Since the 1950s, historiographical trends in scholarship have re-considered the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire and the subsequent nation-state building of the Republic of Turkey. The social and political evolution of the imperial system into a nation-state has been alternatively explained through geopolitical pressures, domestic resistance, the expanding economy and modernism in Europe, and the inability of the Ottoman establishment to cope with the rapid changes of the nineteenth century. Constructing one holistic narrative of a vast time period of upheaval is a difficult endeavor for any scholar. In the case of the fall of the Ottoman Empire and the rise of the Republic of Turkey, ethno-religious networks, two world wars, geopolitical competition between the great powers, regional and pan-regional insurgencies, demographic displacement, nationalist fervor sweeping through the Balkan and Arab provinces and into Anatolia, and finally the Kurdish armed resistance renders succinct historical narratives all but impossible to achieve. Thus, while there are many stories of the end of the Ottoman Empire, an overview of the issues for students and general audiences is a much needed, but audacious, undertaking. Yet for understanding the Middle East and Southeastern Europe today, a critical narrative must be told in all its complexity.
The End of the Ottoman Empire, a documentary film by Mathilde Damoisel, depicts the end of the Ottoman Empire, the emergence of modern nation-states in its stead, and the creation of the Middle East over the span of a century. In a total of 104 minutes and divided into two major parts, the film begins by taking us from Greek independence in 1830 to a contemporary scene in Taksim Square, where Turkish citizens observe the commemoration of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, the “father” of the nation. While the project is epic in proportion, navigating the various incidents that contributed to the dissolution of certain borders and the restructuring of the region's map, the narrative flows through interviews with prominent scholars such as Edhem Eldem, Eugene Rogan, Mark Mazower, and François Georgeon to enlighten and give depth to each major issue. Moreover, the lens frequently turns to archival documents to present convincing historical arguments while maintaining the narrative flow to hold to interest of a general audience.
As a survey can only do so much, details are inevitably blurred. While the film manages to give an overall idea about the end of the Ottomans, many of the stories of those on the ground are lost. Reflecting the diverse ethno-religious and linguistic background of the Ottomans is the major challenge of this film. For instance, it would not be difficult to mention influential women in this period such as Halide Edip or Zabel Yesayan, both of whom were prolific writers. Halide Edip's story, her involvement with the Committee of Union and Progress (İttihat ve Terakki Cemiyeti), and her personal conflict with Atatürk reveal one of the minor stories that contribute to the major narratives of history. Likewise, Zabel Yesayan and her eyewitness accounts of the Armenian massacres would showcase a perspective of resistance and give voice to silent histories.
The film is weak in its use of local primary source material, relying only on European archival documents and journals when it could benefit instead from rich archival material intact in the different languages operative in the Ottoman Empire. For instance, the satirical journals in Ottoman Turkish, Armenian, Arabic, or Greek could reflect an active engagement of a diverse group of journalists, cartoonists, and readership with the intellectual, social, political, and economic changes of the period. This vibrant nineteenth-century press reveals voices otherwise missing from a focus solely on western sources. It also might enable a more thorough investigation of the tensions between authoritative pressures and oppositional groups in the last years of the Empire.
During the November 10th commemoration day of Kemal Atatürk, it is customary to hold a moment of silence, after which sirens all around the country are activated in a show of respect for the founder of the Republic. The second part of the film opens with this scene, thus deliberately suggesting that the nationalist sentiments in Turkey today can still be traced directly to Kemal Atatürk and his cultural revolution. However, the unprecedented turn that Turkey took more than a decade ago, with the rise of the AKP (Justice and Development Party) administration and its divergence from the early Republican ideals changed the political landscape. In other words, it is no longer possible to explain Turkish nationalism solely through Atatürk and the early Republican political and cultural revolution. Moreover, over the last few years, Taksim Square has witnessed other significant incidents, in particular the Taksim Gezi Park protests in 2013, which show that political dissent is not homogeneous and that there are many nationalisms.
Although it can be a dizzying journey for a general audience, the value of the film lies not in its comprehensiveness but in its successful construction of a broad and over-arching narrative. As the film itself suggests, the end of the Ottoman Empire has a tremendous impact on both the formation of the Middle East and its contemporary dynamics. It will thus be a useful resource for introductory courses on Middle East history, Ottoman history courses, and for courses devoted to modern Turkey alike.
