War and change in the Middle East and North Africa 1914–1945

Greek independence and the challenge from Muhammad Ali

The Eastern Question, Crimea and the Balkan crises

Loss of power in the Middle East and North Africa

Tanzimat modernization and Abdul Hamid’s rule

The Young Turks, the CUP and the Balkan Wars

World war, Ataturk and the end of the empire

### An empire under pressure

At the start of the 19th century, the Ottoman Empire still ruled much of the Balkans, Anatolia, the Arab lands and North Africa. Its authority, however, varied from one region to another. Provincial notables held substantial local power, tax collection worked poorly, and the Janissaries opposed military reforms that endangered their privileges. Russia, Austria, Britain and France could exploit this weakness, as well as revolts among the sultan’s subjects.

Sultan Selim III tried to create a European-style force, the *Nizam-i Cedid*. A Janissary revolt removed him in 1807. Mahmud II, who became sultan in 1808, took a more cautious approach. In 1826, during the Auspicious Incident, he destroyed the Janissary corps. This removed a major barrier to centralization, although it temporarily weakened Ottoman military capacity.

### The Greek War of Independence

The Greek revolt began in 1821. Its main causes included the spread of nationalism, resentment towards Ottoman taxation and government, the wealth and education of the Greek commercial diaspora, and the activities of the secret nationalist society Filiki Eteria. A shared Orthodox identity helped mobilize support, though neither the Greeks nor Ottoman Muslims formed completely united communities.

An unsuccessful rising led by Alexander Ypsilantis began in the Danubian Principalities. The more lasting rebellion took shape in the Peloponnese and on the Aegean islands. Both sides committed violence. The Greek capture of Tripolitsa in 1821 and the Ottoman massacre on Chios in 1822 deepened communal hostility and drew European attention.

The Ottoman government found it difficult to crush the revolt, so it sought assistance from Muhammad Ali, its powerful governor in Egypt. In 1825, his son Ibrahim invaded the Peloponnese with a reorganized Egyptian army. This intervention placed the rebels in serious danger, but it also prompted Britain, France and Russia to act. Their fleets destroyed the Ottoman-Egyptian fleet at Navarino in October 1827. Russia then defeated the Ottomans in the Russo-Turkish War of 1828–1829.

The Treaty of Adrianople in 1829 increased Russian influence and forced the Ottomans to accept Greek autonomy. Greece was recognized as an independent state in 1830. Its final borders were arranged in 1832, when it became an independent kingdom. This was the first successful nationalist separation from Ottoman rule in the Balkans and set an example for later movements.

European liberals and romantics often presented the intervention as support for Christian freedom. Strategic interpretations place more weight on Russian expansion and on the British and French desire to stop Russia from dominating the settlement.

### Muhammad Ali in Egypt

Muhammad Ali became Ottoman governor of Egypt in 1805, but he gradually built a largely autonomous state. He defeated or removed rival political forces, created a conscript army trained along European lines, extended government control over agriculture and trade, and established military industries and specialist schools. These policies made Egypt stronger, but they also placed heavy taxation, labour demands and conscription on its population.

Muhammad Ali expected territorial rewards for helping the sultan in Greece. Unhappy with what he received, he sent Ibrahim into Syria in 1831. Egyptian forces captured Acre, defeated the Ottoman army at Konya and advanced towards Istanbul. Under the Convention of Kütahya in 1833, Muhammad Ali kept Egypt and gained control of Syria and Adana. Mahmud II’s need for Russian protection also led to the Treaty of Hünkâr İskelesi, which alarmed Britain and France.

Mahmud tried to recover Syria in 1839, but his army was defeated at Nizip. He died soon afterwards, while the Ottoman fleet defected to Muhammad Ali. European powers then intervened to prevent either Egyptian control of the empire or excessive Russian influence. The 1840 Convention of London offered Muhammad Ali hereditary rule in Egypt if he gave up his other conquests. British and Austrian action in the eastern Mediterranean forced him to accept. An imperial decree of 1841 confirmed hereditary rule in Egypt for his male-line descendants.

Muhammad Ali did not formally make Egypt independent. He did, however, reveal that the sultan could not control a powerful governor without European assistance. Some interpretations view him as a state-builder whose reforms anticipated later modernization. Others stress that his coercive system served dynastic and military ambitions rather than Egyptian nationalism.

### The Eastern Question

The **Eastern Question** arose from the weakening of Ottoman power and the disagreement over which state, if any, should profit from that decline. Russia wanted influence around the Black Sea, access towards the Mediterranean and a protective role towards Orthodox Christians. Austria feared Russian expansion as well as Balkan nationalism. Britain aimed to safeguard routes towards India and stop Russia from dominating the eastern Mediterranean. France, meanwhile, pursued prestige, commercial interests and influence among Catholic communities.

Ottoman governments responded with military resistance, internal reform and diplomacy. They also tried to exploit rivalries between the European powers. Britain and France might support the empire because keeping it intact seemed safer than allowing Russia to dismantle it. This approach protected Ottoman territory several times, but it also gave foreign powers greater influence over Ottoman decisions.

### The Crimean War, 1853–1856

The immediate dispute involved French and Russian claims over Christian holy places in Ottoman Palestine. Tsar Nicholas I also demanded formal Russian protection for the sultan’s Orthodox subjects. Encouraged by British and French diplomatic support, the Ottoman government rejected the demand. Russian forces occupied Moldavia and Wallachia in July 1853, and the Ottomans declared war in October.

After Russia destroyed an Ottoman squadron at Sinope in November 1853, Britain and France entered the war in 1854. They feared that a Russian victory would upset the European balance of power. Most major allied operations took place in Crimea, where the allies besieged Sevastopol. Piedmont-Sardinia joined the alliance in 1855, partly to gain diplomatic influence in Europe.

The Treaty of Paris of 1856:

- restored the occupied Ottoman territories and admitted the Ottoman Empire to the European diplomatic system;
- neutralized the Black Sea, restricting Russian naval power there;
- confirmed collective European guarantees for Ottoman territorial integrity;
- recognized greater autonomy for the Danubian Principalities;
- incorporated the sultan’s reform decree of 1856 into the diplomatic settlement without granting the powers a formal right to intervene.

The war checked Russia for a time, but it did not settle the Eastern Question. The Ottoman Empire survived because of allied assistance, took on further debt and became more exposed to European pressure. Strategic historians therefore view the war less as an Ottoman recovery than as a temporary containment of Russia.

### Causes of the Balkan crises

Balkan unrest had several causes. Nationalist intellectuals and political organizations sought autonomy or independence, while local grievances over taxation, landholding and administration also played a major part. Religious identities sometimes strengthened political divisions. Russia encouraged Orthodox and Slavic causes, whereas Austria-Hungary opposed changes that could destabilize its own multi-ethnic empire.

Serbia gained autonomy in stages after its uprisings of 1804 and 1815. In 1859, the union of Moldavia and Wallachia under Alexander Cuza created the basis of Romania, despite initial Ottoman and great-power reservations. These developments showed how local action could gain strength through international diplomacy.

### The crisis of 1875–1878

An uprising began in Bosnia and Herzegovina in 1875. The Bulgarian April Uprising of 1876 was suppressed with severe violence, which provoked criticism across Europe. Serbia and Montenegro went to war with the empire, and Russia declared war in April 1877 after diplomatic efforts had failed.

Russian forces advanced close to Istanbul. The resulting Treaty of San Stefano of March 1878 proposed a large autonomous Bulgaria under strong Russian influence and recognized the independence of Romania, Serbia and Montenegro. Britain and Austria-Hungary opposed the growth of Russian power, so the settlement was revised at the Congress of Berlin.

The Treaty of Berlin of July 1878:

- reduced the size of Bulgaria and divided the proposed Bulgarian lands;
- confirmed the independence of Romania, Serbia and Montenegro;
- permitted Austria-Hungary to occupy and administer Bosnia and Herzegovina;
- gave Britain control of Cyprus under a separate agreement;
- restored Macedonia to direct Ottoman rule.

The settlement restricted Russia but left many nationalist demands unsatisfied. Bulgaria’s union with Eastern Rumelia in 1885 further weakened effective Ottoman authority. In 1908 Austria-Hungary formally annexed Bosnia and Herzegovina, while Bulgaria declared full independence.

Nationalist interpretations describe these crises as struggles for liberation from imperial rule. Other historians focus on great-power competition and the way newly drawn borders often created fresh minorities, rival claims and future conflicts.

### Algeria

French forces invaded Algeria in 1830, capturing Algiers and ending the authority of its Ottoman regency. The invasion was partly connected to a diplomatic dispute, but the French monarchy also sought prestige and hoped that a foreign success would distract from domestic opposition.

French control initially remained limited. Abd al-Qadir organized sustained resistance in western Algeria, establishing an administration and mobilizing forces against the occupation. He surrendered in 1847 after a destructive French counter-campaign. Algeria was then increasingly integrated into France, and European settlement altered landholding and political power. The Ottoman government lacked the naval and military strength to reverse the conquest.

### Egypt

Muhammad Ali’s dynasty governed Egypt on a hereditary basis after 1841 while continuing to recognize the Ottoman sultan formally. Later rulers borrowed heavily to finance military ambitions, infrastructure and court expenditure. The Suez Canal, opened in 1869, gave Egypt enormous strategic importance, while Ismail’s borrowing, military ambitions, infrastructure spending and court expenditure contributed to financial pressure.

Khedive Ismail sold Egypt’s canal shares to Britain in 1875. Bankruptcy led to Anglo-French financial supervision through Dual Control from 1876, and European pressure helped remove Ismail in 1879. Opposition among Egyptian officers and civilians gathered around Ahmed Urabi, who challenged both foreign control and the privileged position of Turkish and Circassian officers.

Britain bombarded Alexandria and defeated Urabi’s army at Tel el-Kebir in 1882. Egypt remained legally connected to the Ottoman Empire, but British officials exercised decisive power. In 1914 Britain ended the formal Ottoman connection and declared Egypt a protectorate. The Egyptian case shows that financial dependence could erode sovereignty before formal constitutional status changed.

### Libya

Ottoman authority in Libya had been exercised through the semi-autonomous Karamanli dynasty until direct Ottoman administration was restored in 1835. Istanbul strengthened garrisons and administration, while the Sanusi order became influential in the interior and helped connect communities beyond effective coastal control.

Italy invaded Tripolitania and Cyrenaica in 1911, seeking an African empire and expecting an easy victory. Ottoman officers, including Enver and Mustafa Kemal, helped organize local resistance, but Ottoman sea power was too weak to reinforce the provinces effectively. War in the Balkans then forced Istanbul to settle. Under the Treaty of Ouchy in 1912, the Ottomans formally renounced sovereignty and withdrew their officials, while Italy gained formal control although local resistance continued.

### Lebanon

Mount Lebanon contained communities including Maronite Christians and Druze. Political and social tensions intensified during the Egyptian occupation of Syria between 1831 and 1840. Following the restoration of Ottoman authority, European powers pressed the government to protect communities with which they claimed religious connections.

Conflict in the 1840s led to a double *kaymakamate*, dividing administration between Maronite and Druze districts. This arrangement did not remove disputes over political authority, land and the position of peasants. In 1860 fighting in Mount Lebanon was followed by massacres of Christians in Damascus. France sent troops, while the Ottoman government punished some perpetrators and negotiated a new arrangement with the powers.

The 1861 Organic Regulation established the Mount Lebanon Mutasarrifate, governed by a non-Lebanese Ottoman Christian appointed with European approval. The system brought a measure of stability and autonomy, but it also institutionalized communal representation and demonstrated how domestic conflict could become a basis for European intervention.

### Why Ottoman authority declined

The four cases followed different paths: France conquered Algeria, Britain occupied Egypt, Italy seized Libya, and Lebanon remained Ottoman but acquired internationally supervised autonomy. Their common elements were European military and financial superiority, strategic competition, uneven Ottoman control and the ability of outside powers to use local disputes as grounds for intervention.

Imperial interpretations stress aggressive European expansion rather than an inevitable Ottoman collapse. State-centred accounts add that weak revenue, debt and limited naval capacity restricted Istanbul’s choices. Local historians also emphasize that Algerians, Egyptians, Libyans and Lebanese were political actors, not merely objects of Ottoman-European rivalry.

### Causes and purposes of the Tanzimat

The **Tanzimat** was the Ottoman period of officially directed reorganization from 1839 to 1876. Its statesmen wanted a stronger, more centralized empire, supported by institutions that could compete with European powers.

Several pressures pushed reform forward: military defeats, separatist revolts, weak taxation and administration, and the challenge posed by Muhammad Ali. Ottoman ministers also wanted to remove the excuses European powers used to intervene on behalf of Christian subjects. Reformers hoped that equal legal status, together with loyalty to the dynasty, would unite the empire’s different communities. This shared loyalty was often called Ottomanism.

In 1839, Sultan Abdülmecid issued the Edict of Gülhane. It promised security of life, honour and property, more regular taxation and orderly military recruitment. The Reform Edict of 1856 reaffirmed equality before the law and extended promises concerning the rights of non-Muslims. European diplomatic pressure helped produce the second decree. Ottoman reformers, however, also saw equality as a way to strengthen the state.

### Main reforms

The reforming government:

- reorganized ministries and created provincial councils;
- introduced new commercial, criminal and land laws alongside existing Islamic courts;
- developed secular state schools and specialist colleges;
- expanded conscription and tried to standardize military service;
- used the 1858 Land Code to clarify registration and taxation;
- reorganized provincial government under the 1864 Vilayet Law;
- improved communications through steamships, roads and telegraphs;
- issued the Ottoman constitution of 1876 and convened a parliament in 1877.

### Effects and limitations

The Tanzimat extended the central government’s reach and produced a new class of officials trained in state schools. Its legal and administrative changes created institutions that survived beyond the reform period. Improved communications also enabled Istanbul to supervise the provinces more closely.

The results were uneven. Local elites often took control of provincial institutions or registered communal land in their own names. Conscription and higher taxation could make centralization unpopular. Equality before the law challenged established Muslim privileges, yet it did not end discrimination or persuade all Christian nationalists to accept Ottomanism. Separate court systems and foreign consular privileges continued to restrict legal uniformity.

Modernization depended increasingly on foreign loans. After the default in 1875, the Ottoman Public Debt Administration was established in 1881. It placed important revenues under foreign-controlled management. Economic modernization could therefore strengthen administration while reducing financial independence at the same time.

One interpretation presents the Tanzimat as an important Ottoman project shaped by domestic reformers. Another focuses on European pressure and the adoption of foreign institutions. The two views can be reconciled. Ottoman ministers took the initiative, but they acted under severe military, diplomatic and financial constraints.

### Abdul Hamid: reaction and centralized rule

Abdul Hamid II became sultan in 1876. Following the war with Russia and the territorial settlement of 1878, he suspended parliament and the constitution. He ruled through the palace, censorship, police surveillance and a broad network of informants. Liberals saw this as a rejection of constitutional reform.

His rule was not simply a return to the past. Abdul Hamid strengthened central authority and presented the sultan’s position as caliph as a source of Muslim unity. This policy, often described as Pan-Islamism, aimed to strengthen loyalty within the empire and increase his influence among Muslims living under European rule.

### Reform under Abdul Hamid

State education expanded, with new secondary schools and professional institutions. Telegraph lines linked the provinces more closely to Istanbul. Railway construction supported administration, commerce and troop movement. Building the Hejaz Railway from Damascus towards Medina between 1900 and 1908 served strategic, religious and political purposes.

Abdul Hamid also relied on tribal and provincial elites. The Hamidiye cavalry, created mainly from Kurdish tribal forces, was meant to secure eastern Anatolia. Instead, it aggravated local violence and inequalities. Mass killings of Armenians in 1894–1896 revealed the coercive character of his rule and led to international condemnation.

Supporters could point to greater administrative reach, education and improved communications. Critics emphasized autocracy, censorship, communal violence, financial dependence and the failure to prevent territorial losses. Abdul Hamid preserved important parts of the Tanzimat’s centralizing programme while rejecting its experiment with representative government.

### Origins and growth of the CUP

The **Young Turks** opposed Abdul Hamid II’s autocracy and supported restoring the 1876 constitution. They formed a varied movement rather than one unified party. Within it, the **Committee of Union and Progress (CUP)** became the most influential organization.

The CUP began in 1889 among students at the Imperial Medical School in Istanbul. Police repression drove many opponents abroad. In exile, these groups argued over constitutionalism, Ottoman unity, Islam and nationalism. Ahmed Riza became a leading supporter of centralized constitutional government.

Effective opposition later shifted to Ottoman Macedonia. Army officers there faced nationalist guerrillas, foreign interference and the threat that the European powers might partition the region. Founded in Salonika in 1906, the Ottoman Freedom Society merged with the CUP in 1907. Its secret military network gave the movement the practical force that exile politics had been missing.

### Revolution and crisis, 1908–1909

A meeting between the British and Russian monarchs at Reval in June 1908 heightened fears that the powers would impose another settlement on Macedonia. Officers including Ahmed Niyazi and Enver rebelled in July. Abdul Hamid could not depend on the army to crush the revolt, so he restored the constitution and reconvened parliament.

At first, the revolution prompted broad enthusiasm among Muslims, Christians and Jews. Elections took place, censorship eased, and political organizations began operating openly. The CUP did not immediately create a one-party regime. Instead, it influenced the government from behind the scenes while competing with liberals, religious conservatives and representatives of different national communities.

In April 1909, the 31 March Incident produced a revolt in Istanbul against the new political order. It had both military and religious elements. The Action Army marched from Salonika and suppressed the uprising. Abdul Hamid was deposed and replaced by Mehmed V. The CUP came out stronger because it seemed to have defended the constitution.

### Young Turk reforms and tensions

Young Turk governments aimed to make the state more efficient and unified. They strengthened the army, administration and education. They also tried to improve revenue collection and promote equality through common Ottoman citizenship. Parliament and party politics remained active, although the CUP increasingly pressured elections and government.

Centralization brought the CUP into conflict with groups that wanted provincial autonomy. Its commitment to Ottomanism existed alongside a growing emphasis on Turkish language and identity. This became especially clear as Christian-majority territories broke away and Muslim refugees entered the empire. Arab, Albanian and other leaders did not all reject constitutional rule. Many did resist policies that seemed to transfer even more authority to Istanbul.

After military defeats in the Balkans, CUP officers led by Enver carried out the raid on the Sublime Porte in January 1913. The organization then gained much more direct control. Reform and authoritarianism developed together rather than as opposites.

### The First Balkan War, 1912–1913

Italy’s attack on Libya exposed the weakness of the Ottoman Empire. Bulgaria, Serbia, Greece and Montenegro formed the Balkan League and attacked the empire in October 1912. All wanted to remove Ottoman rule from most of the remaining European territories, though they strongly disagreed over Macedonia.

Ottoman armies suffered a series of rapid defeats. Mobilization and supply were poor, political divisions affected the officer corps, and the empire had to fight several enemies at once. Bulgarian forces moved towards the defensive line outside Istanbul, while Serbian and Greek forces captured extensive territories.

The Treaty of London in May 1913 ended the war. The Ottoman Empire lost nearly all its European territory west of the Enos–Midia line. The Great Powers separately recognized Albania’s independence in 1913. Losing Macedonia, Kosovo and other lands caused large refugee movements and deepened the political crisis in Istanbul.

### The Second Balkan War, 1913

Bulgaria was dissatisfied with the division of Macedonia and attacked Serbian and Greek positions in June 1913. Romania and the Ottoman Empire then joined the war against Bulgaria. Ottoman forces recovered Edirne and part of eastern Thrace.

The Treaty of Constantinople between the Ottoman Empire and Bulgaria in September 1913 confirmed the Ottoman recovery of Edirne. Even so, the two wars had removed most Ottoman territory in Europe. They also caused severe human and economic disruption and strengthened the CUP’s argument that survival required tighter political control and military reconstruction.

National narratives often present the wars as the completion of Balkan liberation. Ottoman and social histories instead draw attention to expulsions, massacres and the experiences of Muslim refugees. Political interpretations emphasize that defeat helped transform the CUP from a constitutional opposition movement into an increasingly authoritarian governing organization.

### Reasons for entering the First World War

The Ottoman Empire emerged from the Balkan Wars diplomatically isolated and with extensive territorial losses. CUP leaders believed that an alliance with a major power could safeguard the territory still under Ottoman control, help revise recent losses, and check Russian expansion towards Istanbul and the Straits. Germany already had influence through military missions, trade and railway projects. Britain and France, however, also held major economic interests in Ottoman lands.

On 2 August 1914, the Ottoman government signed a secret alliance with Germany. Some ministers opposed entering the war immediately, so the empire first declared armed neutrality. German warships *Goeben* and *Breslau* then arrived and were transferred nominally to Ottoman service, giving Germany greater leverage. Renamed *Yavuz Sultan Selim* and *Midilli* under Ottoman command, they attacked Russian ports in the Black Sea on 29 October. Russia declared war on 2 November, and Britain and France followed.

Ottoman interventionists viewed the war as an opportunity to restore Ottoman power. Historians disagree about whether entry was mainly a calculated CUP decision or the result of German pressure and actions that made neutrality impossible. The alliance itself was deliberate, but the timing and manner of entry reflected serious divisions within the Ottoman leadership.

### The war and its impact

The empire fought across several fronts that were far apart:

- Enver’s winter offensive against Russia ended in disaster at Sarikamish in 1914–1915.
- Ottoman forces defeated the Allied attempt to seize the Dardanelles at Gallipoli in 1915–1916.
- A British force surrendered at Kut in Mesopotamia in April 1916, but Britain captured Baghdad in March 1917.
- The Arab Revolt began in the Hejaz in 1916 with British assistance.
- British forces took Jerusalem in December 1917 and broke Ottoman resistance in Palestine in 1918.

Gallipoli delayed an Allied breakthrough, raised Ottoman morale and brought Mustafa Kemal to prominence as a commander. It did not overcome the empire’s broader weaknesses in finance, transport, industrial capacity and food supply.

The CUP government used the emergency created by the war to tighten central control. In 1915, it deported much of the Armenian population from Anatolia. Deportation, massacre, starvation and exposure caused mass death in what is recognized as the Armenian genocide. Ottoman leaders defended these measures as necessary responses to rebellion and Russian invasion, but the systematic destruction went far beyond action against armed opponents. Other Christian communities also experienced displacement and violence.

Conscription took labour away from agriculture. Requisitioning disrupted production, while the blockade and transport failures created severe shortages. Famine devastated Greater Syria, particularly Mount Lebanon. Disease, military casualties and the movement of refugees changed the empire’s population and economy.

### Military defeat and occupation

Bulgaria surrendered in September 1918, leaving Istanbul exposed to Allied attack. On 30 October 1918, the Ottoman government signed the Armistice of Mudros. It agreed to demobilize and allowed the Allies to occupy strategic locations. CUP leaders fled, and Allied forces entered Istanbul.

The Treaty of Sèvres, signed in August 1920, proposed a drastic partition. Greece gained major advantages in eastern Thrace and around Smyrna. Mandates were created in the former Arab provinces, and zones of European influence were planned in Anatolia. The treaty also provided for Armenian independence and possible Kurdish autonomy. The sultan’s government signed it, but the Turkish nationalist movement rejected the treaty.

### Rise of Ataturk

Mustafa Kemal, later given the surname Ataturk, had built a national reputation at Gallipoli and through his later commands. In 1919, he was sent to Anatolia as an army inspector. He landed at Samsun on 19 May and began organizing resistance to occupation and partition.

The Erzurum and Sivas congresses of 1919 defended the territorial integrity of the Turkish homeland and created a coordinated nationalist movement. After the Allies occupied Istanbul more directly in March 1920, the nationalists established the Grand National Assembly at Ankara in April. The assembly claimed sovereignty in opposition to foreign occupation and the sultan’s government.

Nationalist forces fought on several fronts. They reached settlements with Armenia and France, which allowed them to concentrate on the Greek army advancing from Smyrna. The battles of İnönü in 1921 helped maintain the resistance. Later that year, the Battle of Sakarya halted the Greek advance towards Ankara. The Great Offensive of August 1922 broke the Greek army, and Turkish forces entered Smyrna in September.

The Armistice of Mudanya ended the main fighting in October 1922. On 1 November, the Grand National Assembly abolished the sultanate, and Mehmed VI left Istanbul. The Ottoman dynasty’s political rule was over.

### Collapse of the empire and the 1923 settlement

The Treaty of Lausanne, signed in July 1923, replaced Sèvres. It recognized the sovereignty of the new Turkish state across most of Anatolia and eastern Thrace and removed the proposed foreign zones of control. The former Arab provinces did not return to Turkey. Britain and France governed much of the region through mandates, while Egypt was formally independent but remained under substantial British influence.

The Republic of Turkey was proclaimed on 29 October 1923, with Mustafa Kemal as president. The Ottoman Empire collapsed through several connected developments: wartime military defeat, foreign occupation, territorial partition, nationalist resistance and the abolition of dynastic sovereignty.

Turkish nationalist accounts stress Ataturk’s leadership and military recovery. Structural interpretations place more emphasis on Allied divisions, Greek overextension and the organizational resources inherited from the late Ottoman state. The nationalist victory broke with the empire, but it also grew out of the officers, institutions and centralizing practices developed during its final decades.

20th-century nationalist and independence movements in Africa

History

IB History develops students' understanding of significant historical events, themes, and interpretations across different periods and regions.Students learn to analyze historical sources critically, understand complex historical narratives, and develop sophisticated historical thinking skills.

HL1.12 The Ottoman Empire (c1800–1923)

Question 1

[15]

Question 2

[15]

Question 3

[15]

Question 4

[15]