Yasin

Assoc. Prof.

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.

Kıbrıs Türk Federe Devleti’nin (1975) Kuruluş İlanına İngiliz Parlamentosunun Tepkisi

Yusuf

II. ABDÜLHAMİD ÖZELİNDE OSMANLI’DA BİSMARCK ALGISI

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.

Düşünceden Eyleme EOKA

Mustafa

Instructor

BİRİNCİ DÜNYA SAVAŞI’NDA İNGİLİZLERCE HİNDİSTAN’A GÖNDERİLEN TÜRK ESİRLERİ

@JOURNAL_BOX_FEATURED

Hulusi

Orta Doğu Kavramı ve Orta Doğu’nun Tarihsel Kırılma Noktaları (1878-1979)

Öğretim Görevlisi Dr.

After nearly thirty years of Sultan Abdülhamid’s rule, the Constitutional Monarchy was reinstated on July 23, 1908, through the efforts of the Committee of Union and Progress. The Unionists, who had lived in exile in Europe for many years, believed that an Ottoman Empire with a parliamentary system and a constitution would restore its lost prestige in the West. The Committee of Union and Progress saw the salvation of the Ottoman Empire, which was considered a “sick man” by the West, in adopting Western systems. Motivated by these ideas, the Unionists forced Sultan Abdülhamid to declare the Constitutional Monarchy following a rebellion they initiated in Macedonia.&nbsp;The re-proclamation of the Constitutional Monarchy aroused great excitement in Europe. Both statesmen and the press took the issue seriously. European statesmen congratulated the Ottoman authorities on the proclamation of the Constitutional Monarchy as a matter of diplomatic courtesy, but they also rigorously analyzed the potential impacts on their own countries. Especially Britain and France seemed pleased with the declaration of the Constitutional Monarchy. Britain, which had conflicted with Sultan Abdul Hamid’s administration for years, thought that it could better align with the new regime and increase its investments in the Ottoman Empire. For this reason, many British statesmen, particularly British Foreign Secretary Edward Grey, supported the Constitutional Monarchy. However, they harbored doubts about its success and followed this movement with a mix of sympathy and skepticism. France adopted a similar attitude.Conversely, other European states such as Germany and Russia were apprehensive about the Constitutional Monarchy. Germany, the only European state that had long enjoyed healthy relations with the Ottoman Empire, feared losing this influence under the new regime. Russia, on the other hand, was concerned that the new regime would strengthen the Ottoman Empire, thwarting its longstanding aim to dismantle it and seize its territories in the Balkans and the Mediterranean. Russia also feared that Britain might sympathize with the Ottoman Empire after the declaration of the Constitutional Monarchy and return to its policy of preserving its territorial integrity. However, Britain had no intention of reverting to its traditional Ottoman policy; it only wanted to keep the Ottoman Empire in a position that would not harm European politics.&nbsp;The small Balkan states of Greece and Bulgaria were also concerned about the Constitutional Monarchy. Both states, having claims over Macedonia, preferred the continuation of unrest in the region. The declaration of the Constitutional Monarchy, however, brought an end to the unrest in Macedonia and ceased the activities of local gangs, restoring Ottoman authority in the region. This situation worried Greece and Bulgaria.In addition to the official views of states, the Western press also followed the Constitutional Monarchy closely. The British and French press, in particular, were largely positive about the Constitutional Monarchy. Headlines such as “The End of the Eastern Question” and “The Awakening of the East” reflected hopes that the Constitutional Monarchy would elevate the Ottoman Empire to the level of European states. However, this goodwill and support in Europe came to an abrupt end in October 1908. A chain of events, including Bulgaria declaring its independence, Greece annexing Crete, and Austria annexing Bosnia, put the Ottoman Empire in a difficult situation early on.Faced with these crises, the Ottoman Empire expected support from European states and public opinion. However, it did not receive the anticipated support from any state or organization. European states found it in their interest to support the perpetrators of these events rather than the Ottoman Empire. Consequently, the Committee of Union and Progress realized that the idea of European support for the Ottoman Empire through the Constitutional Monarchy was merely a dream. This realization led the Unionists to intensify their rhetoric against Europe in the subsequent years. Ultimately, these tensions culminated in the Ottoman Empire opposing the European powers in the Great War.

Avrupalı Büyük Devletlerin Basın Organlarına Göre 1908 Jön Türk İhtilali ve Meşruti Yönetime Yeniden Geçilmesi

Nuran

Macedonia (including Thessaloniki, Bitola, Kosovo), with its diverse population including Greeks, Bulgarians, and Serbs, posed significant challenges for the Ottoman Empire between 1878-1908. Initially acquired by Bulgaria through the Treaty of San Stefano, Macedonia was subsequently transferred to the Ottoman Empire under the Treaty of Berlin. Consequently, after 1878, Bulgarians aimed to regain the borders established by the Treaty of San Stefano. They initially focused on securing independent churches and schools in Macedonia and attempted to convert Greeks and Serbs to the Bulgarian Church to bolster their population. The Greeks and Serbs responded in kind, forming committees to counter Bulgarian activities. Moreover, amidst internal conflicts, these groups clashed with Ottoman soldiers. Another tactic employed by Bulgarians to reclaim the San Stefano borders was to incite European intervention through organized revolts. The Bulgarian rebellions in 1902 and 1903 were particularly bloody, leaving Macedonia embroiled in prolonged instability. The European States (Britain, France, Germany, Austria-Hungary, Russia, Italy) had conflicting interests in the Balkans and considered the situation in Macedonia crucial. Their compromise in 1878 aimed to prevent the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, even amidst territorial losses, to maintain European peace. Four reform programs were implemented between 1903 and 1907, each aimed at restoring order and diminishing Ottoman influence.&nbsp;With the implementation of the first reform program, Austria-Hungary and Russia gained influence over the administration of Macedonia. In the Vienna Reform Program, the two states agreed that the police and gendarmerie in the region would be organized by European officers. However, the program could only be implemented for a very short time. The large-scale revolt of the Bulgarians in 1903 drew the attention of the European &nbsp;States to Macedonia. Thus, in 1904, a broader program to restore order in Macedonia was adopted by the Ottoman government. As part of the Mürzsteg Program, two civil servants, an Austrian and a Russian, were appointed to assist the inspector general assigned to Macedonia by the Ottoman government. Their purpose was to conduct inspections and address the complaints of the Christian population. In addition, the organization of gendarmerie units was to continue in order to maintain public order. The final two reforms aimed to ensure that the financial and judicial affairs of Macedonia were under the control of the European states. The implementation of the reform programs, initially planned for two years, was continuously extended until 1914.&nbsp;However, these reforms were deemed insufficient, prompting Britain and Russia to propose the Anglo-Russian reform program. This program aimed to appoint a Christian governor to Macedonia, reduce the number of soldiers, and increase the number of gendarmes under European control. With the implementation of the Anglo-Russian reform program, Macedonia was intended to have an autonomous structure under the control of the European states, allowing it to make its own decisions while remaining tied to the Ottoman Empire. The Ottoman Empire declared that it would never accept this reform program. The reform draft was also not immediately accepted by other states.On the other hand, the Anglo-Russian reform bill mobilized the Committee of Union and Progress, which had been rapidly organizing among the officers of the Third Army in Macedonia since 1907. Working towards the declaration of the Constitutional Monarchy for the second time, the Committee was closely monitoring developments in Macedonia. The Committee of Union and Progress opposed Europe’s intervention in Macedonia once again, believing that the last proposed reform program would lead to the loss of Macedonia. Additionally, the proposal to reduce the number of soldiers in the Anglo-Russian reform draft would weaken the Committee’s power in Macedonia and hinder the declaration of the Constitutional Monarchy. Consequently, the draft had unexpected repercussions for the European states. The Committee of Union and Progress, which had been secretly organized in Macedonia, emerged into the open to demonstrate its power to the European states. The Anglo-Russian reform bill, along with other factors, delayed the proclamation of the Second Constitutional Monarchy from the planned time. In this study, the Anglo-Russian reform bill will be analyzed, and its consequences will be emphasized.

Makedonya’da Son Islahat: İngiliz-Rus Islahat Tasarısı (8 Mart 1908)

Ümüt

Prof. Dr.

Cholera, which occurs due to consuming food and drinks contaminated with the vib rio cholerae bacterium, is a severe disease characterized by watery diarrhea. The bacte rium is a comma-shaped gram-negative pathogen that can survive in both oxygenated and anaerobic environments. After an incubation period of 1-4 days, symptoms such as muscle aches, exhaustion, nonstop vomiting, and rice-water-like diarrhea appear. Excessive fluid loss causes tissues to shrink, and the skin changes color between black and blue. Death is inevitable as kidney failure occurs due to unrecoverable fluid loss.The spread of cholera in the 19th century also impacted the Ottoman Empire due to its geopolitical and geostrategic position. This study examines the global and local his torical development of cholera, particularly during the Second Constitutional years. It aims to shed light on the disease’s agenda between 1908 and 1914, examining its place in intellectual and social contexts in terms of raising social awareness about cholera. This qualitative research uses documentary scanning to obtain valid data from archival documents, minutes, periodicals, regulations, and books. A literature review was also conducted for documentary validation. Data from these scans were classified and evalu ated through document analysis.Cholera’s ability to survive in varied environments has enabled epidemics to turn into pandemics amid climatic changes and socio-economic conditions. Although chole ra had been present in India for centuries, it became a global issue in the 19th century due to industrialization and urbanization. Due to its geopolitical and geostrategic positi on, the Ottoman Empire faced several cholera epidemics in 1831, 1846, 1849, 1854, 1865, 1871, 1893, and 1902, particularly in Istanbul. Measures against these epidemics were hampered by technical failures, financial difficulties, rigid ideologies, and unplan ned policies. Nevertheless, the state continued to combat epidemics by strengthening legal regulations, improving the conditions for physicians, and enhancing the quality of health institutions.Between 1908 and 1914, the chaotic environment, compounded by internal and ex ternal political conditions, was further strained by epidemics. Cholera epidemics, parti cularly severe in Istanbul from 1909 to 1913, were added to a series of events including the proclamation of Constitutionalism and the Balkan Wars. The surge in the disease during 1910 and 1911, exacerbated by refugees from the Balkan Wars, mobilized burea ucrats, physicians, and media. Parliamentary debates at the time show that combined efforts of civil and military bureaucrats, doctors, and vaccination processes helped miti gate cholera’s impact. The chaos in Istanbul due to cholera also highlighted the impor tance of social awareness. The early years of the period saw a boom in press and publis hing, which, coupled with print capitalism and logistical modernization, expanded information channels. The set of ideas that defined cholera and its characteristics aimed to break the misconceptions about the disease. These ideas focused on the relationship between nutrition and cholera, emphasizing how dietary habits could influence the spre ad and severity of the disease. Attention was drawn to the fine line between the digesti ve system and cholera, highlighting the importance of understanding how the disease affects and is affected by digestive health. The correct cleaning methods were pointed out, emphasizing their role in preventing the spread of cholera. Furthermore, practices that should be carried out to avoid contracting the disease were clearly explained. These comprehensive ideas and guidelines kept both individuals and institutions alert and in formed about the development and spread of cholera.&nbsp;Between 1909 and 1913, the problems caused by cholera, in addition to existing do mestic and foreign policy issues, intensified both collective and individual efforts to enhance intellectual discourse. When examining the intellectual atmosphere of the peri od, it is evident that reactions to epidemics such as cholera accelerated the public’s and individuals’ engagement with everyday, objective knowledge. As can be easily seen when the intellectual atmosphere of the period is investigated, the reaction to epidemics such as cholera accelerated the activities of the individual and society’s acquaintance with every day, objective knowledge. Cholera epidemics, which played a pivotal role in transforming the dynamics of the industrialized world, catalyzed significant changes during the Second Constitutional Monarchy years. The collective awareness, planning, and institutionalization developed during these epidemics significantly impacted health and municipal policies inherited by the Republican Era. The psychological distress cau sed by epidemics among individuals, cities, and states also shaped these policies.

Kolera Hastalığı ve II. Meşrutiyet Yıllarında Bu Hastalığa Karşı Toplumsal Bilinçlendirmeyi Arttırma Çabaları (1908-1914)

Sadık

While some intellectuals who expressed their views on the definition of a nation highlighted the importance of culture, the desire to live together and historical awareness, others emphasized lineage. Some intellectuals claimed that states create nations, arguing that a nation emerges only when it can be organized into an independent state. In contrast, Ernest Gellner argued that nationalism creates the nation by reviving dead languages and inventing traditions. During the deliberations of various draft laws in the parliament, it is understood that minority deputies in Ottoman society aimed to highlight their own identities and cultures and have them accepted by other communities. It was emphasized that, particularly in the parliament’s early period, efforts in this direction were curtailed by the president of the parliament, asserting that everyone should unite under the name “Ottoman” regardless of ethnic identity. Additionally, the speaker of the parliament frequently warned deputies not to engage in debates on the definition of a nation. While some minority deputies advocated for uniting under the Ottoman umbrella, others were accused of attempting to disrupt this unity. For instance, Filip Mise Efendi claimed that the Vlachs were proud of being Ottoman, while the Greek deputies made attempts to disrupt this unity.Fierce debates also occurred during the discussions on the Law of Associations. Deputies expressed differing opinions on whether societies bearing ethnic identity names could be established. Minority deputies argued that such associations were crucial for minorities to preserve their culture and would not lead to the state’s disintegration. Tekfurdağı Deputy Adil Bey disagreed, warning that such associations could fuel separation. Serfiçe Deputy Yorgo Boşo argued that minorities were known to be part of the Ottoman subjects, and such societies would not aim for separation. He suggested that if associations with ethnic identity names were not allowed, changing the names of Turkish and non-Muslim deputies like Ohannes and Yorgi would also become a topic of discussion. As a result, the establishment of societies with the names of tribes was prohibited.After the Balkan Wars, it became apparent that Turkish deputies increasingly emphasized Turkish identity and language in their parliamentary speeches. Following the minorities’ independence from the Ottoman Empire, deputies such as Istanbul Deputy Şefik Bey, Karahisar-ı Sahip Deputy Ağaoğlu Ahmet Bey, and Antalya Deputy Hamdullah Suphi Bey frequently emphasized Turkish identity and the importance of the Turkish language from the parliamentary rostrum. Trabzon Deputy Mehmet Emin Bey highlighted that minorities had strengthened their national feelings through the nationalist movement, and Turks could no longer ignore this situation, choosing instead to assert their own identity and culture. This issue gained prominence in parliament after Şerif Pasha’s efforts to establish Kurdistan at the Paris Peace Conference. Telegrams sent by Kurds to the parliament indicated that they did not see themselves as a separate nation from the Turks and disapproved of Şerif Pasha’s activities. Although some deputies increasingly emphasized Turkish identity, the term “Ottoman” continued to be used as the name of the nation, claiming it was inclusive.

1908-1920 Yılları Arasında Osmanlı Meclis-i Mebusanında Millet Tanımı Tartışmaları

Mehmet

Assoc. Prof. Dr.

From the Armistice period through the Republican era, the approach of both the state and the society towards disabled veterans was quite problematic. The state had difficulty providing a satisfactory welfare umbrella for disabled veterans and, on the other hand, it was also reluctant to let them establish large-scale autonomous civic associations through which they could demand measures to improve their situation. On a more general social level, despite the glorification of military culture within the framework of national identity and the abundant use of militarist motifs, ableist biases towards disabled veterans were still very strong. This article focuses on how disabled veterans of the Ten-Year War (1912-1922) were represented in Turkish literature from the Armistice through the Republican periods. By using the literary texts that were produced in the period under study from a historian’s point of view, its aim is to better understand the existing perception of disabled veterans in particular and disability in general. Dealing specifically with novels and stories, the article discusses that the existing approach to disabled veterans, which was quite problematic in the era under study, was also reflected in the literary texts produced in this period. However, the article also discusses that these literary texts themselves were among the factors that shaped this troubled perception. In that respect, the article underlines three main problems.&nbsp;Firstly, it seems that persistent ableist biases and the masculine perspective fed by militarist motifs led to the creation of an almost stereotyped disabled veteran character in literary texts. A main distinctive feature of this stereotype is that it tends to regard disabled veterans as incompatible with the image of “an ideal masculine soldier”. That ideal image was actually very strong the literature of the era. For example, Yakup Kadri &nbsp;Karaosmanoğlu’s Kiralık Konak (1922) [Mansion for Rent] is one of the perfect texts to trace this masculine soldier image. Hakkı Celis, its main male character, turns into a “real man” when he is enlisted as a reserve officer to serve in Çanakkale. Becoming a soldier is portrayed as a kind of catharsis, a transition from being a fragile and snob boy into a strong and well-built masculine man. In this perspective, disability is seen as a cause of incompatibility primarily because it would undermine the manliness and masculinity of a soldier. For example, the story of Ali Seyfi, a reserve officer serving in Çanakkale in Peyami Safa’s (aka Serve Bedi) Ateş (1944) [The Fire] is a perfect case of this anxiety. When severely wounded on the front, Ali Seyfi loses not only a leg, but also his genital organ. In the novel, this loss is described as the greatest disaster that can happen to a soldier. As discussed in the article, this anxiety of losing manliness, both literally and metaphorically, has also had wider repercussions in Turkish nationalism.&nbsp;Secondly, instead of being analyzed in depth within their own real and complex contexts, disabled veteran characters are usually used as auxiliary elements to strengthen a different message in the political-ideological or moral agenda of authors and their literary texts. In other words, in such cases a disabled veteran character is used as a tool to convey to the reader another, and possibly more “lofty” mission. For example, Ahmet Celâl in Yakup Kadri Karaosmanoğlu’s Yaban (1932) [The Alien], a disabled ex-reserve officer who lost his right arm in the First World War and re-settled in a village near Eskişehir, is actually a functional character to underline the legitimacy of the Turkish National Struggle.And thirdly, in the shadow of the hegemonic masculine and militarist body image blended with ableist biases, disabled veteran characters are often forced to achieve extraordinary duties in the literary texts produced during the period under study. They are forced to take an extraordinary action, as if they need to do this to compensate their physical deficiencies or, as if this is necessary for them to become “legitimate” literary characters. For example, although Tarık Buğra’s Küçük Ağa (1974) [The Little Agha] is a relatively recent literary text, it does not make any “revision” in terms of the stereotyped disabled veteran characters in Turkish literature; as a matter of fact, it reproduces many of the symptoms that those characters suffer from, through the character of Salih the One Armed (Çolak). Salih lost his right arm on the Iraqi front in the First World War. As soon as he returns to his hometown Akşehir, not only is his disability not appreciated by local people, he is also forced to constantly re-prove himself. That appreciation is only shown when Salih trains himself to become a sharpshooter with a pistol, joins the Nationalist Forces (Kuvayı Milliye) and becomes a warrior again.Though the main focus of the article is the early Republican era (1923-1946), it also extends its time period until the 1980s. It deals with the social realist literary perspective in order to make a comparison. In that respect, disabled veteran characters in the novels of Orhan Kemal and Kemal Tahir are analyzed and compared to those portrayed during the early Republican period.&nbsp;

Mütareke’den Cumhuriyet’e Türk Edebiyatında Malûl Gazi Tiplemeleri ve Malûl Gazi Algısı

Çağlar

Following the Battles of Kütahya-Eskişehir, the Turkish Army halted the Greek forces in the Polatlı-Haymana region, east of Sakarya. Mustafa Kemal Pasha declared, “There is no defense of the line. There is a defense of the surface. That surface is the entire homeland. The homeland cannot be abandoned unless every inch of the homeland is watered with the blood of its citizens.” The Turkish Army’s defense culminated in a 22-day battle, preventing the Greek forces from advancing further. This marked the end of Turkish defensive operations since 1683 and initiated the army’s preparation phase for an offensive.On September 13, 1921, the Turkish Army underwent a reorganization. The 5th Cavalry Group was renamed the 5th Cavalry Corps, with the 14th Cavalry Division remaining under its command. From September 14 to 30, Greek commander Anastasios Papoulas realized that the 4th Greek Division was isolated in Afyonkarahisar and sent the 1st Corps to reinforce it. An army group consisting of four divisions and one regiment was established under General Yorgos Kondilis. On October 1, the Greek forces aimed to capture the hills dominating the Afyonkarahisar Plain. The Turkish 2nd and 5th Corps decided to attack the Greek forces from the southeast of Afyonkarahisar.On September 30, 1921, the Turkish Army postponed the attack against the Greek forces in Afyonkarahisar, which had been there since September 24, to October 2, 1921. The Western Front headquarters, situated in the eastern part of Afyonkarahisar, was approximately 140 kilometers away from the 2nd and 5th Corps. This distance caused significant delays in troop communications. Furthermore, adverse seasonal conditions compounded these challenges, rendering the operation more difficult and leading to further delays. The 5th Corps and its affiliated 14th Division commenced the attack&nbsp;from the northeast of Afyonkarahisar on October 1. However, due to the 2nd Corps joining the attack on October 2, its impact was diminished, leading to the Turkish Army’s failure in the battle that concluded on October 8. Had the 2nd Corps acted on time, the Greek Army could have been defeated in Afyonkarahisar, eliminating the need for the subsequent Great Offensive and Pursuit Operation.The 14th Cavalry Division, under the command of Mehmet Suphi Bey, participated in the attack with its three regiments. The division was in close contact with Greek forces during the Afyonkarahisar Battles. War reports indicate that the division tried to implement the orders received from the Corps and relayed them to the affiliated regiments. However, the delayed transmission of orders from the Western Front Command to the 5th Corps Command hindered the operation. Fahrettin Pasha, the 5th Cavalry Corps Commander, received orders late and subsequently sent delayed orders to Mehmet Suphi Bey. Despite this, Mehmet Suphi Bey issued orders in accordance with the Corps’ directives and the operation’s progress.War reports from the 14th Division reveal that it received situation reports from its regiments and informed the Corps about the division’s general progress. These reports detailed the movements of Greek forces, areas of engagement, and casualties. The war report was maintained daily by the division, with at least two reports written each day.The battle’s failure necessitated the preparation of the “Sad Offensive Plan”, followed by the “Kaf Defense Plan”. The Battle of Afyonkarahisar served as a rehearsal for the Great Offensive ten months later, providing valuable experience to the Turkish Army’s command level. Due to the lessons learned from the battles, it was decided to gather Turkish forces to the southwest of Afyonkarahisar. The shortcomings identified during the Battle of Afyonkarahisar were addressed. Consequently, leveraging the insights from this engagement, the offensive launched on August 26, 1922, proved to be triumphant.

14. Süvari Tümeni’nin Harp Raporuna Göre  Afyonkarahisar Muharebesi (1 – 8 Ekim 1921)

Hadiye

Deniz

Prof.

Ulusal Kimlik Bağlamında Tasarımlanan Cumhuriyet Vatandaşı İmajları

Ferhat

This study scrutinizes debt consolidation from 1958 to 1965, with a focus on the pivotal year 1960. The study argues that this consolidation is a product of preceding economic policies (1946-1958) and explores the preconditions leading to debt emergence. It utilizes quantitative data from the Directorate of State Archives and Turkish Diplomatic Archives, alongside Grand National Assembly minutes, the Official Gazette, and periodicals. Grand National Assembly minutes serve as the primary source. This unique study offers a comprehensive historical narrative, addressing both quantitative and qualitative aspects of debt consolidation, filling a notable gap in research.Two pivotal mechanisms shaped Türkiye’s economic policies in the post-World War II period. First, despite criticism, a deliberate devaluation in September 1946 aimed to align domestic and international trade terms, thereby promoting liberal integration into the global economic system. Second, although never implemented, the 1947 Türkiye Economic Development Plan emphasized allowing the private sector to develop “with complete freedom and safety” throughout the 1950s. As the primary actors shaping Türkiye’s post-1945 era, commercial capitalists played a critical role. Both agribusiness merchants and importers of manufactured goods and means of production benefited from the 1946 devaluation and the subsequent liberalized foreign trade regime. These conditions facilitated capital accumulation for both agribusiness merchants and large landowners involved in exports and imports dealing with manufactured goods and means of production.The 1946 devaluation was perceived positively as it stimulated agricultural production, bolstered heavily exported goods, and fostered expanded trade. Indeed, owners of commercial capital played a decisive role in the liberalization of imports in 1950. With devaluation and liberalized imports, economic growth averaged 10% per annum until the first quarter of the 1950s, with a significant share of agricultural output at the forefront. However, persistent challenges in the form of balance of payment deficits emerged as a consequence of the economic expansion. The 1954 pamphlet titled “Kalkınan (Developing) Türkiye”, published by the Democrat Party, asserted that a deficit in the balance of payments was deemed necessary to “equip and develop the country.” Concurrently, the global discourse echoed the sentiment that “Development is not possible without foreign aid!”&nbsp;By the first quarter of the 1950s, when the financing capacities for foreign trade had reached their limits, a shift in the developmental paradigm occurred. The focus turned towards considering domestic conditions as pivotal factors for development. Efforts to address external dependence involved expanding credit and domestic demand facilities provided by institutions such as the Central Bank, state banks, and State Economic Enterprises (SEEs). Despite these endeavors, economic policies encountered an impasse in 1958, exacerbated by the inclusion of inflation alongside the persistent foreign trade deficit. In response to these challenges, a stabilization program was implemented in 1958. This initiative sought to resolve existing problems through strategies such as removing SEEs from the state budget, regulating the money and credit markets, streamlining the foreign exchange system, promoting exports, and establishing a price system aligned with global prices. However, it is noteworthy that this program marked the commencement of a consolidation phase for preceding economic policies.This paper examines the consolidation of public and nationalized private sector debt in Türkiye between 1958 and 1965, which amounted to approximately 16 billion TL. Although the consolidation process started in 1958, the actual consolidation took place in 1960 and extended until 1965. The consolidated debts were gradually liquidated in a prescribed manner, with maturities of 10–100 years and interest rates ranging from 0.5 6%. In this study, this consolidation process is referred to as gradual consolidation. Private sector debts stemmed from foreign trade and imports on credit, liquidated banks and farmers’ debts. Farmers’ resort to loan sharks to settle their debts was emphasized in connection with delays in the repayment of loans from Ziraat Bank and Agricultural Credit Cooperatives. Moreover, the process that started in the second half of the 1950s with the liquidation of small banks in the banking sector and the enactment of Law No.7129 continued after the 1960 coup. Public debt consists of the debt of public institutions, enterprises, the Central Bank and other public banks. The consolidated public debt was not redeemed until 1973, with the enactment of Law No. 154 in 1963 and additional laws, and was then liquidated with interest-free government domestic debt securities until 1985. In conclusion, the study reveals that public debt and certain private sector debts, which emerged as a result of the economic policies of the 1946–1958 period, were gradually deferred to the 1970s and 1980s through debt relief.

Vitrinleri Dolduran İthal Malların Bedeli: Kademeli Borç Tahkimi (1958-1965)

Enes

Türkiye-Israel diplomatic relations started with the recognition of Türkiye regarding the State of Israel on March 28, 1949, approximately one year after its establishment on May 14, 1948. Türkiye’s diplomatic crises with Israel as a result of the Arab-Israeli wars became an important determinant of the relations between the two countries over time. Türkiye’s recall of its ambassador in Tel Aviv during the 1956 Arab-Israeli War, its condemnation of Israel during the 1967 Arab-Israeli War, demanding Israel’s withdrawal from Arabian territories occupied by Israel (June 22, 1967), and the declaration that Türkiye would allow the Soviet Union to use its airspace to deliver military supplies to Arab countries affected the relations between the two countries negatively. Similarly, Türkiye’s bilateral relations with Israel followed a fluctuating course until the 1980s after it accepted Zionism as racism at the meeting of the United Nations on November 10, 1975. Israel’s declaration of Jerusalem as the eternal and unchanging capital on July 23, 1980, caused a new crisis in the relations between the two countries. After this decision of Israel, Türkiye condemned Israel with the Resolution 478 of the United Nations by recalling the Chargé D’affaires and reducing its diplomatic relations with this state to the lowest level.Türkiye tried to improve its relations with the Islamic World after reducing the level of diplomatic representation with Israel to the level of Second Clerk. The thoughts and political understanding of Turgut Özal, who served as the Prime Minister and President of Türkiye in the 1980s and 1990s, also affected Türkiye’s decision to develop bilateral relations with Islamic countries. During his tenure, Turgut Özal argued that the Muslim population living in the Ottoman remnant regions had a privileged place in Turkish foreign policy, and for this reason, Türkiye must lead the Islamic countries. Another factor that affected Özal’s political thoughts was his economy-oriented foreign policy approach. Özal adopted an economy-oriented foreign policy understanding throughout his political life and believed that the political problems between states could be&nbsp;resolved through the development of economic relations and interdependence, and he built his policies in the field of international relations on economic foundations.&nbsp;Turgut Özal’s understanding of economy-based foreign policy was a determining factor in Türkiye’s relations with the Middle Eastern countries between 1983-1993 when he served as the Prime Minister and President. Although Türkiye’s total exports to the Middle East were 18% and imports 22% in the 1970s, its exports increased to 40% and imports to 35% in the 1980s, when Özal remained in power. Although Türkiye established closer ties with Islamic states to find solutions to the problems, it did not prioritize the development of its bilateral relations with Israel and remained distant from this state.&nbsp;Despite Türkiye’s development of economic relations with Islamic states, its distance from Israel caused serious discomfort during these years. As a result, although Turkish statesmen in the 1980s believed that Israel should withdraw from the Arabian lands occupied in 1967 to achieve peace in the Middle East, Türkiye-Israel relations could not develop further until the early 1990s. This study aims to uncover the political relations between Türkiye and Israel between the years 1983 and 1993 when Turgut Özal was the Prime Minister and President. To understand how Türkiye’s policies towards Israel were shaped during this period, Türkiye-Israel relations after September 12, 1980 were also discussed. The sources of this historical study, that was based on document analysis, include the newspapers Cumhuriyet, Milliyet, Hürriyet, and Güneş, as well as statements of Turgut Özal given to the press, other periodicals, books, and archive documents of the same period. The findings of the study were collected using the document analysis technique, and the data were analyzed with the content analysis technique. The political relations of the two countries were discussed under four headings: “A General Overview of Türkiye-Israel Political Relations after September 12, 1980 (1980-1983)”, “Türkiye Israel Political Relations during the 1st Özal Government (1983-1987)”, “Türkiye-Israel Political Relations during the 2nd Özal Government (1987-1989)”, and “Türkiye-Israel Political Relations during the Presidency of Turgut Özal (1989-1993)”.The study found that Türkiye’s political relations with Israel did not develop significantly as a reflection of Turgut Özal’s foreign policy understanding between 1983-1991 when he served as Prime Minister and President. The idea of establishing bilateral relations remained at the level of mere discourse until 1991. The establishment of the Demirel-İnönü Coalition Government in Türkiye decreased Özal’s influence in foreign policy, and the level of diplomatic representation between Türkiye and Israel was raised to the level of an embassy in December 1991.

Turgut Özal Dönemi Türkiye-İsrail Siyasi İlişkilerinin Türk Basınına Yansımaları (1983-1993)

Onur

The elements of traditional Ottoman music that appealed to elite tastes were associated with the category of classical music for the first time at the end of the nineteenth century. This new category emerged as an attempt to maintain and elevate the status and demarcate the boundaries of this music, whose place in hierarchies of taste had become blurred and which was beginning to experience a crisis of legitimacy. This reformulation was also part of the efforts to incorporate it into the discourses of national music. Unlike many popular music genres, critics, intellectuals, and writers are essential in shaping the values and standards of highbrow cultures, such as classical music traditions. Through the discourses they generate, they demarcate the boundaries between the genre and the other music cultures, define its canons, and formulate arguments to maintain and elevate its position in the hierarchies of taste. This study argues that Rauf Yekta played a pivotal role in constructing the category of Turkish classical music, delineating its boundaries, and developing arguments to establish its superiority over other music genres. Rauf Yekta’s social and educational background, his upbringing in elite music circles, his knowledge and authority in various fields of music, the public duties he undertook at the Istanbul Conservatory and official boards, his reputation in Türkiye as well as in the international community as a respected musicologist, and his influential polemical articles in newspapers made him the best person to assume this role. This does not mean that he completely invented the category of Turkish classical music. Rather, this article argues that he reformulated components that had already existed for centuries in the oral and written traditions of elite music culture to which he belonged.In this context, the primary documents written by Rauf Yekta, spanning from the late 1800s to his death in 1935, as well as his interviews and polemics, were analyzed from &nbsp;the perspective of music sociology. This allowed for the identification of the taste hierarchies he established between Turkish classical music and other music cultures along different axes. On the horizontal axis, Rauf Yekta compares highbrow music cultures, which he believes are somewhat equivalent to each other. On the vertical axis, he contrasts these highbrow musical genres with popular and folk music cultures, which he considered to be beneath them in the hierarchy of taste. Finally, he evaluates whether these musical genres have a national character, contrasting them along the nationality axis. In each of these axes, which contrast various music cultures along binary oppositions, he places Turkish classical music at the top of the hierarchy of taste.When he refers to Western classical music as the counterpart of Turkish classical music, he makes positive statements about it, viewing both as superior to popular music genres. However, because he was always skeptical about the mutual understanding and enjoyment of musical cultures by listeners from different societies, he labeled Western music as something totally alien to the Turkish soul. He reformulated Ottoman/Turkish classical music as the national music of new Türkiye, positioned folk music as a primitive and plebeian branch of national music, and classified Western music and Western-oriented Turkish polyphonic music, which he called “the new school of composition,” as non-national. Although he justifiably opposed the Eurocentric approach, arguing for the non-hierarchical coexistence of different musical systems with their own values and standards, he developed an ethnocentric approach motivated by his polemical language, conservative/nationalist leanings, and prejudices against Western music culture. Accordingly, he attempted to prove the superiority of Turkish classical music over Western music by reversing the Eurocentric scheme and contrasting polyphonic and maqam-based music cultures from a dichotomous perspective.In his early writings, he was relatively more favorable towards innovations in Turkish music using Western music techniques. However, he gradually hardened his stance against all Western-oriented musical practices. Regarding popular music, he was rigorously strict about demarcating the boundaries between popular and classical music, viewing commercialized popular music- which he frequently referred to with derogatory terms like “market,” “tavern,” or “vulgar” music, etc.- as lacking aesthetic value and not deserving of inclusion in national music. Throughout the Republican era, the Turkish classical music community’s mentality patterns have been influenced by Rauf Yekta’s framework. As a result, this community transformed into an insular, conservative group that adopted a hostile attitude towards popular music, restricted its repertoire to specific eras in a way that extols the old while being skeptical of anything new, and set rigid boundaries between Turkish classical music and other musical genres and styles. On the other hand, Rauf Yekta’s efforts played a pivotal role in maintaining the aesthetic standards and values of the classical tradition, preventing its assimilation into popular entertainment culture, and reinforcing its status and group identity at a time when its symbolic status and legitimacy were declining.

Klasik Türk Müziği Kategorisinin Doğuşu ve  Rauf Yekta: Öteki Müzikler Karşısında Klasik Türk Müziği

Esra

Assist. Prof.

Hanife

Türk-Sovyet Kültürel İlişkilerine Müzik Yönlü Bir Bakış

@JOURNAL_BOX_CURRENT

Yakup

Merve

Öğretim Görevlisi

Çözüm ya da Çıkar Odaklı Politika mı? Kıbrıs Çatışması  Üzerinde 1960-1974 Yılları Arasındaki Uluslararası Etki

Gunel

Rusya-Ermenistan İnsani İş Birliği (1991-2023)

@JOURNAL_BOX_EARLYVIEW

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.

Osmanlı Taşrasında Bir Kamu Görevlisi, Ali Saib Bey ve İşkodra Vilayetine Dair Layihası

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.

Çanakkale Zaferi’nden Sonra Batı Anadolu’da Havacılık Faaliyetleri (1915-1918)

@JOURNAL_BOX_MOSTREAD

Yakın Dönem Türkiye Araştırmaları-Recent Period Turkish Studies, İstanbul Üniversitesi Atatürk İlkeleri ve İnkılap Tarihi Enstitüsü’nün yayınıdır. Açık-erişimli, bilimsel, hakemli ve bölgesel odaklı uluslararası bir dergidir; öncelikle Türkiye’nin tarihsel olarak ilişkili olduğu bölgeler olan Balkanlar, Doğu Avrupa, Doğu Akdeniz, Orta Asya ve Orta Doğu’dan akademisyenleri, okurları ve yazarları hedefler. Yılda iki defa Haziran ve Aralık aylarında yayınlanır. Derginin başlangıç tarihi 2002’dir. 2024 itibariyle basılı versiyon durdurulmuştur. Dergi sadece online olarak yayınlanmaktadır.

Dergi, yakın dönem Türk ve Dünya Tarihini ilgilendiren tarih, Türkiye Cumhuriyeti Tarihi, Atatürk İlkeleri ve İnkılap Tarihi, Osmanlı Tarihi, sosyoloji, edebiyat, sanat tarihi, hukuk, siyaset bilimi, iktisat disiplinlerinden özgün araştırmalara dayanan çalışmaları yayınlanmaktadır . Derginin amacı Türkçe, İngilizce, Almanca ve Fransızca araştırma, inceleme, derleme yazıları yayınlamak suretiyle bilime katkı sağlamaktır. 

Dergi odaklandığı alanlarda boşluğu dolduracak özgün araştırmalara dayanan makaleler; incelenen konuları zengin bir kaynakçaya dayanarak değerlendiren, eleştiren ve bu konuda yeni ve dikkate değer görüşler ortaya koyan araştırma, inceleme ve derleme yazıları yayınlar.

Alanla ilgili çevirilere ve durumun belirtilmesi koşulu ile daha önce bir bilimsel kongrede sunulmuş ancak yayınlanmamış bildirilerin metinlere; Milli Mücadele ve Türkiye Cumhuriyeti ile ilgili eser, şahsiyet ve ilmi faaliyetlerin tanıtım yazılarına da dergide yer verilir.

Derginin tüm giderleri İstanbul Üniversitesi tarafından karşılanmaktadır. Dergide makale yayını ve makale süreçlerinin yürütülmesi ücrete tabi değildir. Dergiye gönderilen ya da yayın için kabul edilen makaleler için işlemleme ücreti ya da gönderim ücreti alınmaz.

ResearchBib

Scopus

Emerging Sources Citation Index (ESCI)

EBSCO

ERIH PLUS

İslâm Araştırmaları Merkezi (İSAM)

TR Dizin

DOAJ

SOBIAD

@METRIC_VOLUMES

@METRIC_ISSUES

@METRIC_ARTICLES

@METRIC_OPENACCESS

Yakın Dönem Türkiye Araştırmaları

@INFO_TAB_ABOUT

Editor in Chief

Co Editor in Chief

Editorial Management Board Member

Book Review Editor

Editorial Assistant

Language Editor

Editorial Board Member

@INFO_TAB_BOARDS

Yakın Dönem Türkiye Araştırmaları-Recent Period Turkish Studies, yılda iki defa yayınlanan (Aralık-Haziran) bilimsel, açık erişimli ve hakemli bir dergidir. Dergi, yakın dönem Türk ve Dünya Tarihini ilgilendiren tarih, Türkiye Cumhuriyeti Tarihi, Atatürk İlkeleri ve İnkılap Tarihi, Osmanlı Tarihi, sosyoloji, edebiyat, sanat tarihi, hukuk, siyaset bilimi, iktisat disiplinlerinden özgün araştırmalara dayanan çalışmaları yayınlanmakta, bu sayede ulusal ve uluslararası düzeyde bilim dünyası ile akademisyenler arasında bir köprü görevi görmektedir.Yakın Dönem Türkiye Araştırmaları-Recent Period Turkish Studies dergisinin amacı Türkçe, İngilizce, Almanca ve Fransızca araştırma makaleleri ve inceleme yazıları yayınlamak suretiyle bilime katkı sağlamaktır.Yakın Dönem Türkiye Araştırmaları-Recent Period Turkish Studies dergisinin kapsamını yakın dönem Türk ve Dünya Tarihini ilgilendiren tarih, Türkiye Cumhuriyeti Tarihi, Atatürk İlkeleri ve İnkılap Tarihi, Osmanlı Tarihi, sosyoloji, edebiyat, sanat tarihi, hukuk, siyaset bilimi, iktisat disiplinleri oluşturur. Dergi odaklandığı alanlarda boşluğu dolduracak özgün araştırmalara dayanan makaleler; incelenen konuları zengin bir kaynakçaya dayanarak değerlendiren, eleştiren ve bu konuda yeni ve dikkate değer görüşler ortaya koyan araştırma, inceleme ve derleme yazıları yayınlar. Alanla ilgili çeviriler ve durumun belirtilmesi koşulu ile daha önce bir bilimsel kongrede sunulmuş ancak yayınlanmamış bildirilerin metinleri; Milli Mücadele ve Türkiye Cumhuriyeti ile ilgili eser, şahsiyet ve ilmi faaliyetlerin tanıtım yazıları da dergide yayınlanır.

Amaç ve Kapsam

<ul><li>Web of Science – Emerging Sources Citation Index (ESCI) </li><li>TÜBİTAK ULAKBİM TR Dizin</li><li>DOAJ</li><li>ERIH PLUS </li><li>EBSCO Central &amp; Eastern European Academic Source</li><li>Research Bible (ResearchBib)</li><li>İslâm Araştırmaları Merkezi (İSAM)</li><li>Sosyal Bilimler Atıf Dizini (SOBIAD)</li><li>Scopus</li></ul>

Dizinler

Dergi yayın etiğinde en yüksek standartlara bağlıdır ve <a href="https://publicationethics.org/" target="_blank">Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)</a>, <a href="https://doaj.org/apply/transparency/#principles-of-transparency-and-best-practice-in-scholarly-publishing" target="_blank">Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ)</a>, <a href="https://oaspa.org/" target="_blank">Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association (OASPA)</a> ve <a href="https://www.wame.org/" target="_blank">World Association of Medical Editors (WAME)</a> tarafından yayınlanan etik yayıncılık ilkelerini benimser; Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing başlığı altında ifade edilen ilkeler için: <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> Gönderilen makaleler derginin amaç ve kapsamına uygun olmalıdır. Orijinal, yayınlanmamış ve başka bir dergide değerlendirme sürecinde olmayan, her bir yazar tarafından içeriği ve gönderimi onaylanmış yazılar değerlendirmeye kabul edilir. Makale yayınlanmak üzere Dergiye gönderildikten sonra yazarlardan hiçbirinin ismi, tüm yazarların yazılı izni olmadan yazar listesinden silinemez ve yeni bir isim yazar olarak eklenemez ve yazar sırası değiştirilemez.İntihal, duplikasyon, sahte yazarlık/inkar edilen yazarlık, araştrma/veri fabrikasyonu, makale dilimleme, dilimleyerek yayın, telif hakları ihlali ve çıkar çatışmasının gizlenmesi, etik dışı davranışlar olarak kabul edilir. Kabul edilen etik standartlara uygun olmayan tüm makaleler yayından çıkarılır. Buna yayından sonra tespit edilen olası kuraldışı, uygunsuzluklar içeren makaleler de dahildir.İntihal Ön kontrolden geçirilen makaleler, iThenticate yazılımı kullanılarak intihal için taranır. İntihal/kendi kendine intihal tespit edilirse yazarlar bilgilendirilir. Editörler, gerekli olması halinde makaleyi değerlendirme ya da üretim sürecinin çeşitli aşamalarında intihal kontrolüne tabi tutabilirler. Yüksek benzerlik oranları, bir makalenin kabul edilmeden önce ve hatta kabul edildikten sonra reddedilmesine neden olabilir. Makalenin türüne bağlı olarak, bunun oranın %15 veya %20'den az olması beklenir.Çift Kör Hakemlikİntihal kontrolünden sonra, uygun olan makaleler baş editör tarafından orijinallik, metodoloji, işlenen konunun önemi ve dergi kapsamı ile uyumluluğu açısından değerlendirilir. Editör, makalelerin adil bir şekilde çift taraflı kör hakemlikten geçmesini sağlar ve makale biçimsel esaslara uygun ise, gelen yazıyı yurtiçinden ve /veya yurtdışından en az iki hakemin değerlendirmesine sunar, hakemler gerek gördüğü takdirde yazıda istenen değişiklikler yazarlar tarafından yapıldıktan sonra yayınlanmasına onay verir.

Politikalar

Dergi açık erişimlidir ve derginin tüm içeriği okura ya da okurun dahil olduğu kuruma ücretsiz olarak sunulur. Okurlar, ticari amaç haricinde, yayıncı ya da yazardan izin almadan dergi makalelerinin tam metnini okuyabilir, indirebilir, kopyalayabilir, arayabilir ve link sağlayabilir. Bu <a href="https://www.budapestopenaccessinitiative.org/translations/turkish-translation" target="_blank">BOAI</a> açık erişim tanımıyla uyumludur. Derginin açık erişimli makaleleri Creative Commons Atıf-GayrıTicari 4.0 Uluslararası (<a href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/deed.tr" target="_blank">CC BY-NC 4.0</a>) olarak lisanslıdır.

Derginin tüm giderleri İstanbul Üniversitesi tarafından karşılanmaktadır. Dergide makale yayını ve makale süreçlerinin yürütülmesi ücrete tabi değildir. Dergiye gönderilen ya da yayın için kabul edilen makaleler için işlemleme ücreti ya da gönderim ücreti alınmaz.

Yazarlar dergide yayınlanan çalışmalarının telif hakkına sahiptirler ve çalışmaları  Creative Commons Atıf-GayrıTicari 4.0 Uluslararası (<a href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/deed.tr" target="_blank">CC BY-NC 4.0</a>) olarak lisanslıdır. CC BY-NC 4.0 lisansı, eserin ticari kullanım dışında her boyut ve formatta paylaşılmasına, kopyalanmasına, çoğaltılmasına ve orijinal esere uygun şekilde atıfta bulunmak kaydıyla yeniden düzenleme, dönüştürme ve eserin üzerine inşa etme dâhil adapte edilmesine izin verir.

Editörler, yayınlanan makalede, bulguları, yorumları ve sonuçları etkilemeyen küçük hatalar tespit edilirse düzeltme yayınlamayı düşünebilirler. Editörler, bulguları ve sonuçları geçersiz kılan büyük hatalar / ihlaller söz konusu olduğunda, makaleyi geri çekmeyi düşünmelidir. Yazarlar tarafından araştırma veya yayını kötüye kullanmaya yönelik olasılık söz konusu ise; bulguların güvenilir olmadığına ve yazarların kurumlarının olayı soruşturmadığına dair kanıtlar var veya olası soruşturma haksız veya sonuçsuz görünüyor ise, editörler endişe ifadesi yayınlamayı düşünmelidir. Düzeltme, geri çekme veya endişe ifadesi ile ilgili olarak <a href="https://publicationethics.org/resources/flowcharts/complete-set-english" target="_blank">COPE</a> ve &#65279;<a href="https://www.icmje.org/recommendations/" target="_blank">ICJME</a>&#65279; yönergeleri dikkate alınır.

Dergide yayınlanan tüm yazıların korunmasını ve kalıcı olarak erişilebilir olmasını sağlamak için makaleler, ulusal bir arşiv sitesi olarak hizmet veren ve aynı zamanda LOCKSS'in içeriği toplamasına, korumasına ve sunmasına izin veren Dergipark'ta saklanmaktadır.Ek olarak, yazarların kendilerinin makalelerinin son PDF sürümünü Open Archives Initiative (<a href="https://www.openarchives.org/" target="_blank">https://www.openarchives.org/</a>) standartlarına uygun açık elektronik arşivlerde arşivlemeleri önerilir. Yazarlar, yayınladıkları arşiv versiyonundan, İ.Ü. Yayınevinin dergi web sitesinin URL'sine bağlantı sağlamalıdır.

<div style="text-align: left;">Yakın Dönem Türkiye Araştırmaları- Recent Period Turkish Studies, yayın etiğinde en yüksek standartlara bağlıdır ve <a href="https://publicationethics.org/" target="_blank">Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)</a>, <a href="https://doaj.org/apply/transparency/#principles-of-transparency-and-best-practice-in-scholarly-publishing" target="_blank">Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ)</a>, <a href="https://oaspa.org/" target="_blank">Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association (OASPA)</a> ve <a href="https://www.wame.org/" target="_blank">World Association of Medical Editors (WAME)</a> tarafından yayınlanan etik yayıncılık ilkelerini benimser; Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing başlığı altında ifade edilen ilkeler için adres: <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></div>Gönderilen tüm makaleler orijinal, yayınlanmamış ve başka bir dergide değerlendirme sürecinde olmamalıdır. Yazar makalenin orijinal olduğu, daha önce başka bir yerde yayınlanmadığı ve başka bir yerde, başka bir dilde yayınlanmak üzere değerlendirmede olmadığını beyan etmelidir. Uygulamadaki telif kanunları ve anlaşmaları gözetilmelidir. Telife bağlı materyaller (örneğin tablolar, şekiller veya büyük alıntılar) gerekli izin ve teşekkürle kullanılmalıdır. Başka yazarların, katkıda bulunanların çalışmaları ya da yararlanılan kaynaklar uygun biçimde kullanılmalı ve referanslarda belirtilmelidir. Her bir makale editörlerden biri ve en az iki hakem tarafından çift kör değerlendirmeden geçirilir. İntihal, duplikasyon, sahte yazarlık/inkar edilen yazarlık, araştırma/veri fabrikasyonu, makale dilimleme, dilimleyerek yayın, telif hakları ihlali ve çıkar çatışmasının gizlenmesi, etik dışı davranışlar olarak kabul edilir.Kabul edilen etik standartlara uygun olmayan tüm makaleler yayından çıkarılır. Buna yayından sonra tespit edilen olası kuraldışı, uygunsuzluklar içeren makaleler de dahildir.

Etik

Yakın Dönem Türkiye Araştırmaları- Recent Period Turkish Studies araştırma etiğinde en yüksek standartları gözetir ve aşağıda tanımlanan uluslararası araştırma etiği ilkelerini benimser. Makalelerin etik kurallara uygunluğu yazarların sorumluluğundadır.<ul><li style="text-align: left;">Araştırmanın tasarlanması, tasarımın gözden geçirilmesi ve araştırmanın yürütülmesinde, bütünlük, kalite ve şeffaflık ilkeleri sağlanmalıdır.</li><li style="text-align: left;">Araştırma ekibi ve katılımcılar, araştırmanın amacı, yöntemleri ve öngörülen olası kullanımları; araştırmaya katılımın gerektirdikleri ve varsa riskleri hakkında tam olarak bilgilendirilmelidir.</li><li style="text-align: left;">Araştırma katılımcılarının sağladığı bilgilerin gizliliği ve yanıt verenlerin gizliliği sağlanmalıdır. Araştırma katılımcıların özerkliğini ve saygınlığını koruyacak şekilde tasarlanmalıdır.</li><li style="text-align: left;">Araştırma katılımcıları gönüllü olarak araştırmada yer almalı, herhangi bir zorlama altında olmamalıdırlar.</li><li style="text-align: left;">Katılımcıların zarar görmesinden kaçınılmalıdır. Araştırma, katılımcıları riske sokmayacak şekilde planlanmalıdır.</li><li style="text-align: left;">Araştırma bağımsızlığıyla ilgili açık ve net olunmalı; çıkar çatışması varsa belirtilmelidir.</li><li style="text-align: left;">İnsan denekler ile yapılan deneysel çalışmalarda, araştırmaya katılmaya karar veren katılımcıların yazılı bilgilendirilmiş onayı alınmalıdır. Çocukların ve vesayet altındakilerin veya tasdiklenmiş akıl hastalığı bulunanların yasal vasisinin onayı alınmalıdır.</li><li style="text-align: left;">Çalışma herhangi bir kurum ya da kuruluşta gerçekleştirilecekse bu kurum ya da kuruluştan çalışma yapılacağına dair onay alınmalıdır.</li><li style="text-align: left;">İnsan öğesi bulunan çalışmalarda, “yöntem” bölümünde katılımcılardan “bilgilendirilmiş onam” alındığının ve çalışmanın yapıldığı kurumdan etik kurul onayı alındığı belirtilmesi gerekir.</li></ul>

Makalelerin bilimsel ve etik kurallara uygunluğu yazarların sorumluluğundadır. Yazar makalenin orijinal olduğu, daha önce başka bir yerde yayınlanmadığı ve başka bir yerde, başka bir dilde yayınlanmak üzere değerlendirmede olmadığı konusunda teminat sağlamalıdır. Uygulamadaki telif kanunları ve anlaşmaları gözetilmelidir. Telife bağlı materyaller (örneğin tablolar, şekiller veya büyük alıntılar) gerekli izin ve teşekkürle kullanılmalıdır. Başka yazarların, katkıda bulunanların çalışmaları ya da yararlanılan kaynaklar uygun biçimde kullanılmalı ve referanslarda belirtilmelidir. Gönderilen makalede tüm yazarların akademik ve bilimsel olarak doğrudan katkısı olmalıdır, bu bağlamda “yazar” yayınlanan bir araştırmanın kavramsallaştırılmasına ve dizaynına, verilerin elde edilmesine, analizine ya da yorumlanmasına belirgin katkı yapan, yazının yazılması ya da bunun içerik açısından eleştirel biçimde gözden geçirilmesinde görev yapan birisi olarak görülür. Yazar olabilmenin diğer koşulları ise, makaledeki çalışmayı planlamak veya icra etmek ve / veya revize etmektir. Fon sağlanması, veri toplanması ya da araştırma grubunun genel süpervizyonu tek başına yazarlık hakkı kazandırmaz. Yazar olarak gösterilen tüm bireyler sayılan tüm ölçütleri karşılamalıdır ve yukarıdaki ölçütleri karşılayan her birey yazar olarak gösterilebilir. Yazarların isim sıralaması ortak verilen bir karar olmalıdır. Tüm yazarlar yazar sıralamasını <a href="https://cdn.istanbul.edu.tr/file/JTA6CLJ8T5/50820B6B44BF4741BF802244D5C926E7" target="_blank">Telif Hakkı Anlaşması Formunda</a> imzalı olarak belirtmek zorundadırlar.Yazarlık için yeterli ölçütleri karşılamayan ancak çalışmaya katkısı olan tüm bireyler “teşekkür / bilgiler” kısmında sıralanmalıdır. Bunlara örnek olarak ise sadece teknik destek sağlayan, yazıma yardımcı olan ya da sadece genel bir destek sağlayan, finansal ve materyal desteği sunan kişiler verilebilir.Bütün yazarlar, araştırmanın sonuçlarını ya da bilimsel değerlendirmeyi etkileyebilme potansiyeli olan finansal ilişkiler, çıkar çatışması ve çıkar rekabetini beyan etmelidirler. Bir yazar kendi yayınlanmış yazısında belirgin bir hata ya da yanlışlık tespit ederse, bu yanlışlıklara ilişkin düzeltme ya da geri çekme için editör ile hemen temasa geçme ve işbirliği yapma sorumluluğunu taşır.

Baş editör, makaleleri, yazarların etnik kökeninden, cinsiyetinden, uyruğundan, dini inancından ve siyasi felsefesinden bağımsız olarak değerlendirirler. Yayına gönderilen makalelerin adil bir şekilde çift taraflı kör hakem değerlendirmesinden geçmelerini sağlar. Gönderilen makalelere ilişkin tüm bilginin, makale yayınlanana kadar gizli kalacağını garanti eder. Baş editör içerik ve yayının toplam kalitesinden sorumludur. Gereğinde hata sayfası yayınlamalı ya da düzeltme yapmalıdır. Baş editör; yazarlar, editörler ve hakemler arasında çıkar çatışmasına izin vermez. Hakem atama konusunda tam yetkiye sahiptir ve dergide yayınlanacak makalelerle ilgili nihai kararı vermekle yükümlüdür.Hakemler, araştırma, yazarlar ve/veya araştırmaya fon sağlayanlarla çıkar çatışması içinde olmamalıdır. Hakemler değerlendirmelerinin sonucunda tarafsız bir yargıya varmalıdırlar. Gönderilmiş yazılara ilişkin tüm bilginin gizli tutulmasını sağlamalı ve yazar tarafında herhangi bir telif hakkı ihlali ve intihal fark ederlerse editöre raporlamalıdırlar. Hakem, makale konusu hakkında kendini vasıflı hissetmiyor ya da zamanında geri dönüş sağlaması mümkün görünmüyorsa, editöre bu durumu bildirmeli ve hakem sürecine kendisini dahil etmemesini istemelidir.Değerlendirme sürecinde editör hakemlere gözden geçirme için gönderilen makalelerin, yazarların özel mülkü olduğunu ve bunun imtiyazlı bir iletişim olduğunu açıkça belirtir. Hakemler ve yayın kurulu üyeleri başka kişilerle makaleleri tartışamazlar. Hakemlerin kimliğinin gizli kalmasına özen gösterilmelidir. Bazı durumlarda editörün kararıyla, ilgili hakemlerin makaleye ait yorumları aynı makaleyi yorumlayan diğer hakemlere gönderilerek hakemlerin bu süreçte aydınlatılması sağlanabilir.

Daha önce yayınlanmamış ya da yayınlanmak üzere başka bir dergide halen değerlendirmede olmayan ve her bir yazar tarafından onaylanan makaleler değerlendirilmek üzere kabul edilir. Gönderilen ve ön kontrolü geçen makaleler iThenticate yazılımı kullanılarak intihal için taranır. İntihal kontrolünden sonra, uygun olan makaleler baş editör tarafından orijinallik, metodoloji, işlenen konunun önemi ve dergi kapsamı ile uyumluluğu açısından değerlendirilir.Seçilen makaleler en az iki ulusal/uluslararası hakeme çift taraflı kör hakemlik ile değerlendirmeye gönderilir; yayın kararı, hakemlerin talepleri doğrultusunda yazarların gerçekleştirdiği düzenlemelerin ve hakem sürecinin sonrasında baş editör tarafından verilir.

Hakemlik Hakkında

Baş editör, makaleleri, yazarların etnik kökeninden, cinsiyetinden, uyruğundan, dini inancından ve siyasi felsefesinden bağımsız olarak değerlendirir. Yayına gönderilen makalelerin adil bir şekilde çift taraflı kör hakem değerlendirmesinden geçmelerini sağlar. Gönderilen makalelere ilişkin tüm bilginin, makale yayınlanana kadar gizli kalacağını garanti eder. Baş editör içerik ve yayının toplam kalitesinden sorumludur. Gereğinde hata sayfası yayınlamalı ya da düzeltme yapmalıdır.Baş editör; yazarlar, editörler ve hakemler arasında çıkar çatışmasına izin vermez. Hakem atama konusunda tam yetkiye sahiptir ve dergide yayınlanacak makalelerle ilgili nihai kararı vermekle yükümlüdür.Hakemlerin araştırmayla ilgili, yazarlarla ve/veya araştırmanın finansal destekçileriyle çıkar çatışmaları olmamalıdır. Değerlendirmelerinin sonucunda tarafsız bir yargıya varmalıdırlar. Gönderilmiş yazılara ilişkin tüm bilginin gizli tutulmasını sağlamalı ve yazar tarafında herhangi bir telif hakkı ihlali ve intihal fark ederlerse editöre raporlamalıdırlar.Hakem, makale konusu hakkında kendini vasıflı hissetmiyor ya da zamanında geri dönüş sağlaması mümkün görünmüyorsa, editöre bu durumu bildirmeli ve hakem sürecine kendisini dahil etmemesini istemelidir.Değerlendirme sürecinde editör hakemlere gözden geçirme için gönderilen makalelerin, yazarların özel mülkü olduğunu ve bunun imtiyazlı bir iletişim olduğunu açıkça belirtir. Hakemler ve yayın kurulu üyeleri başka kişilerle makaleleri tartışamazlar. Hakemlerin kimliğinin gizli kalmasına özen gösterilmelidir. Bazı durumlarda editörün kararıyla, ilgili hakemlerin makaleye ait yorumları aynı makaleyi yorumlayan diğer hakemlere gönderilerek hakemlerin bu süreçte aydınlatılması sağlanabilir.

Daha önce yayınlanmamış ya da yayınlanmak üzere başka bir dergide halen değerlendirmede olmayan ve her bir yazar tarafından onaylanan makaleler değerlendirilmek üzere kabul edilir. Gönderilen ve ön kontrolü geçen makaleler iThenticate yazılımı kullanılarak intihal için taranır. İntihal kontrolünden sonra, uygun olan makaleler baş editör tarafından orijinallik, metodoloji, işlenen konunun önemi ve dergi kapsamı ile uyumluluğu açısından değerlendirilir. Baş editör, makaleleri, yazarların etnik kökeninden, cinsiyetinden, uyruğundan, dini inancından ve siyasi felsefesinden bağımsız olarak değerlendirir. Yayına gönderilen makalelerin adil bir şekilde çift taraflı kör hakem değerlendirmesinden geçmelerini sağlar.Seçilen makaleler en az iki ulusal/uluslararası hakeme değerlendirmeye gönderilir; yayın kararı, hakemlerin talepleri doğrultusunda yazarların gerçekleştirdiği düzenlemelerin ve hakem sürecinin sonrasında baş editör tarafından verilir.Hakemlerin değerlendirmeleri objektif olmalıdır. Hakem süreci sırasında hakemlerin aşağıdaki hususları dikkate alarak değerlendirmelerini yapmaları beklenir.-Makale yeni ve önemli bir bilgi içeriyor mu?-Öz, makalenin içeriğini net ve düzgün bir şekilde tanımlıyor mu?-Yöntem bütünlüklü ve anlaşılır şekilde tanımlanmış mı?-Yapılan yorum ve varılan sonuçlar bulgularla kanıtlanıyor mu?-Alandaki diğer çalışmalara yeterli referans verilmiş mi?-Dil kalitesi yeterli mi?Hakemler, gönderilen makalelere ilişkin tüm bilginin, makale yayınlanana kadar gizli kalmasını sağlamalı ve yazar tarafında herhangi bir telif hakkı ihlali ve intihal fark ederlerse editöre raporlamalıdırlar. Hakem, makale konusu hakkında kendini vasıflı hissetmiyor ya da zamanında geri dönüş sağlaması mümkün görünmüyorsa, editöre bu durumu bildirmeli ve hakem sürecine kendisini dahil etmemesini istemelidir.Değerlendirme sürecinde editör hakemlere gözden geçirme için gönderilen makalelerin, yazarların özel mülkü olduğunu ve bunun imtiyazlı bir iletişim olduğunu açıkça belirtir. Hakemler ve yayın kurulu üyeleri başka kişilerle makaleleri tartışamazlar. Hakemlerin kimliğinin gizli kalmasına özen gösterilmelidir.

Aksi belirtilmedikçe gönderilen yazılarla ilgili tüm yazışmalar ilk yazarla yapılacaktır. Makale gönderimi online olarak ve <a href="http://rpts.istanbul.edu.tr" target="_blank">http://rpts.istanbul.edu.tr</a> adresinden erişilen <a href="http://dergipark.gov.tr/login" target="_blank">http://dergipark.gov.tr/login</a> üzerinden yapılmalıdır. Gönderilen yazılar, makale türünü belirten ve makaleyle ilgili detayları içeren (bkz: Son Kontrol Listesi) kapak sayfası; editöre mektup, yazının elektronik formunu içeren Microsoft Word 2003 ve üzerindeki versiyonları ile yazılmış elektronik dosya ve tüm yazarların imzaladığı Telif Hakkı Anlaşması Formu eklenerek gönderilmelidir. <a href="https://cdn.istanbul.edu.tr/file/JTA6CLJ8T5/766744E809F149E2BA81FA92CBBCE72A" target="_blank">Kapak Sayfası</a> ve <a href="https://cdn.istanbul.edu.tr/file/JTA6CLJ8T5/3AFB3D1E49CB441B8A3231E89A543986" target="_blank">Telif Hakkı Anlaşması Formu</a> eksiksiz doldurulmalıdır. 1. Çalışmalar, A4 boyutunda, sol taraftan 4 cm, üst, alt ve sağ taraftan 2,5 cm. boşluk bırakılarak, 12 punto Times New Roman harf karakterleriyle ve 1,5 satır aralık ölçüsü ile ve iki yana yaslı olarak hazırlanmalıdır. Dipnotlar var ise, bu sınırlar içinde kalmalıdır ve 10 punto ile yazılmalıdır. Paragraflardan önce ve sonra 6 punto boşluk bırakılmalıdır. 2. Makalenin çeşitli, kısım, bölüm, altbölümlerinin başlıkları 14 punto ile yazılmalıdır. Başlıklardan önce ve sonra 6 punto boşluk bırakılmalıdır. 3. Başlık ve alt başlıklar sayfanın son satırı olarak yazılmamalıdır; sonraki sayfada yer almalıdır. Bir paragrafın ilk satırı sayfanın son satırı, paragrafın son satırı sayfanın ilk satırı olarak yazılmamalıdır. 4. Kısaltmalar, tablo, şekil ve sembol listeleri, önsöz, özetler, kaynaklar, ekler, metin içindeki tablo ve şekillerin isim ve açıklamaları ve dipnotlar 1 satır aralık ölçüsü ile yazılmalıdır. 5. Yazar/yazarların adları ve bilgileri çalışma metninde yer almamalı, yazara/yazarlara dair tüm bilgiler makale dosyası ve Telif Hakkı Anlaşması Formu ile birlikte sisteme yüklenecek olan Kapak Sayfasında belirtilmelidir. Kapak sayfasında, makalenin başlığı, yazar veya yazarların bağlı bulundukları kurum ve unvanları, kendilerine ulaşılabilecek adresler, cep, iş ve faks numaraları, ORCID ve e-posta adresleri yer almalıdır. 6. Giriş bölümünden önce 100-200 kelimelik çalışmanın kapsamını, amacını, ulaşılan sonuçları ve kullanılan yöntemi kaydeden Türkçe ve İngilizce öz ile 600-800 kelimelik İngilizce genişletilmiş özet yer almalıdır. Çalışmanın İngilizce başlığı İngilizce özün üzerinde yer almalıdır. İngilizce ve Türkçe özlerin altında çalışmanın içeriğini temsil eden, 5 adet Türkçe, 5 adet İngilizce anahtar kelime yer almalıdır. 7. Çalışmaların başlıca şu unsurları içermesi gerekmektedir: Makale dilinde başlık, öz ve anahtar kelimeler; İngilizce başlık, öz ve anahtar kelimeler; İngilizce genişletilmiş özet, ana metin bölümleri, kaynaklar, tablolar ve şekiller. 8. Çalışmalarda tablo, grafik ve şekil gibi göstergeler ancak çalışmanın takip edilebilmesi açısından gereklilik arz ettiği durumlarda, numaralandırılarak, tanımlayıcı bir başlık ile birlikte verilmelidir. Demografik özellikler gibi metin içinde verilebilecek veriler, ayrıca tablolar ile ifade edilmemelidir. 9. Dergide yayınlanan yazıların tüm sorumluluğu ve belirtilen görüşler yazarlara aittir; İstanbul Üniversitesi Atatürk İlkeleri ve İnkılap Tarihi Enstitüsü bir sorumluluk yüklenmez. 10. Yayın kurulu ve hakem raporları doğrultusunda yazarlardan, metin üzerinde bazı düzeltmeler yapmaları istenebilir.

Yazım Kuralları

Atıflar (Referans, Gönderme) Makalede, başka kaynaklardan yapılan alıntılar,  ya aynen aktarılır veya özü değiştirilmemek kaydıyla kaynak çalışmayı yapanın kendi cümleleriyle özetlenerek yahut yorumlanarak verilir. Her iki durumda da alıntı yapılan kaynağa (metin, tablo, şekil ve benzeri dahil) mutlaka atıfta bulunulmalıdır. Bu konuda aşağıdaki ilkeler uygulanır: a. Kaynaktan aynen alınan bilgiler (alıntı), çift tırnak içinde (“.....”) gösterilirler. Makaleyi hazırlayanın, kaynaktaki bilginin özünü değil, biçimini değiştirerek yaptığı alıntılar ise,  çift tırnak arasına alınmadan gösterilirler. Her iki alıntı türünde de ilgili kaynağa mutlaka atıf yapılır ve atıfların her birine, sayfa altı dipnot şeklinde birbirini izleyen numara verilir. b. Makalede, kaynaktan aynen aktarılan bilgilerin tamamı verilebileceği gibi, örneğin cümle, paragraf veya sayfalar halindeki bilgilerin sadece belli kısımları da verilebilir. Bu durumda, cümlelerde belli kelimelerin, çeşitli cümlelerin, paragraf ve sayfaların atlanarak verildiğini göstermek üzere, atlanan yerler üç nokta (...) ile belirtilir. c. Başka kaynaklardaki bilgilerin aynen aktarılması durumunda, kaynaklarda noktalama işaretleri ve çeviri yanlışları dahil olmak üzere harf, cümle, tarih, yer vb. gibi yanlışlıklar da tekrarlanır. Makale yazarı, kaynak metindeki yanlışlıkları düzelterek vermek isterse, o zaman doğru bilgi, yanlış bilgiden hemen sonra bir parantez içinde gösterilir. d. Kaynaklardan aynen yapılan alıntılar, bir cümleyi aşmayacak uzunluktaysa, makale metni içinde verilirler. Daha uzun alıntılarda,  alıntının ilk ve son satırları ile makale metni arasında en az çift aralıklı boşluk bırakılarak, alıntı ile metnin ayırt edilmesi sağlanır.  Bu tür alıntılar için, makale metninde kullanılan puntodan daha küçük punto kullanılır.Referans Dipnotları İle İlgili KurallarReferans dipnotlarında, ilgili kaynağa ilk kez referans veriliyorsa, eserin tam künyesi (yazar adı soyadı, eser adı, varsa çeviren/editör/derleyen bilgisi, yayınlandığı yer, yayınevi ve tarih) verilmelidir. Şöyle ki:Salahi Ramazan Sonyel, Türk Kurtuluş Savaşı ve Dış Politika I, Türk Tarih Kurumu Yayınları, Ankara, 1973, s. 10.Erol Güngör, Kültür Değişmesi ve Milliyetçilik, 2. Baskı, Ötüken Yayınları, İstanbul, 1984, s. 24.Eğer referans dipnotlarında, aynı kaynağa ikinci veya daha fazla atıfta bulunuluyorsa, yukarıdaki bilgiler uygun şekilde kısaltılarak verilir:Erol Güngör, Kültür Değişmesi …,  s. 35.Editörlü kitapta yazarın makalesine/kitap bölümüne referans:İlk referans:Hüseyin Bağcı, “Demokrat Parti’nin Ortadoğu Politikası”, Türk Dış Politikasının Analizi, der. Faruk Söylemezoğlu, Der Yayınları, İstanbul, 1994, s. 93-94.Sonraki referanslar:Hüseyin Bağcı, “Demokrat Parti’nin Ortadoğu Politikası”, s. 98.Süreli yayında makaleye referans:                                        İlk referans:Fahrettin Kırzıoğlu, “Mustafa Kemal Paşa-Erzurum İlişkileri (1919-1920)”, Atatürk Araştırma Merkezi Dergisi, VII/20, 1991, s. 223-266.Mustafa Budak, “Ermeni Meselesi Açısından Başbakanlık Osmanlı Arşivi’nin Önemi”, Yakın Dönem Türkiye Araştırmaları Dergisi, C. 17, S. 34, 2018, s. 209.Sonraki referanslar:Fahrettin Kırzıoğlu, “Mustafa Kemal Paşa-Erzurum İlişkileri (1919-1920)”,  s. 225.Gazetelerdeki makale ve haber yazıları aşağıdaki gibi gösterilmelidir:“Hükümet-i Osmaniyye’nin Sulh Konferansına Teklifâtını Hâvi Muhtıra”, İkdam, 3 Mart 1335 (1919), s. 1.“DP Kongresi Saat 10’da Açıldı”, Vakit, 15 Ekim 1955, s. 1-2.“İnönü ve Gülek’in Menderes’e Geçmiş Olsun Telgrafları”, Ulus, 19 Şubat 1959, s. 1-2.Arşiv belgelerine referans:Türkiye Cumhuriyeti Cumhurbaşkanlığı Devlet Arşivleri Başkanlığı Osmanlı Arşivi (BOA), Bab-ı Âlî Evrak Odası (BEO), 3733/236781 (Sadaret’ten Harbiye Nezareti’ne gönderilen 1 Teşrîn-i Sânî 1326 [14 Kasım 1910] tarihli tezkire).Türkiye Cumhuriyeti Cumhurbaşkanlığı Devlet Arşivleri Başkanlığı Cumhuriyet Arşivi (BCA), 030-01-37/222-1 (6-7 Eylül olaylarında zarar görenlere maddi destekler hakkında).Aynı arşiv ve fon isimleri, ikinci ve sonraki atıflarda kodlarıyla yazılmalıdır: BOA, BEO, 3733/236781.Elektronik/internet kaynağa referans:TBMM, Süreli Yayınlar, III. Menderes Hükümeti, (Çevrimiçi), <a href="http://www.tbmm.gov.tr">www.tbmm.gov.tr</a>, 8 Aralık 2013.Ayhan Kamel, “İkinci Dünya Savaşı’nın Bitiminden Günümüze Kadar Türk-Rus İlişkileri”, (Çevrimiçi), <a href="http://www.dispolitika.org.tr">www.dispolitika.org.tr</a>, 7 Aralık 2013.John N. Berry, &#34;Educate Library Leaders,” Library Journal, February 15, 1998 (Çevrimiçi), http//www.epnet.com/ehost, 3 Nisan 2019.KaynakçaKaynakçada kitap ve makaleler aşağıdaki şekilde gösterilmelidir:Satan, Ali: Türk ve İngiliz Belgelerinde Halifeliğin Kaldırılması, Yazıgen Yayıncılık, İstanbul, 2017.Türkmen, Zekeriya: “Mustafa Kemal Paşa ve Yıldırım Orduları Grup Komutanlığı”, Atatürk Araştırma Merkezi Dergisi, C. XVI, S. 47, Temmuz 2000, s. 395-419.Ek/EklerMakalenin ek kısmında, metinle ilgili resimler, tablolar, formlar, anket sorularının listeleri, önemli belgelerin kopyaları, fotoğraf, harita vb. gibi malzemeler bulunur. Bu tür tek bir malzeme için sadece bir ek, birden çok malzeme için de gerekli görülürse, birden çok ek yer alır. Ekler, birbirinden ayırt edilmesi gerekecek sayıda ise Ek-1, Ek-2 vb. şekilde birbirini izleyecek biçimde numaralanır. Her numaranın karşısına, Ek’in içeriğini belirten bir başlığın konulması önerilir.Ek’te yer alan bilgiler, başka kaynaklardan aktarıldığı takdirde, bu kaynaklara ilişkin referanslar dipnotta mutlaka belirtilmelidir.

<a href="https://cdn.istanbul.edu.tr/file/JTA6CLJ8T5/7095F8015B8849A6ACB95630DDDB7854" target="_blank">Kapak Sayfası</a><a href="https://cdn.istanbul.edu.tr/file/JTA6CLJ8T5/50820B6B44BF4741BF802244D5C926E7" target="_blank">Telif Hakkı Anlaşması Formu</a><a href="https://cdn.istanbul.edu.tr/file/JTA6CLJ8T5/3C1E8159CCCB4F4DA235DF62FB6B6C38" target="">Yazar Formu</a>

Aşağıdaki listede eksik olmadığından emin olun:● Editöre mektup<ul><li>Makalenin türü</li><li>Başka bir dergiye gönderilmemiş olduğu bilgisi</li><li>Sponsor veya ticari bir firma ile ilişkisi (varsa belirtiniz)</li><li>Kaynakların derginin kullandığı referans sistemine uygun düzenlendiği</li><li>İngilizce yönünden kontrolünün yapıldığı</li><li>Yazarlara Bilgide detaylı olarak anlatılan dergi politikalarının gözden geçirildiği</li></ul><a href="https://cdn.istanbul.edu.tr/file/JTA6CLJ8T5/7786EC0A4CD041C680BFF8CC6931373A" target="_blank">Telif Hakkı Anlaşması Formu</a><a href="https://cdn.istanbul.edu.tr/file/JTA6CLJ8T5/3C1E8159CCCB4F4DA235DF62FB6B6C38" target="_blank">Yazar Formu</a>Daha önce basılmış materyal (yazı-resim-tablo) kullanılmış ise izin belgesi<a href="https://cdn.istanbul.edu.tr/file/JTA6CLJ8T5/F42D157D554641E59A6C3DFBCE4E96A0" target="_blank">Kapak sayfası</a><ul><li>Makalenin kategorisi</li><li>Makale dilinde ve İngilizce başlık</li><li>Yazarların ismi soyadı, unvanları ve bağlı oldukları kurumlar (üniversite ve fakülte bilgisinden sonra şehir ve ülke bilgisi de yer almalıdır), e-posta adresleri</li><li>Sorumlu yazarın e-posta adresi, açık yazışma adresi, iş telefonu, GSM, faks nosu</li><li>Tüm yazarların ORCID’leri</li></ul>● Makale ana metni<ul><li>Makale dilinde ve İngilizce başlık</li><li>Özetler: 100-200 kelime makale dilinde ve 100-200 kelime İngilizce</li><li>Anahtar Kelimeler: 5 adet makale dilinde ve 5 adet İngilizce</li><li>İngilizce olmayan makaleler için İngilizce genişletilmiş Özet (Extended Abstract) 600-800 kelime</li><li>Makale ana metin bölümleri</li><li>Teşekkür (varsa belirtiniz)</li><li>Finansal Destek (varsa belirtiniz)</li><li>Çıkar Çatışması (varsa belirtiniz)</li><li>Son notlar (varsa belirtiniz)</li><li>Kaynaklar</li><li>Tablolar-Resimler, Şekiller (başlık, tanım ve alt yazılarıyla)</li></ul>

Başeditör Ad: Prof. Dr. Mustafa BUDAK E-posta: mustafa.budak@istanbul.edu.tr Telefon: (0212) 440 00 00 (Dahili: 11950) Adres: İstanbul Üniversitesi Atatürk İlkeleri ve İnkılap Tarihi Enstitüsü, Süleymaniye Mah. Besim Ömer Paşa Cad. No: 19 Kat: 4 Fatih - İstanbulEditörAd: Dr. Öğr. Üyesi Hayrünisa ALP E-posta: hyralp@istanbul.edu.tr Telefon: (0212) 440 00 00 (Dahili: 11956) Adres: İstanbul Üniversitesi Atatürk İlkeleri ve İnkılap Tarihi Enstitüsü, Süleymaniye Mah. Besim Ömer Paşa Cad. No: 19 Kat: 4 Fatih - İstanbulEditörAd: Dr. Öğr. Üyesi Yakup AHBAB E-posta: yakupahbab@hotmail.com Telefon: (0212) 440 00 00 (Dahili: 10627) Adres: İstanbul Üniversitesi Atatürk İlkeleri ve İnkılap Tarihi Enstitüsü, Süleymaniye Mah. Besim Ömer Paşa Cad. No: 19 Kat: 4 Fatih - İstanbulDergi İletişimAd: Doç. Dr. Önder KOCATÜRK E-posta: onder.kocaturk@istanbul.edu.tr Telefon: 1) 05362689505 2) 02163189780 3) 0212440 00 00 (Dahili: 10443) Adres: İstanbul Üniversitesi Atatürk İlkeleri ve İnkılap Tarihi Enstitüsü, Süleymaniye Mah. Besim Ömer Paşa Cad. No: 19 Kat: 4 Fatih - İstanbulDergi İletişimAd: Arş. Gör. Duygu SAYGIN E-posta: duygu.saygin@istanbul.edu.tr Telefon: (0212) 440 00 00 (Dahili: 10437) Adres: İstanbul Üniversitesi Atatürk İlkeleri ve İnkılap Tarihi Enstitüsü, Süleymaniye Mah. Besim Ömer Paşa Cad. No: 19 Kat: 4 Fatih - İstanbulDergi İletişimAd: Arş. Gör. Umut DERE E-posta: umutdere@istanbul.edu.tr Telefon: (0212) 440 00 00 (Dahili: 11955) Adres: İstanbul Üniversitesi Atatürk İlkeleri ve İnkılap Tarihi Enstitüsü, Süleymaniye Mah. Besim Ömer Paşa Cad. No: 19 Kat: 4 Fatih - İstanbul

Yakın Dönem Türkiye Araştırmaları

YTA

ÖNE ÇIKAN

Kıbrıs Türk Federe Devleti’nin (1975) Kuruluş İlanına İngiliz Parlamentosunun Tepkisi

II. ABDÜLHAMİD ÖZELİNDE OSMANLI’DA BİSMARCK ALGISI

Düşünceden Eyleme EOKA

BİRİNCİ DÜNYA SAVAŞI’NDA İNGİLİZLERCE HİNDİSTAN’A GÖNDERİLEN TÜRK ESİRLERİ

PAYLAŞ