGE OF THE MASS MEDIA 1871-1914 A Dissertation submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences of Georgetown University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in History By S. Chase Gummer, M. A. Washington, DC December 9, 2010 Copyright 2010 by S. Chase Gummer All Rights Reserved ii THE POLITICS OF SYMPATHY: GERMAN TURCOPHILISM AND THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE IN THE AGE OF THE MASS MEDIA 1871-1914 S. Chase Gummer, M.A. Thesis Advisor: Roger Chickering, PhD. ABSTRACT This dissertation examines the sources of sympathy for the Ottoman Empire–what contemporaries called “turcophilism”—in Imperial Germany before World War I. It focuses on German journalists in the Ottoman Empire and the representation of Ottoman violence in the German public sphere. While the German government tried to influence news coverage coming from the Ottoman lands in times of crisis, most German newspapers with correspondents in the field attempted to provide their readers with timely information on current affairs with little regard for official “narratives” congenial to German diplomacy. iii Table of Contents Introduction ……………………………………………………………………………….1 Section I: Geopolitics and the News Chapter 1: The Promise of Partnership: The Geopolitics of German Turcophilism…………………………………………...…………………………………17 Chapter 2. State and Society in the Age of Public Opinion: The Liberalization of the Press and German Unification……………………………………………………………62 Chapter 3. The Globalization of News and the Political Economy of German Diplomacy in the Ottoman Empire……………………………………………………………….….107 Section II: Responses Chapter 4. The Great Eastern Crisis and the Emergence of German Turcophilism 1875- 1878……………………………………………………………………………………...153 Chapter 5. Massacre, Modernization, and War: Moral Hazard and the High-Tide of German Turcophilism 1885-1900……………………………………………………….187 Chapter 6. Revolution, Regeneration, and Defeat: The Waning of German Turcophilism 1902-1914………………………………………………………………………………..247 Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………….292 Appendix: Illustrations...………………………………………………………………...306 Bibliography……………………………………………………………………………..309 iv “People need to believe that order can be glimpsed in the chaos of events.” — John Gray, Heresies: Against Progress and Other Illusions (2004) v Author’s Note: Naming things not only presents deep metaphysical problems in philosophy but also has practical intellectual implications for historians. Because this dissertation takes Imperial Germany and the Ottoman Empire as its subjects, I have chosen a hybrid terminology using the Anglicized “Constantinople” for the city of Istanbul, because it comes closest to the German usage of “Konstantinopel”, as well as other Anglicized versions of German names for cities of the Ottoman Empire. However, I conciously resist referring to the Ottoman Empire as Turkey or the Ottomans as Turks for reasons that are immediately understandable for Ottomanists yet still mystifying to many Western historians. Although Ottoman diplomats used “Constantinople”, “Turquie”, and “Sa Majesté Impériale le Sultan” in their international correspondence beginning in the nineteenth century, “Turkey”, the “Turkish Empire”, and the “Turks” are labels that imply a distinct Western perspective. Thus quotations appear around the terms anytime I am paraphrasing Germans. vi Introduction People who take up this eastern question take it up very violently indeed. Russophobia is nearly as incurable as hydrophobia. The correlated Turcophilism is one of the very strongest isms. Probably there are not very many who take up the Turkish cause, but those who do so take it up violently. It is amusing enough at times to listen to the talk of the smoking- rooms of the clubs. The Turk is the most gentlemanly fellow. There is no Bulgarian Christian who is worthy to lick his boots. Constantinople is the most delightful place in the world. (...) On the other hand, there is a parallel enthusiasm aroused against the Turks and in favor of the Russians.(...)They abhor the “unspeakable Turk.” They recognize the Russians as chivalrous crusaders. They long for the regeneration of the Christian races of Eastern Europe. They look forward to the revival of a Greek Empire at Constantinople. The general reflections which suggest themselves are that, with distinct schools of opinion so violently contrasted, it is extremely improbable that the country [Great Britain] will be dragged into war. There is then the suspicion that the main interest is chiefly confined to politicians, military men, and littérateurs, and that the general mass of the people, up to this point, are not vividly moved on the subject either in one way or the other. –London Society. “Turcophilism”, The New York Times, 15 July 1877 Throughout the nineteenth century, policies and opinions that championed Ottoman rule and called for the maintenance of the Ottoman Empire were dubbed “turcophile”. The Eastern Question was one of the dominant political issues in Europe before the outbreak of the First World War, and the geopolitical conflicts that arose from the declining fortunes of the Ottomans were the cause of periodic crisis, great and small. By the early years of the Wilhelmine era, turcophilism was remarkably vibrant in 1 Imperial Germany when discussions turned toward the fate of the Ottoman Empire. Germans were some of the greatest enthusiasts of “the Turk” around 1900, expressing sympathy for Muslim rule and disdain for Christian minorities seeking autonomy. Oriental rugs and the Fez had become standard accoutrements in upper-middle class life, and turcophile opinions appeared to drown out concerns for Ottoman Armenians during the massacres in the 1890s.1 Hugo Zietz’s Yenidze tabacco factory in Dresden, modeled on a Moroccan mosque, quickly became a prominent symbol when it was completed in 1909. The building was immensely popular and proved to be an ideal marketing tool for Zietz’s tobacco, which was imported from the Ottoman domains in Macedonia.2 German engineering brought railroads and other infrastructure projects to the Ottoman Empire, and a Prussian military mission tried to reform the Ottoman army, causing tension and uneasiness with the other Great Powers. From the 1880s until the outbreak of the First World War in 1914, Germany invested both economic capital and military knowledge in the Ottoman state to strengthen it from within. But growing economic ties, which continued to lag behind other Great Powers’ until the First World War, hardly explain Germany’s relationship to the Ottomans.3 What was so special about the Ottoman Empire in the minds of Germans? How and why did turcophilism and sympathy for the Ottoman Empire become so common in Imperial 1 Margaret Lavinia Anderson, “Down in Turkey, Far Away: Human Rights, the Armenian Massacres and 2 Perdita Eimler. "Ein Stück Orient an der Elbe": Die orientalisierende Tabak- und Zigarettenfabrik Yenidze in Dresden (Magister Arbeit, Marburg University, 1994). 3 Sevket Pamuk. The Ottoman Empire and European Capitalism, 1820-1913: Trade, Investment and Production, (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1987), Ulrich Trumpener, “Germany and the End of the Ottoman Empire” The Great Powers and the End of the Ottoman Empire, ed. Marian Kent. (London: Allen & Unwin, 1984). 2 Germany? Why did Germans show such little sympathy for Christian minorities in both the Balkans and Anatolia? Or was turcophilism confined to the “politicians, soldiers, and litterateurs”, who simply spoke louder than others? Even if this was the case, how did these social groups contribute to the emergence of German turcophilism? I attempt to answer these questions, while exploring the transformations of the German public sphere that gave turcophilism traction in Imperial Germany. Just as war reporting during the Crimean War was key to the emergence of British turcophile sympathies, German turcophilism first emerged in the pages of the German press, as war between the Ottoman Empire and Russia loomed in during the Great Eastern Crisis (1875-1878).4 Opinions and attitudes about Ottoman power unfolded in print and were buoyed by the mass market for newspapers that developed in the nineteenth century. In the wake of German unification, public interest in the Ottoman lands was stimulated by affairs of state and concerns for security. German diplomacy became a crucial factor in the Eastern Question and the maintenance of Ottoman rule. The military alliance between Imperial Germany and the Ottoman Empire was the culmination of a unique relationship, one that does not easily fit into the narratives of imperialism that predominate the historiography of Imperial Germany. This dissertation charts the relationship between German statecraft and public opinion regarding the Ottoman Empire before World War I. First, it analyzes the importance of the Eastern Question for German unification and how the foundations of 4 Ute Daniel, “Der Krimkrieg 1853-1856 und die Entstehungskontexte medialer Kriegsberichterstattung” in Augenzeugen: Kriegsberichterstattung vom 18. zum 21. Jahrhundert, ed. Ute Daniel (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2006). 3 Bismarckian foreign policy informed the German-Ottoman military alliance of 1914. Second, it investigates the relationship between state officials and the press, as well as the structure of German news reporting from the Ottoman Empire. Third, it investigates the impact of German news reporting on the German public