Yücel

Assoc. Prof.

After the Sheikh Sait Rebellion in the Early Republican Period, the biggest rebellion in the Eastern Anatolia Region was the Ağrı Rebellion that lasted for four years between 1926 and1930. The Ağrı Rebellion broke out at a time when the Great Depression has occupied the country’s agenda. While the rulers tried to reduce the impact of the economic contraction, they also tried to suppress this uprising, which was attended by different Kurdish tribes in the east.While the Ağrı Rebellion was underway, the government decided to exile some Kurdish tribal leaders, who have the potential to interfere with the military measures, to the western parts of the country. One of them is Sheikh Abdulkadir, the Chief of the Sakanlı Tribe. Although there were people of Sakanlı in the rebellion area, Sheikh Abdulkadir preferred to be passive and did not actually participate in the rebellion initially. Only after he was exiled to Bergama for the second time in 1928 that he decided to take part at the last stage of the uprising.Participating in the last link of the Ağrı Rebellion, Sheikh Abdulkadir, the Chief of the Sakanlı tribe, fled to Iran after the failure of the rebellion. Undoubtedly the biggest factors that facilitated his escape was the fact that Jalal tribe had branches in both Turkey and Iran. Abdulkadir, who used the title of sheikh, dominated other Kurdish tribal groups with his leadership qualities. The Sakanlı chief stayed in Iran for 16 years and cooperated with foreign states, primarily the Russians, vis-a-vis Turkey. Although he also had some contacts with the Iranian state, he was mostly protected by the Russians, as the latter reinforced the tribe with weapons, ammo and money. Indeed, the Russian government wanted to use the Kurdish tribes in the case of a German invasion of the Caucasus during the Second World War or in Turkey’s entry into the war on the side of the Axis Powers.Sheikh Abdulkadir, who took refuge in Iran after the rebellion, continued his contacts within Turkey. He continued his constant communication with either the tribal members or the Iranians he held with money. On the other hand, the Turkish Government followed the Sakanlı tribe and chieftain through their spies. The information and rumours compiled during this period were first evaluated locally and then sent to the capital. In particular, Ağrı and Kars Governorships have made great efforts in this regard.&nbsp;When the Russians investigated this claim and learned that it was not true, the relations with the Sakanlı became more strained. Sheikh Abdulkadir died n 1946, few&nbsp;months after he served as the governor, and the relations between Turkey and the rest of the tribe improved thereafter.In addition to the public order report, it is possible to find information in various individual sources about the Sakanlı Tribe Chief Sheikh Abdulkadir and his family who took refuge in Iran after the Ağrı Rebellion. The Sakanlı chief did not take part in the first phase of the uprising. Because the government forced him to live in Izmir twice at different times. Being sent into exile was not easy for a tribal leader to easily accept, since the exile shook Sheikh Abdulkadir’s authority and brought him under state control. The head of the people of Sakanlı, who drew the first and rejected the second, entered the game at the last link of the attempt. Undoubtedly, explaining the rebellion to the exile only by exile would distort the truth. The process is teeming with Kurdish nationalism and dreams of establishing an independent state. As a result, Sheikh Abdulkadir escaped to Iran, where he would remain until death when he failed. He intensified relations with the Russians and Iranians during his period as a fugitive.The main purpose of this study is to reveal the contacts of the Sakanlı Tribe Chief Sheikh Abdulkadir in Iran and reveal the state of security in Ağrı in 1943. It seeks to examine which states have come into contact with Sakanlı, who fled to Iran after the Ağrı Rebellion, hat crimes are the public order events focused on, whether there was information about the Ağrı Rebellion and Sakanlı in the public order report dated 1943. This research solely focuses on 1943, Because, in the screening in the Archive of the General Directorate of Security (EGM), the first public order report sent by the Ağrı Police Department to the Police Department is from this year. No similar reports from previous years could be located. The report is based on East Beyazıt. In this context: The causes, development, suppression and results of the Ağrı Rebellion are not the subject of the research. However, in the context of the subject will be mentioned from place to place. The review first included the Sakanlı tribe, followed by an emphasis public security.

Public Order and Tribe in Doğu Beyazıt (1943)

Ahmet

After the abolition of the Janissary Corp, the police organization affiliated with Tophane-i Amire Consultancy was established to ensure public order and security in the capital and the provinces, and a Zaptiye organization independent of General Staff (Bâb-ı Seraskerî) was established. Until 1879, the police and gendarmerie were independent of the army, but commanded from the same center. In Urfa, after the Tanzimat, the timar was abolished, and the Zaptiye organizations had been established since 1867. During this period, tribes were also assigned the task of providing security.During the reign of Abdulhamit II, considerable improvements were made in both the number and education of the police. While previously literacy was not a criterion for being a police officer, in this period, police were also trained in judicial and administrative issues in addition to reading and writing. In this period, significant advances were made in the development of the police in Istanbul, and the development of the police in the provinces accelerated. These developments are clearly observed in the Aleppo Province. In this period, the first police officers appointed to Urfa in 1889, which was a sanjak of Aleppo Province, were commissioner Kadri Efendi and police Yunus Efendi. In 1892, outside of Urfa, police were appointed for the first time in the Birecik town. The number of police in the Urfa banner increased in the following years.&nbsp;During the Second Constitutional period, the police organization was restructured, new arrangements were made, and the uniforms were changed by dismissal, recruitment, and assignment. After the 31 March Incident, the Supervision of Zaptieh was eliminated. With the law adopted on August 4, 1909, General Directorate of security and a police directorate affiliated to the Province of Istanbul were established. By the law published on June 4, 1911, a branch was established for the safety and security of the country, Public Directorate of Security under the Ministry of Interior, and a separate directorate was established under the name of the Istanbul Police Directorate, supervised by the Minister of İnterior.Urfa, connected to the Province of Aleppo, became the independent sanjak of Urfa on April 13, 1910.The Urfa Police Service was also separated from the Aleppo Province and connected directly to the General Directorate of Security. In 1910, there was a deputy commissioner and ten police officers in Urfa.II. During the constitutional period, the number of police in the Urfa police force increased. II. During the reign of Abdulhamit II, the police consisted of Muslims exclusively, whereas in the constitutional period, non-Muslim police officers were also appointed. In addition, police officers graduated from schools such as Ottoman junior high school (Rüşdiye) and high school (İdadi). Moreover, police officers who received medical and madrasa education were accepted. Some police officers switched from sergeants, master sergeants, and guards to policemen.New regulations regarding the police force were enacted during the Union and Progress period. A new police order prepared in 1913 was more in line with the principles of the new period and met the needs of the time. The Committee of Union and Progress developed parallel to the period in the Urfa Police Service. In 1913, there was an increase in the number of Urfa police crew, but this was not sufficient. During this period, most of the police officers in Urfa were from Urfa, and the minority was from other cities. Policemen living in Urfa and its vicinity graduated from the Beirut Police School and other police officers came from cities such as from Edirne and Thessaloniki. They were trained in police schools close to their hometowns. The vast majority of police officers spoke at least one foreign language (e.g., Arabic, Armenian, Kurdish, and French). Apart from the Muslims, non-Muslim policemen also served. Some of the police officers were appointed during the reign of Abdulhamit II and continued his duties after the Second Constitutional Era.The General Directorate of Security issued a circular on May 4, 1914 and requested that police officers gather at the headquarters. Due to the insufficient number of police in Urfa, police and gendarmerie cooperated in some police stations, while only gendarmes took part in some police stations. Although the number of police in Urfa was insufficient, the police played an effective role in ensuring security with their devoted efforts.After Operation Sarıkamış failed, the Russians captured Van, Muş, and Bitlis, and then occupied the territory up to the west of Trabzon on the coast of Erzurum and Erzincan. People living in these occupied areas migrated to other places. Some of the immigrants who came to Urfa were former police officers in Van and Bitlis. These police officers were temporarily employed in Urfa during their stay.

Establishment of the Police Organization in the Ottoman Empire: The Case of Urfa (1845-1918)

Resul

Assist. Prof.

This study discussed the issue of Turkey’s border relations with Syria, Iraq and Iran from 1923 until 1940. Several parameters were effective on shaping these relations or changing their course. The first of these parameters, the de facto Iraq’s border with Syria and Turkey was not drawn legally by the Lausanne Treaty. The French and English mandate governments established over Syria and Iraq respectively were far from displaying a friendly attitude in the process of drawing the borders. Their weapon against Turkey in that period was to encourage and provoke the Kurdish separatism. Another matter affecting Turkey’s border relations with neighboring countries was the responsibility of a new state established by a nation that had just come out of long battles, to fulfil a very difficult mission like providing safety and order throughout a border line of thousands of kilometers in the steepest geography within a short time. In other words the conditions of the era and the region were not appropriate for idealizing border relations with neighboring countries at all.&nbsp;Good or bad relations on the Turkey-Syria border depended on good or bad relations of Turkey with France which established a mandate government in Syria. France supported activities of the gangs established on the Syrian border with the purpose of pillaging and the ideal of Kurdish separatism against Turkey. Indeed this was experienced despite the treaty of amity that France concluded with Turkey several times on various dates. A treaty was concluded between France and Syria on 9 September 1936 for the sake of Syria’s independence. The treaty brought up the issue concerning the status of the Sancak region, which would continue between Turkey and France until 1939. France displayed an anti-Turkish attitude in the beginning; however, they began to give positive responses to the demands of Turkey when the World War 2 broke out, because they did not intend to lose the Turkish Government in this geography. As a matter of fact, with the relations ameliorating, the Hatay state which was established in the Sancak region, decided to join Turkey in 1939. Amelioration of the Turkey-France relations before the World War 2, not only enabled Turkey to get what they needed concerning the issue of Hatay. It also reduced the anti-Turkish activities of the gangs and organizations supported by France since the proclamation of the Republic throughout the border line, significantly. The Hoybun Association, which was one of these organizations, considerably lost their areas of activity and influence with the outbreak of the World War 2 and finally dispersed in 1946. This shows that as long as diplomatic relations between two neighboring countries are good, many of the possible safety issues along the border line can be solved.&nbsp;The Iraq border of Turkey has always been active since 1923. During the times when Iraq was under the rule of Britain, the British conducted activities offending the Turks first with Mosul issue and then supporting the spread of Kurdish separatism. For that purpose they continuously supported the anti-Turkish Nasturi and Kurdish elements in the region. The relations between Iraq and Turkey ameliorated after the British rule. In this context a consensus was made to act in unison against the tribes damaging both countries. This consensus was occasionally put into practice and very important goals were achieved regarding border safety.&nbsp;The relations of Turkey with Iran in the 1920s were not good due to the border safety. Together with the change of administration in Iran and amelioration of the relations between the two countries, many incidents violating order and safety on the border in the 1930s were prevented. However, this did not last long. Many incidents aimed at pillaging occurred on the Turkish-Iranian border at the beginning of the 1940s. However, it should be noted that while some of the order-related incidents observed on the Iranian border during the first years of the Republic were led by famous Kurdish tribal leaders, the incidents in the 1940s were completely aimed at pillaging. In addition we can say that these incidents were influenced by the world conditions. It is because Iran was occupied by Western states during that war in 1941. Thus it was not possible to expect Iran which experienced such problems, to provide border security as in the 1930s.&nbsp;It is possible to state that as well as military and administrative measures were taken throughout the border lines, successful foreign policies were also effective on the amelioration of the relations of Turkey with its neighbors during that period.&nbsp;

An Assessment for the Border Relations of Turkey with the Eastern and Southern Neighbors (1923-1940)

Nilüfer

Cyprus, which is only 70 km away from Turkey, is located in a strategic position in terms of the security of Anatolia and the Mediterranean. Throughout its history, the island has been ruled by Hittites, Egyptians, Phoenicians, Assyrians, Persians, Romans, Arabs, Byzantines, Venetians, Genoese, Ottomans and the British; however, it has never been under Greek rule. The Ottoman Empire applied the Nation System on the island, whereas the Greek Cyprus Orthodox Archbishopric had broad legal, religious, and financial powers and a strong and coordinated church organization across the island. This structure appointed archbishops as “Ethnarhis” or “national leaders.” However, with the establishment of the Greek State, the Greek Orthodox community in Cyprus was consistent with their ambitions as in Anatolia and Thrace and insisted that the island had a Hellenic character. To achieve this goal, the Greek State maintained close contact with Greek community institutions, schools, and churches in Cyprus, which is 550 km away, even from Crete. In particular, Eleftherios Venizelos came to power in 1910, and Greece’s interest in Cyprus thus increased.Greek Cypriots welcomed the establishment of the British administration to replace the Ottoman administration on the island in 1878, hoping that Britain would offer Cyprus to Greece. The population balance between Turks and Greeks in the establishment of the British administration deteriorated in comparison with the Turks. The British administration did not have considerable affiliation with the Greeks, and the number of Greek members in the Assembly of Kavanin was always higher than that of the Turks and British. Despite to this, the Greeks complained about various issues. Orthodox clergymen led these complaints and voiced their demands for the unification of the island with Greece, which is also termed the Enosis. In the British administration, Orthodox clergymen continued to be the leaders of their communities in the tradition&nbsp;carried on from the Ottoman Empire. This thesis is validated because most signatories of the documents in the archives, which we use in our article as examples of the Enosis activities of Orthodox clergymen, involved the clergy.We processed the period we studied under three headings: 1914–1925, 1925–1947, and 1947–1954. Archbishop Kyrillos III stands out among the leaders of the Greek Cypriots who supported the Greek army in every way during 1914–1925, so much so that a delegation from the Greek Cypriots led by Kyrillos III acting in London before the Paris Peace Conference lobbied in favor of Enosis and presented the memorandum. Kyrillos III stated that they were expecting the island to be given to Greece by Britain, which Greek Cypriots knew liberally while presenting a memorandum to the British Minister of Colony during the period of the Lausanne talks. In 1925, the British declared Cyprus a crown colony, removed the High Commission, and established a governor’s office. During this period, Britain wanted to dominate the island. However, Kyrillos III complained that Britain was burdened with tax on Cyprus. He fought hard for the Enosis and constantly complained that the British government had declared the island a crown colony without the permission of the people of Cyprus. With the arrival of Makarios II as the Archbishop in 1947, a growing movement emerged among the Greeks for Enosis. Archbishop Makarios III’s public vote among the Greeks in the churches of the island on whether they wanted Enosis hints on the subsequent events in Cyprus. In February 1951, the Greek Prime Minister, Sofoklis Venizelos, the son of Eleftherios Venizelos, stated that Cyprus should be given to Greece. With this declaration, Greece officially took its place on the stage as one of the actors related to the island. Archbishop Makarios III swore for the Ethniki Organosis Kyprion Agoniston (EOKA) with its leader Georgios Grivas and rallied the Greek youth on the island.The names of the archbishops and metropolitans changed because of the unilateral annexation of the island by Britain during 1914–1954 when the Cyprus problem was discusses at the United Nations. The places of Sofronios III and Kyrillos III were taken by Makarios II and Makarios III. However, the discourses of the Orthodox leaders and their efforts to realize Enosis have never changed. It can be said that this issue was transferred from father to son for Greek statesmen by looking at the speeches and actions of Greek Prime Ministers Eleftherios and Sofoklis Venizelos. Orthodox clergymen further led riots on the island against the British administration. Sometimes this uprising was for economic reasons as that in the 1931 rebellion, but the primary aim was to ensure the unification of Cyprus with Greece.

Examples from the Initiatives of Cyprus Orthodox Clergymen Related to Enosis with Documents from the Venizelos Archive (1914-1954)

Burçin

The Ottoman Empire was defeated in the First World War lasting between 1914 and 1918. Having defeated from the First World War, The Armistice of Mudros was signed on October 30, 1918. The signing meant that the Ottoman Empire left the war with defeat. Especially the 7th article of the armistice prepared a legal basis for the the Allied occupations. According to this article, the Entente States could occupy any strategic point in a situation that would threaten their own security. In another article says that control of railways would be given to the Entente States. Eventually, after the armistice the Entente States started to occupy various parts of the Ottoman Empire. One of those parts was Eastern Thrace railways. At first Eastern Thrace Railway was managed by the French forces. After a while the Greeks took the Eastern Thrace Railway under their own control.The rapid spread of the occupations by the Entente States within the borders of the Ottoman Empire caused the minorities in the country to increase their separatist activities. Minorities took advantage of this environment and established gangs in some regions and the public order in the country gradually deteriorated. Whereas Armenians were active in Eastern Anatolia, Greeks wanted İzmir and Eastern Thrace. On the other hand, the government followed a quite moderate policy to prevent occupations and ensure public order. In order to calm the events that took place in various regions, it decided to send advisory committees. The first delegation created for this purpose was sent to Anatolia and the second one to Thrace. Şehzade (Prince) Cemaleddin Efendi, the religious leader Ziyaeddin Efendi together with Fevzi and Cevad Pashas took part in this second delegation. The trip to Thrace started on April 28, 1919 and lasted about 12 days. The first visit was to Edirne and then the second one was to Kırklareli and Tekirdağ respectively. The final stop for the trip was in Çorlu. After that they returned to Istanbul on May 10, 1919. The delegation first appeared before Damad Ferit Pasha, the Grand Vizier in Istanbul. Then they also made a presentation to the ministerial council with a -four page report- on the region. The report was prepared by Fevzi and Cevat Pashas.The report was prepared in twelve articles. In the report, after the Armistice of Mudros, the basic issues of Thrace such as education, justice, health, agriculture and&nbsp;public order were explained and solutions about problems were offered. After the appearance of the report, Edirne Governor Salim Pasha was invited to Istanbul and obliged to defend against the allegations in the report. The Governor Salim Pasha accepted some problems and refused the others.The committe’s report is an assessment of another eye that observed the problems within the province. In this respect, it is more objective. The report not only identifies problems in the province by the experienced statesmen, but also includes solutions to them. In addition, it is seen that positive situations are appreciated. Meanwhile, the governor’s answer is more of his own personal assessment because of its defensive nature. In this respect it is more subjective.It is seen that the delegation and the governor have different opinions about Thrace Pashaeli Society. As it is known, Thrace Pashaeli Society is an organization that aimed to preserve the integrity of Thrace within the Ottoman Empire at all costs. Even though it is possible that the Society did not fully want to disclose its aims to the chief of defense, Fevzi Pasha and the former Minister of War, Cevad Pasha during the visit, the members of the delegation fulfilled their national and historical duties in the report with their positive thoughts regarding the Thrace Pashaeli Society. Nevertheless, the governor’s negative opinions about this society show us how serious the situation was for those seeking a way of emancipation out of the existing regional or national predicament. It is understood that Governor Salim Pasha had similar political views with the Government of Damat Ferit Pasha. Therefore he stood against the Thrace Pashaeli Society. The Governor, like Damat Ferit Pasha Government, seems to have been far from comprehending the seriousness of the situation in general.

The Report of Rumeli Advisory Committee and Answer of Edirne Governor Salim Pasha

Kenan

Lecturer

On May 15, 1919, the Greek army occupied İzmir, and the occupation eventually spread to Western Anatolia. The majority of the people living in Western Anatolia, a productive population engaged in agriculture, had to migrate with the occupation. With this migration, the previously productive inhabitants found themselves in the position of consumers and in need of government assistance.Established in Ankara on April 23, 1920, the Grand National Parliament faced a major migration problem from the outset. This problem raised the issue of social assistance, and for the first time in Turkish history, an entire ministry was dedicated to this work. The May 2, 1920 law that established the government also included a provision for the creation of the Ministry of Health and Social Assistance. Another organization that extended a helping hand to the villagers who had left their land because of the occupation is the General Directorate of Immigration within the Ministry of Interior. The Grand National Parliament, which had adopted the idea of “populism” since its establishment and worked for the welfare and happiness of the people, provided important aid to the needy migrant villagers through these two organizations. The deputies of the occupied regions undersigned many important regulations along with law proposals that they submitted to the Grand National Parliament. Within the scope of the accepted laws, the government aimed to provide agricultural equipment, seeds, and edible food to the villagers and to help them become productive. It is noteworthy that the Grand National Parliament did not make a regional distinction in the form of east or west when assisting migrants and needy peasants. The refugees in the Eastern Province who had to leave their homes because of the Russian occupation but who experienced great deprivation after returning also benefited from the legal arrangements made for the needy refugees and peasants in Western Anatolia.The work of the Grand National Parliament in this regard intensified after the Great Attack. The return of the refugees and peasants after the Greek army withdrew from the occupation areas emerged as an important issue. The Greek army caused great damage both during the occupation years and when leaving Western Anatolia. Repairing burned and destroyed households, extraditing refugees, and providing aid to the needy peasants were among the urgent problems the government had to face. However, while the migrants returned to their homes, important allocations from the budget for livestock, agricultural equipment, and seeds were made for villagers in need. However, as the treasury lacked the necessary resources for everyone, they could not distribute these allocations in full or had difficulty delivering them to those in need. In such cases, the government provided in-kind assistance to the needy. In addition to cereals in military warehouses distributed as seeds, surplus animals in the army’s possession were also distributed to the needy farmers. The crops and agricultural equipment belonging to the Greeks and Armenians who had left Anatolia with the Greek Army were also distributed to the Turkish Muslim farmers, thus preserving the national wealth.Some scholars have emphasized that a close examination of the debates of the Grand National Parliament both during and after the occupation years as well as during the return of refugees to their homelands reveals that making needy peasants productive meant struggling for economic survival. That is, a strong economic structure was needed for the national welfare and the well-being of the people.Historians have demonstrated that democracy only develops in a healthy manner in societies with high levels of welfare. In this respect, the government must strive to ensure the welfare of peasants, who constitute a large part of the population. To this end, the society as a whole has to equip them with the means to ensure their livelihoods and provide the infrastructure for the healthy development of democracy.

The Turkish Grand National Assembly’s Assistance to Needy Villagers who Migrated During the Greek Occupation and Returned to Their Homeland After the Great Attack

Nurten

In World War I, Romania fought on the side of the Entente States and faced defeat. The Alliance States seized products and goods owned by Romania, either through the Warrant or by purchasing them. Later, at the end of the war when Romania was considered one of the victorious countries, it demanded the return of the properties that the Central Powers had taken. Among the requested products and materials were machines from the Altın Yıldız Company. The company had paid for the proprietary machines and had a receipt as proof. The Ottoman government, not wanting to have a political problem with Romania, asked the Altın Yıldız Company to return the machines from the Oltanya Factory. However, the company argued that this was unlawful and that the government could not be the decision maker. Returning the machines, it said, would make the company suffer great losses. Further, the machines from the Oltanya Factory had not been confiscated as part of a war treaty but had been taken with the consent of the owners, who were paid for them.The Ottoman government deemed it appropriate to give threshing machines that had been ordered from Germany for the Defterdar Textiles Factory in Istanbul and were in crates in the factory, to the Altın Yıldız Company. Thus, the company would also be prevented from suffering losses. In other words, a kind of exchange process would take place. At first, the Altın Yıldız Company objected, but it later accepted the exchange on some terms. But there arose a foreign exchange difference between the prices of the machines at the time of purchase and their erstwhile current prices. In addition, some machines were damaged and no refund was possible. Their cost would be determined and deducted from the total amount paid for the machines. The Defterdar Mensucat Factory machines that the government planned to give to the Altın Yıldız Company should have corresponded to the price of the machines that the company would return to Romania. It was not known the exact packaging and transportation costs paid by company officials during the delivery of the Oltanya Factory machines from Romania.To discuss the return of the machines, a Mixed Commission was established which included the Ottoman government, Altın Yıldız Company, and Romania’s representative in Istanbul. The commission, which met three times a week, regularly conveyed information about the talks to the government. The Legal Advisory was also asked about the issue and found it was in favor of the Altın Yıldız Company. In the Sevres Peace Treaty signed after the war, there was no provision regarding the return of property belonging to private individuals. However, as mentioned above, the Ottoman government, seeking to avoid tension with Romania during this period, accepted the return of the machines of the Oltanya Factory. The government sought solutions to the problem in order to avoid making the Altın Yıldız Company suffer. The problem, which had started in 1918 with Romania’s request to return the machines, resulted in the signing of a contract on November 3, 1921, stating the conditions under which the machines would be returned.According to the Ottoman Bank’s schedule, the Oltanya Weaving Factory agreed to take back the machines by paying the exchange difference between the two dates. In addition, the machine owners and the Istanbul Representation of Romania issued a statement that they would not claim damages against the Ottoman government, the Altın Yıldız Company, or any person. The machines to were returned after that.Although the Altın Yıldız Company agreed to take the German threshing machines and return the Oltanya machines to the government, it did not return all the machines it had bought from Oltanya until all parts of the German threshing machines were delivered. Problems stemming from this issue continued until 1922.

The Question of the Return of Weaving Machines from Turkey to Romania after World War I

Kader

The tax structure inherited from the Ottoman Empire was tried to be rebuilt many times in the first years of the Republic. However, an effective functioning tax system has never been implemented. After the wars, fiscal discipline and equivalent budget became the main target of the Republican administration. As Mustafa Kemal stated on March 1, 1923, it was necessary to benefit from the country’s income sources without resorting to external sources. In addition, the state had to create a source of income not only for the basic functions of the state, but also for funds required for railway investments and public spending such as the construction of the new capital Ankara and expropriation.The Republican administration tried to carry out a kind of tax reform with a series of new tax laws, the majority of which coincided with the years 1926 and 1927, after the Aşar Tax (Tithe) was abolished in 1925. The removal of aşar, an important income item that provided 22% of the budget revenues, was aimed to reduce the burden of the agricultural sector. However, the state turned to indirect taxes to compensate for the declining revenues. Faced with a serious financial crisis after 1930 with the effect of the world depression, the government introduced new taxes to be applied to civil servant salaries and workers’ wages. The fact that the added taxes were independent from the changes in income increased the tax burden of the public. In addition to taxes, goods consumed by large masses such as tobacco, alcohol, cigarette paper, salt, matches, sugar, and oil were taken to the state monopoly. Thus, with the monopoly prices added to most goods, the state went to increase its revenues. Indirect taxes on consumer goods led to an increased tax burden as they were collected regardless of income. In addition, due to the decrease in the purchasing power of the public, tax revenues decreased since the mid-1920s. In the following years, a regular tax system could not be developed, and the use of state monopoly revenues and extraordinary taxes during the crisis affected the commercial and social life negatively.According to the census made in 1927, the industrial basis of the economy in the first years of the Republic was lagging behind. Even in order to maintain a very low&nbsp;consumption level, the country had to import from sugar to cotton weaving, cotton yarn and woolen weaving. Taxes, regardless of profit or loss, had an adverse effect on industrial activities, in the industrial sector, which needed government protection. By the 1930s, removing some tax exemptions granted to the industrialists increased the costs and the increased costs were reflected in the market prices. The possibility of the industrialists to compete with foreign goods at home and abroad became difficult.&nbsp;While market-oriented agriculture, which was dependent on commercial loans, declined with the decrease in prices, many producers returned to production at subsistence level due to the bankruptcy of commercial companies. On the one hand, while wheat prices were falling, the state imposed customs and sales taxes on a small number of goods purchased by small and medium-sized producers from the market. At the same time, new taxes were introduced to the agricultural sector and the burden of old taxes increased as agricultural prices fell below their pre-1929 levels. With falling grain prices and rising taxes, many peasants had to work as partners by abandoning or selling their land and animals.With the impact of the 1929 world crisis, the tax burdens of all segments increased, from rural producers to civil servants and workers in the city. While the purchasing power of a large segment of the society decreased, the cost of living made it very difficult to live by. With the reflection of the increasing taxes on the market prices, the cost of living gradually increased and the purchasing power decreased considerably in this period. With the decrease in production and consumption, the collection rates of the taxes levied by the state over the years decreased. The government found the remedy by imposing new taxes or expanding the scope of existing ones. This situation created a vicious circle that negatively affected the economic activities.

The Effect of the Tax Policy Applied in the Period of Atatürk on the Economic Sectors

Murat

Rafael de Nogales Mendes, Osmanlı Ordusunda Dört Yıl (1915- 1919), Çeviren: Vedii İlmen, İstanbul, Yaba Yayınları, 2016, 307 s.

@JOURNAL_BOX_CURRENT

@JOURNAL_BOX_EARLYVIEW

Yasin

Cyprus has for many years attracted international attention due to its strategic location. The island came under Ottoman rule in 1571. In 1878, British forces took over the island from the Ottoman administration, in exchange for protection against Russian attacks. In response to the entry of the Ottoman Empire into the First World War on the side of Germany, Britain added the island unilaterally to its own territory on 5 November 1914. During the negotiations in Lausanne, the Turkish side accepted that Cyprus belonged to Britain. The declaration of the establishment of the Turkish Republic of Cyprus took place on 16 August 1960, with both Turkish and Greek Cypriots taking part in the administration of the country. However, the Republic of Cyprus was not able to continue for long. Clashes resumed on the island after Makarios attempted to restrict the rights acquired by the Cypriot Turks in the 1960 constitution.Following the collapse of the Republic of Cyprus in December 1963, Turkish Cypriots established their own administration on the island. First, a separate Turkish administration called “General Committee” was established in 1964. Then, in November 1967, the Provisional Turkish Cypriot Administration was established. Thus, Turkish Cypriots tried to ensure their security in a more organized way. Britain did not support the steps taken by the Turkish Cypriots on the island. After Turkey’s 1974 military intervention, the Autonomous Turkish Cypriot Administration was established in October 1974 in the north of the island. On February 13, 1975, the founding of the Turkish Federated State of Cyprus (TFSC) was announced.Against this background, this study deals with the response of the British parliament to the declaration of the establishment of the TFSC by Turkish Cypriots in 1975. One of the countries that reacted strongly to the Turkish military intervention on the island in 1974 was Britain. The announcement of the establishment of the TFSC also provoked a strong reaction from Britain. In the statements made by the British government, the establishment of the TFSC was declared to be an “undesired development”. This study examines the approach of British MPs to the TFSC through discussions in the House of Commons.The first result of the study shows that British MPs did not support the announcement of the establishment of the TFSC. British MPs reacted to this and they questioned whether the British government knew about this announcement beforehand. British MPs also sought an answer to the question of why the government had not taken any steps to prevent the establishment of the TFSC. British government officials emphasized in their statements that they did not know that the founding of the TFSC would be announced. In addition, they expressed with certainty that the newly established Turkish administration would not be recognized by Britain. Another point that the study draws attention to was that because Ankara supported the TFSC, some MPs wanted the British government to “punish” Turkey. Moreover, one member of parliament wanted the British government to work for the suspension of Turkeys’ UN membership. However, British government officials stated that they did not support such a proposal.Some MPs expressed in the British parliament that Britain, which is one of the guarantor states in Cyprus, should take more initiative in seeking a resolution to the Cyprus problem. In response to this proposal, government officials pointed out the necessity to continue negotiations between the Turkish and Greek Cypriots for peace in Cyprus. British deputies expressed that there would be no results from long-standing inter-communal talks. They argued that the British government should follow a more active policy for peace in Cyprus. Government officials disagreed with these suggestions and stated that Britain could not act alone. Other guarantor states in Cyprus would have to agree together on a solution. Thus, the government did not take into consideration the active policy proposal for a solution to the Cyprus problem. Finally, another issue that came up after the announcement of the establishment of the TFSC was the situation of British citizens on the island. Some MPs proposed to open an official representative office within the boundaries of the TFSC for British citizens. However, British government officials opposed this proposal.&nbsp;As a result, MPs in the British parliament did not accept the announcement of the TFSC. Furthermore, there were deputies who said that the Turks should not be declared solely responsible for the Cyprus problem. However, this view did not cause any change in the policy of the British government and the TFSC was not recognized by the British government.

The Reaction of the British Parliament to the Establishment of the Turkish Federated State of Cyprus (1975)

Yusuf

THE PERCEPTION OF BISMARCK IN THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE: THE CASE SPECIFIC TO ABDULHAMID II

İsmail

At the end of the Second World War, a fast decolonization process started in the British Empire. This situation re-triggered the sovereignty debate in Cyprus. Repre-sentatives of the Greek Cypriots had been trying to make Cyprus a territory of Gree-ce for many years. Enosis, which meant the annexation of the island to Greece, was a strong feeling among Greek Cypriots. They also wanted to take advantage of the decolonization process. However, Great Britain did not favor the annexation of the island to Greece due to its interests in the Middle East. Great Britain favored making a more libertarian constitution on the island instead of enosis. The Greek Cypriots responded to this approach of the British government by declaring that they would never step back from the enosis.Enosis was not only prevented by Britain’s interests in the Middle East. Tur-kish Cypriots were also strongly opposed to enosis. Because Turks living on other islands, especially in Crete, had to leave their homeland due to Greek pressure, they were concerned the same outcome would happen on their own. That is why the Tur-kish Cypriots defended the continuation of the British rule on the island, or it should have been given to Turkey, which was the former owner of the island. On the other hand, Turkey was also against enosis because Turkey saw the enosis as an instrument of the expansionist politics of Greece. Despite the Turkish Cypriots’ and Turkey’s objections, Greek Cypriots insisted on demanding Enosis.The date of 18 October 1950 was a turning point for enosis because of Maka-rios III, whose original name was Mikhail Christodoulos Mouskos, was elected as archbishop. Makarios was ready to use all the facilities of the church for enosis. Eno-sis was a historical task, a national and religious issue for him. For that reason, he regarded leading the struggle for enosis as a great honor. According to Makarios, there were two ways to achieve enosis: diplomacy or armed struggle. He applied all the diplomatic methods he knew between 1950 and 1955. In this context, he organi-zed demonstrations in Athens and Nicosia; directed the public opinion, sought sup-port from the Greek lobby in the USA; and pressured the British administration.&nbsp;&nbsp;All the diplomatic initiatives of Makarios and Greece failed to persuade Bri-tain for enosis. Therefore, Greece applied to the United Nations to obtain the right of self-determination for Cyprus on August 16, 1954. However, the United Nations rejected Greece’s application. In the same period, besides diplomatic initiatives, an armed terrorist organization was established to carry out terrorist acts on the island, but this organization declined to take any action until the United Nations made its decision on Cyprus. The name of this&nbsp;organization was EOKA. It was founded under the leadership of retired Colonel Grivas and Makarios, and its aim was to carry out enosis through terrorist attacks.&nbsp;&nbsp;The establishment activities of EOKA began secretly in 1951, and had comp-leted all preparations by 1 April 1955. EOKA carried out all its activities on the is-land mostly through youth organizations such as PEON and OHEN. The Cyprus Church provided financial support to EOKA. Thanks to this financial support, the necessary weapons could be purchased. In order to become a member of EOKA, it was necessary to be Greek, a supporter of enosis and not be a communist. Therefore, EOKA was a pan-helenic fascist organization whose purpose was limited to enosis. Consequently, EOKA cannot be described as an organization that is fighting against colonialism to gain independency for its own folk because it wanted only enosis, not national independence. It was clear that EOKA’s motivation to resort to armed struggle against the British colonial administration was never independence.

EOKA: From Thought to Action

Mustafa

Instructor

TURKISH PRISONERS SENT TO INDIA BY THE BRITISH IN THE FIRST WORLD WAR

@JOURNAL_BOX_FEATURED

Hüseyin

This study’s purpose is to provide information about Ali Saib Bey, who was in service in various provincial offices in the Ottoman State for many years and was the author of the annex which constitutes the main subject of the article. On the other hand, another purpose of the study was to determine the issues and recommendations stated in the annex and reveal whether these recommendations were realized through archive documents.The civil service life of a public servant who served in the Ottoman provinces for many years will be examined in this study. Many issues such as his duties, assignments, and rewards taken by this officer in the provinces will be revealed in this section. In addition, the presentation of the annex that Ali Saib Bey wrote was also important in terms of showing what problems he had in Shkoder, which would come out shortly after the Ottoman Empire, and what recommendations were put forward to overcome these problems. The question of whether these recommendations were taken into consideration were examined through documents in the Presidential Ottoman Archives. It is thought that the findings obtained within the framework of this annex, which reveal the central-provincial relations and have not been studied before, will contribute to the history of this territory.The first step in the method followed during the study was to collect data about the civil service life of Ali Saib Efendi, the owner of the annex. Later, it was evaluated in accordance with the original partition by making content analysis of the annex. And then, the documents obtained as a result of the review carried out in the Presidential Ottoman Archive on the subjects mentioned in the annex were compared. The studies conducted on the related territory were utilized for the data related to Shkoder. In this respect, the main source of the study was the annex of Ali Saib Bey and the documents obtained in the Presidential Ottoman Archive.Ali Saib Bey, the son of a soldier father, started his career as a correspondence clerk in Malatya sanjak at a very young age and served in many parts of the country. Ali Saib Efendi, who came to Shkoder with his position as a provincial letter officer on February 1, 1909, also served as deputy governor of Shkoder during this duty. Ali Saib Bey, who briefly summarized his civil service life in this way, wrote an annex dated October 29, 1911 that formed the subject of this study. Initially, he transferred the geographical borders and population information of the province. In the section titled political and social situation and urgent needs of Shkoder, he emphasized the issue of Malesori, for which he was also assigned. One of the important determinations he made was that it was the most important problem of the people in this place to be in ignorance and misery. Also, the efforts of Austria and Italy to influence here are another issue that was mentioned in the annex. It was understood from the statements of Ali Saib Bey that they took the hearts of the people through the great investments they made in the region and that even some of the Muslims in the Malesori region left their religions for this reason. It was a remarkable determination that the people in Malesori and Shkoder took refuge in the patronage of Montenegro, which was their enemy. An important determination in this section was that the Ottoman ambassador in Çetine was acting as if he were supporting Montenegro. After this section, Ali Saib Bey gave information about the law that he defined as “not fit for civilization and humanity” under the title of Dukakin Law. The next title was education. In the annex stating that Shkoder was not at the desired level in education, it was worth noting that many of the teachers with insufficient salaries did not know Ottoman Turkish. The most important recommendation in this section was that an industrial school should be opened there. Under the title of Public Works, it mentioned that the situation of the roads was very bad and that it was necessary to do something as soon as possible. Another point mentioned in this section was that foreign engineers and conductors did not want to go to their places owing to various excuses. Under the public order title, it determined that the coast of Shkoder Lake, up to Boyana and Drac, was open to smuggling and that it was a necessity to set up observation towers in suitable places on the coast, and he emphasized the necessity of installing a telephone line between them. In the title on agriculture, he stated that agriculture was done in the old way due to the financial deficiencies of the people. Therefore, he emphasized that it was necessary to increase the capital of the agricultural bank there and to open the branch of the bank in some towns. Opening a sample field on which Ali Saib Bey was standing was one of the recommendations put into practice. Another important determination in this section is that Shkoder was very rich in terms of forest but it was not utilized properly. Under the heading of civil service, some significant opinions were given about administrative arrangements that needed to be made by giving the current administrative division of Shkoder. The most noteworthy of these was the proposal to assign the Muslims or Christians in Shkoder, who could speak the local language, as the head of the district. Under the heading of officers to be assigned to Shkoder, it was requested that the unqualified ones be taken from there and replaced by experienced officers, and that the salaries and liabilities of the officers who would work there should be made regularly. The most striking point in the headline of politics to be implemented in Shkoder was that almost all of the people across the province had an attitude towards the government and that the people of the territory should not behave violently as a result of their nature, but it would not also result in being too soft. The only thing to do was to meet in the middle. It was another recommendation that mobile doctors should be assigned there and that these doctors should constantly treat people who were sick in the villages and mountains and make the state propaganda. Finally, it was recommended that the loyalty of the people to the state should be provided through the Muslim and Christian opinion leaders and that the financial support should be provided to poor people as much as possible.The annex written by an officer who worked in different parts of the Ottoman Empire as the correspondence clerk of Shkoder was an important document in order to understand center-provincial relations. There were some recommendations by Ali Saib Bey that were realized as well as those that could not be realized due to financial difficulties. As a result, thinking about how to manage Shkoder better and how to handle the current problems, Ali Saib Bey explained these issues in detail. However, neither this annex nor the efforts of the Ottoman State yielded any results, and Shkoder came out of the hands of the Ottomans as a result of the Balkan Wars.

A Public Official in the Ottoman Province, Ali Saib Bey and His Annex on Shkoder Province

Davud

The Ottoman Empire, which joined the First World War on the side of the Central Powers, had to fight actively on many fronts due to its strategic and geopolitical position. These fronts stretched from the Caucasus to Iraq, from the Suez Canal to the Dardanelles. In addition, Ottoman forces also operated in areas that were not actively involved in conflict, taking active or passive defensive measures. The Ottoman Empire’s Deputy Commander-In-Chief in Thrace carried out military operations in case of a military landing by the Allied forces and as such took various measures in the Black Sea, Marmara, western Anatolia and around Iskenderun.&nbsp;The Ottoman Empire’s Western Anatolian coasts being under the threat of the British and French Navy , and having the assistance of the Allied Forces to carry out air operations with aircraft carriers wherever they wanted, led to the deployment of aviation units by the Ottoman Commander-in-Chief in the relevant regions.The Ottoman Empire entered the First World War with six aircraft at the beginning of the war. After some time, the Ottoman Empire was in active at the front with 1500 personnel and 450 aircraft which were received from its ally Germany. At the beginning of the war, the Ottoman Deputy Commander-in-chief sent two aircraft to the Dardanelles and one plane to Izmir, taking into account the strategic and geopolitical situation of the Dardanelles and Izmir region. Over time, air troops were deployed in the region with aircraft from Germany and the amount of aircraft was increased.At the beginning of the First World War, measures were taken by sending planes around Çanakkale and Izmir, and in 1915, also to the Dardanelles Front battles began with the offensive of the Allied Forces. On March 18, 1915, the Allies did not succeed in their naval operation, followed by a landing on the Gallipoli peninsula on April 25, 1915. However, the Entente forces withdrew from the region at the beginning of 1916, failing to achieve any success as a result of the joint defence of the Turkish land, air and naval forces.After the victory of the Turkish forces in the Dardanelles, the Allied forces carried out operations until the end of the war in the western Anatolia region with the air and&nbsp;naval forces they had gathered in the islands . The Allied tactical operation was aimed at maintaining the control of the Straits and preventing entry and exit from there. Consequently, the region was constantly supervised by both sea and air elements due to its strategic importance. In addition, from time to time western Anatolian coasts, cities and ports were harassed and bombed by Allied naval and air elements.The activity of the Allied forces was marked by the formation of 1st and 6th divisions in and around Çanakkale, which included the Western Anatolia region, and 5th and 12th divisions around Izmir, in order to follow, explore, monitor and report the situation to the command levels as quickly as possible. The possibility and expectation that the Entente forces would make a landing over Gallipoli or Izmir after the battles of the Dardanelles made the formation of the air defense forces mandatory in addition to the precautionary measures of the Ottoman State. The aim was to secure the capital Istanbul with air troops from the relevant regions in the Dardanelles and to advance against the Allied Air Forces. It was also intended to preempt possible landings into the region with the air forces in Izmir.The Aegean Sea and the islands were monitored by the units and platoons established, and from time to time the allied bases there were bombed. Air battles took place with the aircraft of the Allied forces. From the point of view of the opposing forces, the strategic importance of the Ottoman territory led to Allied aircraft carrying out aerial attacks on Istanbul and Izmir from time to time. Although these aerial attacks did not affect the outcome of the war, they played their part in terms of psychological effects. The Allied elements demonstrated effectiveness, particularly by bombing strategic public institutions, air bases and warships.The headquarters of the British Air Force in the Mediterranean was assembled and directed at a command post in Malta. The air operations against Istanbul and Izmir were carried out by the air units based at Mondros, under the command of Colonel Gordon. After the battles of the Dardanelles, 34 French and British aircraft based on the islands in the Aegean Sea operated on Western Anatolia. French aircraft served in Bozcaada, and a Greek aircraft station that was under the supervision of the Greek Ministry of War, was located in Mondros. Meanwhile, a base between Thasoz and Lesbos served the Entente aircraft. All these squadrons were managed under the command of the commander at Mondros.Turkish coasts were blockaded from 1915. French naval forces were completely under the control of Beirut, Iskenderun, and the Antalya coasts. The French, assisting their naval forces, began to conduct aerial reconnaissance from the Egyptian ports and the small islands of Ruad and Meis between Cyprus and Syria. Upon the increase of enemy activities in the Aegean Sea and Izmir region, the 5th Airborne Division was assigned the task of reconnaissance and control against the Entente activities in the region. In this context, flights were made from the islands of Chios, Sisam, Rhodes, Lesbos and Kösten (Uzunada), and mobility in the region was monitored.&nbsp;From all academic studies carried out on behalf of the history of aviation thus far, it can be seen based on archival documents that no studies have been conducted on the topic of the air operations carried out in the western Anatolia region after the Gallipoli victory. Having remedied this with this study, aviation activities realized in the said region have now been examined in the light of archival documents.

Aviation Activities in Western Anatolia Following the Victory at Gallipoli (1915-1918)

@JOURNAL_BOX_MOSTREAD

Recent Period Turkish Studies - Yakın Dönem Türkiye Araştırmaları is the official publication of Istanbul University Institute of Ataturk’s Principles and Reforms. It is an open access, peer-reviewed, scholarly journal published two times a year in June and December. It was founded in 2002. 

The journal publishes original articles and studies from the disciplines of history, History of the Republic of Turkey, Atatürk’s Principles and History of Turkish Reforms, Ottoman History, sociology, literature, art history, law, political science and economics within the framework of Modern Turkish and World History. Thus it serves as a bridge between the world of science and academicians at the national and international levels. The objective of the journal is to contribute to science by publishing research articles and reviews in Turkish and English.

The journal publishes, research articles and reviews evaluating and criticizing the studied subjects and presenting new and remarkable opinions on the basis of a rich bibliography. Translations related to the field and texts of unpublished papers that were previously presented at a scientific congress; introductory letters about treatises, personalities and scientific activities about the Turkish National Campaign and Republic of Turkey are included in the journal as well.

All expenses of the journal are covered by the Istanbul University. Processing and publication are free of charge with the journal. There is no article processing charges or submission fees for any submitted or accepted articles. http://istanbul.edu.tr:8080/journal/ydta/information/policies

Prof.

ResearchBib

İslâm Araştırmaları Merkezi (İSAM)

TR Dizin

DOAJ

SOBIAD Sosyal Bilimler Atıf Dizini

@METRIC_VOLUMES

@METRIC_ISSUES

@METRIC_ARTICLES

@METRIC_OPENACCESS

Recent Period Turkish Studies

RPTS

@INFO_TAB_ABOUT

Editor in Chief

Managing Editor

Editor

Assistant Editor

Language Editor

Book Editor

Editorial Board Member

@INFO_TAB_BOARDS

Recent Period Turkish Studies – Yakın Dönem Türkiye Araştırmaları is a scientific, open-access and peer-reviewed journal published biannually (June &amp; December). The journal publishes original articles and studies from the disciplines of  history, History of the Republic of Turkey, Atatürk’s Principles and History of Turkish Reforms, Ottoman History, sociology, literature, art history, law, political science and economics within the framework of Modern Turkish and World History. Thus it serves as a bridge between the world of science and academicians at the national and international levels.The objective of the journal is to contribute to science by publishing research articles and reviews in Turkish and English.Recent Period Turkish Studies – Yakın Dönem Türkiye Araştırmaları has a scope that covers the disciplines of  history, History of the Republic of Turkey, Atatürk’s Principles and History of Turkish Reforms, Ottoman History, sociology, literature, art history, law, political science and economics within the framework of Modern Turkish and World History. The journal publishes, research articles and reviews evaluating and criticizing the studied subjects and presenting new and remarkable opinions on the basis of a rich bibliography. Translations related to the field and texts of unpublished papers that were previously presented at a scientific congress; introductory letters about treatises, personalities and scientific activities about the Turkish National Campaign and Republic of Turkey are included in the journal as well.

Aim & Scope

<ul><li>TÜBİTAK ULAKBİM TR Dizin</li><li>DOAJ</li><li><a href="https://atif.sobiad.com/" target="_blank">Sosyal Bilimler Atıf Dizini (SOBIAD)</a></li><li>ResearchBib </li><li>İslâm Araştırmaları Merkezi (İSAM)</li></ul>

Indexing and Abstracting

The subjects covered in the manuscripts submitted to the Journal for publication must be in accordance with the aim and scope of the Journal. The Journal gives priority to original research papers submitted for publication.Only those manuscripts approved by its every individual author and that were not published before in or sent to another journal, are accepted for evaluation.Submitted manuscripts that pass preliminary control are scanned for plagiarism using iThenticate software. After plagiarism check, the eligible ones are evaluated by editor-in-chief for their originality, methodology, the importance of the subject covered and compliance with the journal scope.Short presentations that took place in scientific meetings can be referred if indicated in the article. The editor hands over the papers matching the formal rules to at least two national/international referees for evaluation and gives green light for publication upon modification by the authors in accordance with the referees’ claims. Changing the name of an author (omission, addition or order) in papers submitted to the Journal requires written permission of all declared authors. Refused manuscripts and graphics are not returned to the author.

Policies

Recent Period Turkish Studies- Yakın Dönem Türkiye Araştırmaları is an open access journal which means that all content is freely available without charge to the user or his/her institution. Except for commercial purposes, users are allowed to read, download, copy, print, search, or link to the full texts of the articles in this journal without asking prior permission from the publisher or the author.  The articles in Recent Period Turkish Studies- Yakın Dönem Türkiye Araştırmaları are open access articles licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0) license (<a href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/deed.en" target="_blank">https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/deed.en</a> )

All expenses of the journal are covered by the Istanbul University. Processing and publication are free of charge with the journal. There is no article processing charges or submission fees for any submitted or accepted articles.

Authors publishing with Recent Period Turkish Studies retain the copyright to their work, licensing it under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0) license that gives permission to copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format other than commercial purposes as well as remix, transform and build upon the material by providing appropriate credit to the original work.

Recent Period Turkish Studies- Yakın Dönem Türkiye Araştırmaları is committed to upholding the highest standards of publication ethics and pays regard to Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing published by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ), the Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association (OASPA), and the World Association of Medical Editors (WAME) on <a href="https://publicationethics.org/resources/guidelines-new/principles-transparency-and-best-practice-scholarly-publishing" target="_blank">https://publicationethics.org/resources/guidelines-new/principles-transparency-and-best-practice-scholarly-publishing</a>All submissions must be original, unpublished (including as full text in conference proceedings), and not under the review of any other publication synchronously. Authors must ensure that submitted work is original. They must certify that the manuscript has not previously been published elsewhere or is not currently being considered for publication elsewhere, in any language. Applicable copyright laws and conventions must be followed. Copyright material (e.g. tables, figures or extensive quotations) must be reproduced only with appropriate permission and acknowledgement. Any work or words of other authors, contributors, or sources must be appropriately credited and referenced.Each manuscript is reviewed by one of the editors and at least two referees under double-blind peer review process. Plagiarism, duplication, fraud authorship/denied authorship, research/data fabrication, salami slicing/salami publication, breaching of copyrights, prevailing conflict of interest are unnethical behaviors.All manuscripts not in accordance with the accepted ethical standards will be removed from the publication. This also contains any possible malpractice discovered after the publication. In accordance with the code of conduct we will report any cases of suspected plagiarism or duplicate publishing.

Ethics

Recent Period Turkish Studies- Yakın Dönem Türkiye Araştırmaları adheres to the highest standards in research ethics and follows the principles of international research ethics as defined below. The authors are responsible for the compliance of the manuscripts with the ethical rules.<ul><li>Principles of integrity, quality and transparency should be sustained in designing the research, reviewing the design and conducting the research.</li><li>The research team and participants should be fully informed about the aim, methods, possible uses and requirements of the research and risks of participation in research.</li><li>The confidentiality of the information provided by the research participants and the confidentiality of the respondents should be ensured. The research should be designed to protect the autonomy and dignity of the participants.</li><li>Research participants should participate in the research voluntarily, not under any coercion.</li><li>Any possible harm to participants must be avoided. The research should be planned in such a way that the participants are not at risk.</li><li>The independence of research must be clear; and any conflict of interest or must be disclosed.</li><li>In experimental studies with human subjects, written informed consent of the participants who decide to participate in the research must be obtained. In the case of children and those under wardship or with confirmed insanity, legal custodian’s assent must be obtained.</li><li>If the study is to be carried out in any institution or organization, approval must be obtained from this institution or organization.</li><li>In studies with human subject, it must be noted in the method’s section of the manuscript that the informed consent of the participants and ethics committee approval from the institution where the study has been conducted have been obtained.</li></ul>

It is authors’ responsibility to ensure that the article is in accordance with scientific and ethical standards and rules. And authors must ensure that submitted work is original. They must certify that the manuscript has not previously been published elsewhere or is not currently being considered for publication elsewhere, in any language. Applicable copyright laws and conventions must be followed. Copyright material (e.g. tables, figures or extensive quotations) must be reproduced only with appropriate permission and acknowledgement. Any work or words of other authors, contributors, or sources must be appropriately credited and referenced.All the authors of a submitted manuscript must have direct scientific and academic contribution to the manuscript. The author(s) of the original research articles is defined as a person who is significantly involved in “conceptualization and design of the study”, “collecting the data”, “analyzing the data”, “writing the manuscript”, “reviewing the manuscript with a critical perspective” and “planning/conducting the study of the manuscript and/or revising it”. Fund raising, data collection or supervision of the research group are not sufficient roles to be accepted as an author. The author(s) must meet all these criteria described above. The order of names in the author list of an article must be a co-decision and it must be indicated in the <a href="https://cdn.istanbul.edu.tr/file/JTA6CLJ8T5/F0FA3D67A7B548A0A3276D766B9FC3EE" target="_blank">Copyright Transfer Form.</a> The individuals who do not meet the authorship criteria but contributed to the study must take place in the acknowledgement section. Individuals providing technical support, assisting writing, providing a general support, providing material or financial support are examples to be indicated in acknowledgement section.All authors must disclose all issues concerning financial relationship, conflict of interest, and competing interest that may potentially influence the results of the research or scientific judgment.When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her own published paper, it is the author’s obligation to promptly cooperate with the Editor-in-Chief to provide retractions or corrections of mistakes.

Editor evaluates manuscripts for their scientific content without regard to ethnic origin, gender, sexual orientation, citizenship, religious belief or political philosophy of the authors. Editor provides a fair double-blind peer review of the submitted articles for publication and ensures that all the information related to submitted manuscripts is kept as confidential before publishing.Editor is responsible for the content and overall quality of the publication and must publish errata pages or make corrections when needed.Editor does not allow any conflicts of interest between the authors, editors and reviewers. Only editor has the full authority to assign a reviewer and is responsible for final decision for publication of the manuscripts in the Journal.Reviewers’ judgments must be objective. Reviewers must ensure that all the information related to submitted manuscripts is kept as confidential and must report to the Editor if they are aware of copyright infringement and plagiarism on the author’s side.A reviewer who feels unqualified to review the topic of a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the Editor and excuse himself from the review process.The editor informs the reviewers that the manuscripts are confidential information and that this is a privileged interaction. The reviewers and editorial board cannot discuss the manuscripts with other persons. Unless the authors and editor permit, the reviews of referees cannot be published or disclosed. The anonymity of the referees is important. In particular situations, the editor may share the review of one reviewer with other reviewers to clarify a particular point.

Only those manuscripts approved by its every individual author and that were not published before in or sent to another journal, are accepted for evaluation.Submitted manuscripts that pass preliminary control are scanned for plagiarism using iThenticate software. After plagiarism check, the eligible ones are evaluated by editor-in-chief for their originality, methodology, the importance of the subject covered and compliance with the journal scope.The editor hands over the papers matching the formal rules to at least two national/international referees for evaluation and gives green light for publication upon modification by the authors in accordance with the referees’ claims. Changing the name of an author (omission, addition or order) in papers submitted to the Journal requires written permission of all declared authors. Refused manuscripts and graphics are not returned to the author.

Peer Review

Editor evaluates manuscripts for their scientific content without regard to ethnic origin, gender, sexual orientation, citizenship, religious belief or political philosophy of the authors. Editor provides a fair double-blind peer review of the submitted articles for publication and ensures that all the information related to submitted manuscripts is kept as confidential before publishing.Editor is responsible for the content and overall quality of the publication and must publish errata pages or make corrections when needed.Editor does not allow any conflicts of interest between the authors, editors and reviewers. Only editor has the full authority to assign a reviewer and is responsible for final decision for publication of the manuscripts in the Journal.Reviewers’ judgments must be objective. Reviewers must ensure that all the information related to submitted manuscripts is kept as confidential and must report to the Editor if they are aware of copyright infringement and plagiarism on the author’s side.A reviewer who feels unqualified to review the topic of a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the Editor and excuse himself from the review process.The editor informs the reviewers that the manuscripts are confidential information and that this is a privileged interaction. The reviewers and editorial board cannot discuss the manuscripts with other persons. Unless the authors and editor permit, the reviews of referees cannot be published or disclosed. The anonymity of the referees is important. In particular situations, the editor may share the review of one reviewer with other reviewers to clarify a particular point.

Only those manuscripts approved by its every individual author and that were not published before in or sent to another journal, are accepted for evaluation.Submitted manuscripts that pass preliminary control are scanned for plagiarism using iThenticate software. After plagiarism check, the eligible ones are evaluated by editor-in-chief for their originality, methodology, the importance of the subject covered and compliance with the journal scope.  The selected manuscripts are sent to at least two national/international referees for evaluation and publication decision is given by editor-in-chief  upon modification by the authors in accordance with the referees’ claims.Editor-in-chief evaluates manuscripts for their scientific content without regard to ethnic origin, gender, sexual orientation, citizenship, religious belief or political philosophy of the authors and ensures a fair double-blind peer review of the selected manuscripts. Editor in chief does not allow any conflicts of interest between the authors, editors and reviewers and is responsible for final decision for publication of the manuscripts in the Journal.Reviewers’ judgments must be objective. Reviewers’ comments on the following aspects are expected while conducting the review.-    Does the manuscript contain new and significant information?-    Does the abstract clearly and accurately describe the content of the manuscript?-    Is the problem significant and concisely stated?-    Are the methods described comprehensively?-    Are the interpretations and consclusions justified by the results?-    Is adequate references made to other Works in the field?-    Is the language acceptable?Reviewers must ensure that all the information related to submitted manuscripts is kept as confidential and must report to the editor if they are aware of copyright infringement and plagiarism on the author’s side.A reviewer who feels unqualified to review the topic of a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and excuse himself from the review process.The editor informs the reviewers that the manuscripts are confidential information and that this is a privileged interaction. The reviewers and editorial board cannot discuss the manuscripts with other persons. The anonymity of the referees is important.

All correspondence will be sent to the first-named author unless otherwise specified. Manuscpript is to be submitted online via <a href="http://dergipark.gov.tr/login" target="_blank">http://dergipark.gov.tr/login</a> that can be accessed at <a href="http://rpts.istanbul.edu.tr/" target="_blank"></a><a href="http://istanbul.edu.tr:8080/tr/journal/ydta/home" target="_blank">http://istanbul.edu.tr:8080/tr/journal/ydta/home</a> It must be accompanied by a <a href="https://cdn.istanbul.edu.tr/file/JTA6CLJ8T5/39338D59B389412987F471F4F100E3F2" target="_blank">title page </a>specifying the rticle category (i.e. research article, review etc.) and including information about the manuscript (see the Submission Checklist), and cover letter. Manuscripts should be prepared in Microsoft Word 2003 and upper versions. In addition, <a href="http://cdn.istanbul.edu.tr/FileHandler2.ashx?f=copyrighttransferformen_ydta_636935301667485649_637055207471181712.doc" target="_blank">Copyright Transfer Form</a><a href="http://cdn.istanbul.edu.tr/FileHandler2.ashx?f=copyrighttransferformen_litera_636846337884291693.doc"> </a>that has to be signed by all authors must be submitted.1.    The manuscripts should be in A4 paper standards: having 4 cm margin from left and 2.5 cm margins from right, bottom and top, Times New Roman font style in 12 font size, line spacing of 1.5 and “justify align” format. If there are footnotes, they must remain within these limits and be written in 10 font size. Before and after paragraphs, 6 point space should be left.2.    The headings of sections and subsections of the article should be in 14 font size. The space before and after the first heading should be 71 and 18 point respectively. The space before and after the second level heading should be 18 and 12 point and the third and fourth level heading should be 12 and 6 point respectively.3.    Headings and subheadings should not be in the last line of a page; in such a case they should be on the next page. The first line of a paragraph should not be the last line of a page and the last line of a paragraph should not be the first line of page.4.    Abbreviations, table, figure and symbol list, preface, abstract, references list, appendix and explanations of tables and captions of figures should be written in 1 line spacing.5.    The name(s) of author(s) should be given just beneath the title of the study aligned to the right. Also the affiliation, title, e-mail and phone of the author(s) must be indicated on the bottom of the page as a footnote marked with an asterisk (*).6.    Before the introduction part, there should be an abstract of 100-150 words both in Turkish and in English. An extended abstract in English between 600-800 words, summarizing the scope, the purpose, the results of the study and the methodology used is to be included following the abstracts. Underneath the abstracts, 5 keywords that inform the reader about the content of the study should be specified in Turkish and in English.7.    The manuscripts should contain mainly these components: title, abstract and keywords; extended abstract, sections of article, references and tables and figures.8.    Research article sections are ordered as follows: “Introduction”, “Aim and Methodology”, “Findings”, “Discussion and Conclusion” and “References”. For review and commentary articles, the article should start with the “Introduction” section where the purpose and the method is mentioned, go on with the other sections; and it should be finished with “Discussion and Conclusion” section followed by “References” and “Tables and Figures”.9.    Tables, graphs and figures can be given with a number and a defining title if and only if it is necessary to follow the idea of the article. Otherwise features like demographic characteristics can be given within the text.10.  A <a href="https://cdn.istanbul.edu.tr/file/JTA6CLJ8T5/39338D59B389412987F471F4F100E3F2" target="_blank">title page</a> including author information must be submitted together with the manuscript. The title page is to include fully descriptive title of the manuscript and, affiliation, title, e-mail address, postal address, phone, fax number of the author(s) and ORCIDs of all authors (see The Submission Checklist).11.  Authors are responsible for all statements made in their work published in the Journal; Istanbul University Institute of Ataturk’s Principles and Reforms has no responsibility in this regard.12.  The author(s) can be asked to make some changes in their articles due to peer reviews.13.  The studies that were sent to the journal will not be returned whether they are published or not.

Author Guidelines

Rules for Reference FootnotesIn reference footnotes, if the reference is given to the relevant source for the first time, the current bibliographic information about the work can be given according to the following sample templates:Bülent Tanör, Osmanlı-Türk Anayasal Gelişmeleri, İstanbul, Der Yayınları, 1992, p. 25.Bülent Gökay, Bolşevizm ile Emperyalizm Arasında Türkiye, trans. Sermet Yalçın, İstanbul, Tarih Vakfı Yurt Yayınları, 1977, pp. 97-98.If the reference footnotes are referred to the same source as the second or more, the above information is abbreviated accordingly:The second consecutive reference to the same source:Bülent Gökay, Bolşevizm ile…, p. 97.Reference to the same source but different page:Bülent Gökay, Bolşevizm ile…, p. 150.When other references are inserted, reference to Tanör’s book again:Bülent Tanör, Osmanlı-Türk..., p. 22.Reference to author's article / book section in an edited book:First reference:Cemal Kafadar, “Osmanlı Siyasal Düşüncesinin Kaynakları Üzerine Gözlemler”, Tanzimat ve Meşrutiyet’in Birikimi, ed. Mehmet Ö. Alkan, İstanbul, İletişim Yayınları, 2004,  p. 30.Later references:Cemal Kafadar, “Osmanlı Siyasal...”, p. 54.Reference to the article in the periodical:First reference:Ernst E.  Hirsch,  “İktidar  ve  Hukuk,”  trans.  Hayrettin Ökçesiz,  Hukuk Araştırmaları, Vol. II, No: 3 (September-December 1987), p. 44.Later references:Ernst. E. Hirsch, “İktidar ve Hukuk”, p. 45.Reference to newspaper articles or news“Şehremini mi? Müfettiş mi?”, Son Telgraf, 17 June 1924, p. 2. “Çiftçi Fırkası”, İkdam, 22 January 1920, p. 2.Reference to archival documents:BOA. BEO. 3733/236781. (Note dated 1 Teşrîn-i Sânî 1326 [14 November 1910]) from the Grand Vizierate to the Ministry of War).Reference to electronic/internet source:John N. Berry, &#34;Educate Library Leaders,” Library Journal, February 15, 1998 (Online), http//www.epnet.com/ehost, 3 April 2019.Bill Crowley-Bill Brace, &#34;A Choice of Futures:  Is It Libraries Versus Information?” (Online), http//www.epnet.com/ehost, 30 March 2019.BibliographyThe following template should be used as the bibliography:Homans, George C.: “Social Behavior as Exchange”, Small Groups, Ed. A. Paul Hare, Edgar R. Bogotta, Robert F. Bales, New York, Alfred A. Knopf, 1962, pp. 170-183.Kaboğlu, İbrahim: Düşünce Özgürlüğü:  Avrupa Ölçütleri ve Türkiye”,  İnsan Hakları Yıllığı, Vol. XV, 1993, pp. 45-53.Sartori, Giovanni: Demokrasi Kuramı, Trans. Deniz Baykal, Ankara, Siyasi Bilimler Türk Derneği Yayınları, [n.d.].Tanör, Bülent: Osmanlı-Türk Anayasal Gelişmeleri, İstanbul, Der Yayınları, 1992.Appendix/Appendices:The appendix section of the manuscript contains pictures, tables, forms, lists of questionnaire questions, copies of important documents, photographs, maps, etc. Only one annex for such a single material and if deemed necessary, multiple ones for more than one material are included. Annexes are numbered to follow each other in the form of “Appendix-1, Appendix-2”, and so on, if they need to be distinguished from each other. It is recommended that each number be followed by a title indicating the content of the each appendix.Numbering titles: The following illustration shows the title numbering template to be used in the article:<img src="https://cdn.istanbul.edu.tr/file/JTA6CLJ8T5/5BFE47F3927D41DC8B3E728F9718906F"/>​<div></div>

Ensure that the following items are present:● Cover letter to the editorü  The category of the manuscriptü  Confirming that “the paper is not under consideration for publication in another journal”.ü  Including disclosure of any commercial or financial involvement.ü  Confirming that last control for fluent English was done.ü  Confirming that journal policies detailed in Information for Authors have been reviewed.ü Confirming that the references cited in the text and listed in the references section are in line with notes and bibliography system.● <a href="http://cdn.istanbul.edu.tr/FileHandler2.ashx?f=copyrighttransferformen_ydta_636935301667485649.doc" target="_blank">Copyright Agreement Form</a>● Permission of previous published material if used in the present manuscript● <a href="https://cdn.istanbul.edu.tr/file/JTA6CLJ8T5/3CA9A768A43843E38B57F329D7244835" target="_blank">Title page</a>ü  The category of the manuscriptü  The title of the manuscript both in Turkish and in Englishü  All authors’ names and affiliations (institution, faculty/department, city, country),ü  e-mail addressesü  Corresponding author’s email address, full postal address, telephone and fax numberü  ORCIDs of all authors.● Main Manuscript Documentü  The title of the manuscript both in Turkish in Englishü  Abstracts (100-150 words) both in the language of article and in Englishü  Key words: 5 words both in the language of article and in Englishü  Extended Abstract (600-800 words) in English for the articles which are not in Englishü  Acknowledgement (if exists)ü  Referencesü  Acknowledgements, grant supports, conflicts of interest should be indicatedü  All tables, illustrations (figures) (including title, description, footnotes)

Editor-in-ChiefName: Prof. Dr. Mustafa BUDAK E-mail: mustafa.budak@istanbul.edu.tr Phone: (0212) 440 00 00 (Dahili: 11950) Address: İstanbul Üniversitesi Atatürk İlkeleri ve İnkılap Tarihi Enstitüsü, Süleymaniye Mah. Besim Ömer Paşa Cad. No: 19 Kat: 4 Fatih - İstanbulEditorName: Asst. Prof. Dr. Hayrünisa ALP E-mail: hyralp@istanbul.edu.tr Phone: (0212) 440 00 00 (Dahili: 11956) Address: İstanbul Üniversitesi Atatürk İlkeleri ve İnkılap Tarihi Enstitüsü, Süleymaniye Mah. Besim Ömer Paşa Cad. No: 19 Kat: 4 Fatih - İstanbulEditorName: Asst. Prof. Dr. Yakup AHBAB E-mail: yakupahbab@hotmail.com Phone: (0212) 440 00 00 (Dahili: 10627) Address: İstanbul Üniversitesi Atatürk İlkeleri ve İnkılap Tarihi Enstitüsü, Süleymaniye Mah. Besim Ömer Paşa Cad. No: 19 Kat: 4 Fatih - İstanbulJournal ContactName: Assoc. Prof. Dr. Önder KOCATÜRK E-mail: onder.kocaturk@istanbul.edu.tr Phone: 1) 05362689505 2) 02163189780 3) 0212440 00 00 (Dahili: 10443) Address: İstanbul Üniversitesi Atatürk İlkeleri ve İnkılap Tarihi Enstitüsü, Süleymaniye Mah. Besim Ömer Paşa Cad. No: 19 Kat: 4 Fatih - İstanbulJournal ContactName: Res. Assist. Duygu SAYGIN E-mail: duygu.saygin@istanbul.edu.tr Phone: (0212) 440 00 00 (Dahili: 10437) Address: İstanbul Üniversitesi Atatürk İlkeleri ve İnkılap Tarihi Enstitüsü, Süleymaniye Mah. Besim Ömer Paşa Cad. No: 19 Kat: 4 Fatih - İstanbulJournal ContactName: Res. Assist. Umut DERE E-mail: umutdere@istanbul.edu.tr Phone: (0212) 440 00 00 (Dahili: 11955) Address: İstanbul Üniversitesi Atatürk İlkeleri ve İnkılap Tarihi Enstitüsü, Süleymaniye Mah. Besim Ömer Paşa Cad. No: 19 Kat: 4 Fatih - İstanbul

ISSN	1304-9720
E-ISSN	2547-9679
Period	Biannually
Editor	Mustafa Budak
Recent Period Turkish Studies - Yakın Dönem Türkiye Araştırmaları is the official publication of Istanbul University Institute of Ataturk’s Principles and Reforms. It is an open access, peer-reviewed, scholarly journal published two times a year in June and December. It was founded in 2002. The journal publishes original articles and studies from the disciplines of history, History of the Republic of Turkey, Atatürk’s Principles and History of Turkish Reforms, Ottoman History, sociology, literature, art history, law, political science and economics within the framework of Modern Turkish and World History. Thus it serves as a bridge between the world of science and academicians at the national and international levels. The objective of the journal is to contribute to science by publishing research articles and reviews in Turkish and English. The journal publishes, research articles and reviews evaluating and criticizing the studied subjects and presenting new and remarkable opinions read more

Recent Period Turkish Studies

RPTS

CURRENT ISSUE

Public Order and Tribe in Doğu Beyazıt (1943)

Establishment of the Police Organization in the Ottoman Empire: The Case of Urfa (1845-1918)

An Assessment for the Border Relations of Turkey with the Eastern and Southern Neighbors (1923-1940)

Examples from the Initiatives of Cyprus Orthodox Clergymen Related to Enosis with Documents from the Venizelos Archive (1914-1954)

The Report of Rumeli Advisory Committee and Answer of Edirne Governor Salim Pasha

The Turkish Grand National Assembly’s Assistance to Needy Villagers who Migrated During the Greek Occupation and Returned to Their Homeland After the Great Attack

FEATURED

The Reaction of the British Parliament to the Establishment of the Turkish Federated State of Cyprus (1975)

THE PERCEPTION OF BISMARCK IN THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE: THE CASE SPECIFIC TO ABDULHAMID II

MOST READ

A Public Official in the Ottoman Province, Ali Saib Bey and His Annex on Shkoder Province

Aviation Activities in Western Anatolia Following the Victory at Gallipoli (1915-1918)

METRICS

SUBSCRIBE

CONTACT