Friedrich Engels 
The Turkish Question 

New-York Daily Tribune. 
Nr. 3746, 19. April 1853 

The Turkish Question. 

It is only of late that people inthe West of Europe and in America have been 
enabled to form anything like a correct judgment of Turkish affairs. Up to 
the Greek insurrection Turkey was, to all intents and purposes a terra in- 
cognita, and the common notions floating about among the public were based 
more upon the Arabian Nights’ Entertainments than upon any historical 
facts. Official diplomatic functionaries having been on the spot, boasted a 
more accurate knowledge; but this, too, amounted to nothing, as none of 
these officials ever troubled himself to learn Turkish, South Slavonian, or 
modern Greek, and they were one and all dependent upon the interested 
accounts of Greek interpreters and Frank merchants. Besides, intrigues of 
every sort were always on hand to occupy the time of these lounging diploma- 
tists, among whom Joseph von Hammer, the German historian of Turkey, 
forms the only honorable exception. The business of these gentlemen was 
not with the people, the institutions, the social state of the country; it was 
exclusively with the Court, and especially with the Fanariote Greeks, wily 
mediators between two parties either of which was equally ignorant of the 
real condition, power and resources of the other. The traditional notions and 
opinions, founded upon such paltry information, formed for a long while, 
and strange to say, form to a great extent even now, the ground-work for 
all the action of Western diplomacy with regard to Turkey. 

But while England, France, and for a long time even Austria, were groping 
in the dark for a defined Eastern policy, another power outwitted them all. 
Russia herself semi-Asiatic in her condition, manners, traditions and in- 
stitutions, found men enough who could comprehend the real state and 
character of Turkey. Her religion was the same as that of nine-tenths of the 
inhabitants of Turkey in Europe; her language almost identical with that of 
seven millions of Turkish subjects; and the well-known facility with which 
a Russian learns to converse in, if not fully to appropriate a foreign tongue, 

The Turkish Question 

made it an easy matter for her agents, well paid for the task, to acquaint 
themselves completely with Turkish affairs. Thus at a very early period the 
Russian Government availed itself of its exceedingly favorable position in 
the South-east of Europe. Hundreds of Russian agents perambulated Turkey, 
pointing out to the Greek Christians, the Orthodox Emperor as the head, the 
natural protector, and the ultimate liberator of the oppressed Eastern 
Church, and to the South Slavonians especially, pointing out that same 
Emperor as the almighty Czar who was sooner or later to unite all the 
branches of the great Slavic race under one sceptre, and to make them the 
ruling race of Europe. The clergy of the Greek Church very soon formed 
themselves into a vast conspiracy for the spread of these ideas. The Servian 
insurrection of 1804, the Greek risingin 1821 were more or less directly urged 
on by Russian gold and Russian influence; and wherever among the Turkish 
pachas the standard of revolt was raised against the Central Government, 
Russian intrigues and Russian funds were never wanting; and when thus, 
internal Turkish questions had entirely perplexed the understanding of 
Western diplomatists who knew no more about the real subject than about 
the man inthe moon, then war was declared, Russian armies marched toward 
the Balkan, and portion by portionthe Ottoman Empire was dismembered. 

It is true that during the last thirty years much has been done toward 

general enlightenment concerning the state of Turkey. German philologists 
and critics have made us acquainted with the history and literature, English 
residents and English trade have collected a great deal of information as to 
the social condition of the Empire. But the diplomatic wiseacres seem to 
scorn all this, and to cling as obstinately as possible to the traditions en- 
gendered by the study of Eastern fairy-tales, improved upon by the no less 
wonderful accounts given by the most corrupt set of Greek mercenaries that 
ever existed. 

And what has been the natural result? That in all essential points Russia 
has steadily, one after another, gained her ends, thanks to the ignorance, 
dullness, and consequent inconsistency and cowardice of Western govern- 
ments. From the battle of Navarino to the present Eastern crisis, the action 
of the Western powers has either been annihilated by squabbles among 
themselves, mostly arising from their common ignorance of Eastern mat- 
ters, and from petty jealousies which must have been entirely incom- 
prehensible to any Eastern understanding-or that action has been in the 
direct interest of Russia alone. And not only do the Greeks, both of Greece 
and Turkey, and the Slavonians, look to Russia as their natural protector; 
nay, even the Government at Constantinople, despairing, time after time, to 
make its actual wants and real position understood by these Western ambas- 
sadors, who pride themselves upon their own utter incompetency to judge 

Friedrich Engels 

by their own eyes of Turkish matters, the very Turkish Government has in 
every instance been obliged to throw itself upon the mercy of Russia, and 
to seek protection from that power which openly avows its firm intention 
to drive every Turk across the Bosphorus and plant the cross of St. Andrew 
upon the minarets of the Aya-Sofiyah. 

In spite of diplomatic tradition, these constant and successful en- 
croachments of Russia have at last roused in the Western Cabinets in Europe 
a very dim and distant apprehension of the approaching danger. This ap- 
prehension has resulted in the great diplomatic nostrum, that the main- 
tenance of the status quo in Turkey is a necessary condition of the peace 
of the world. The magniloquent incapacity of certain modern statesmen 
could not have confessed its ignorance and helplessness more plainly than 
in this axiom which, from having always remained a dead letter, has, during 
the short period of twenty years, been hallowed by tradition, and become as 
hoary and indisputable as King John's Magna Charta. Maintain the status 
quo! Why, it was precisely to maintain the status quo that Russia stirred up 
Servia to revolt, made Greece independent, appropriated to herself the 
protectorate of Moldavia and Wallachia, and retained part of Armenia! 
England and France never stirred an inch when all this was done, and the 
only time they did move was to protect, in 1849, not Turkey, but the Hungar- 
ian refugees. In the eyes of European diplomacy, and even of the European 
press, the whole Eastern question resolves itself into this dilemma, either 
the Russians at Constantinople, or the maintenance of the status quo— 
anything beside this alternative never enters their thoughts. 

Look at the London press for illustration. We find The Times advocating 
the dismemberment of Turkey, and proclaiming the unfitness of the Turkish 
race to govern any longer in that beautiful corner of Europe. Skilfull as usual, 
The Times boldly attacks the old diplomatic tradition of the status quo, and 
declares its continuance impossible. The whole of the talent at the disposal 
of that paper is exerted to show this impossibility under different aspects, 
and to enlist British sympathies for a new crusade against the remnant of 
the Saracens. The merit of such anunscrupulous attack upon atime-hallowed 
and unmeaning phrase which, two months ago, was as yet sacred to The 
Times, is undeniable. But whoever knows that paper, knows also that this 
unwonted boldness is applied directly in the interest of Russia and Austria. 
The correct premises put forth in its columns as to the utter impossibility 
of maintaining Turkey in its present state, serve no other purpose than to 
prepare the British public and the world for the moment when the principal 
paragraph of the will of Peter the Great, the conquest of the Bosphorus, will 
have become an accomplished fact. 

The opposite opinion is represented by The Daily News, the organ of the 

The Turkish Question 

Liberals. The Times at least seizes anew and correct feature of the question, 
in order afterwards to pervert it to an interested purpose. In the columns of 
the Liberal journal, on the other hand, reigns the plainest sense, but merely 
a sort of household sense. Indeed, it does not see farther than the very 
threshold of its own house. It clearly perceives that a dismemberment of 
Turkey under present circumstances must bring the Russians to Con- 
stantinople, and that this would be a great misfortune for England; that it 
would threaten the peace of the world, ruin the Black Sea trade, and necessi- 
tate new armaments in the British stations and fleets of the Mediterranean. 

And in consequence, The Daily News exerts itself to arouse the indignation 
and fear of the British public. Is not the partition of Turkey a crime equal 
to the partition of Poland? Have not the Christians more religious liberty in 
Turkey than in Austria and Russia? Is not the Turkish Government a mild, 
paternal government, which allows the different nations and creeds and local 
corporations to regulate their own affairs? Is not Turkey a paradise compared 
to Austria and Russia? Is not life and property safe there? And is not British 
trade with Turkey larger than that with Austria and Russia put together, and 
does it not increase every year? And then goes on in dithyrambic strain, so 
far as The Daily News can be dithyrambic, an apotheosis of Turkey, the 
Turks and everything Turkish, which must appear quite incomprehensible 
to most of its readers. 

The key to this strange enthusiasm for the Turks is to be found in the works 

of David Urquhart, Esq., M.P. This gentleman, of Scotch birth, with medieval 
and patriarchal recollections of home, and with a modern British civilized 
education, after having fought three years in Greece against the Turks, 
passed into their country and was the first thus to enamour himself of them. 
The romantic Highlander found himself at home again in the mountain 
ravines of the Pindus and Balkan, and his works on Turkey, although full 
of valuable information, may be summed up in the following three paradoxes, 
which are laid down almost literally thus: If Mr. Urquhart were not a British 
subject, he would decidedly prefer being a Turk; if he were nota Presbyterian’ 
Calvinist, he would not belong to any other religion than Islamism; and 
thirdly, Britain and Turkey are the only two countries in the world which 
enjoy self-government and civil and religious liberty. This same Urquhart 
has since become the great Eastern authority for all English Liberals who 
object to Palmerston, and it is he who supplies The Daily News with the 
materials for these panegyrics upon Turkey. 

The only argument which deserves a moment's notice, upon this side of 
the question is this: "It is said that Turkey is decaying; but where is the 

decay? Is not civilization rapidly spreading in Turkey and trade extending? 
Where you see nothing but decay, our Statistics prove nothing but progress." 

Friedrich Engels 

Now it would be a great fallacy to put down the increasing Black Sea trade 
to the credit of Turkey alone, and yet this is done here exactly as if the 
industrial and commercial capabilities of Holland, the highroad to the greater 
part of Germany, were to be measured by her gross exports and imports, 
nine tenths of which represent a mere transit. And yet, what every statistician 
would immediately, in the case of Holland, treat as a clumsy concoction, the 
whole of the liberal press of England, including the learned Economist tries, 
in the case of Turkey, to impose upon public credulity. And then, who are 
the traders in Turkey? Certainly notthe Turks. Their way of promoting trade, 
when they were yet in their original nomadic state, consisted in robbing 
caravans, and now that they are a little more civilized it consists in all sorts 
of arbitrary and oppressive exactions. The Greeks, the Armenians, the 
Slavonians and the Franks established in the large seaports, carry on the 
whole of the trade, and certainly they have no reason to thank Turkish Beys 
and Pashas for being able to do so. Remove all the Turks out of Europe, and 
trade will have no reason to suffer. And as to progress in general civilization, 
who are they that carry out that progress in all parts of European Turkey? 
Not the Turks, for they are few and far between, and can hardly be said to 
be settled anywhere except in Constantinople and two or three small country 
districts. Itis the Greek and Slavonic middle class in all the towns and trading 
posts who are the real support of whatever civilization is effectually imported 
into the country. That part of the population are constantly rising in wealth 
and influence, and the Turks are more and more driven into the background. 
Were it not for their monopoly of civil and military power, they would soon 
disappear. But that monopoly has become impossible for the future, and their 
power is turned into impotence, except for obstructions in the way of pro- 
gress. The fact is, they must be got rid of. To say that they cannot be got 
rid of except by putting Russians and Austrians in their place, means as much 
as to say, that the present political constitution of Europe will last forever. 
Who will make such an assertion? 

1