Turkish Army Research Articles

The South Slav ‘Golden Age’ and Gender Representation in Music

This paper explores the gender representation of the Kosovo Myth by South Slav composers at the turn of the twentieth century in the context of the creation of Serbian and pan-Yugoslav identities. The Kosovo Myth emerged not long after the Battle of Kosovo in 1389, waged between predominantly Serbian forces and the Ottoman Turkish army. However, the event assumed major significance only in the nineteenth century, during which the medieval period became the ‘Golden Age’ for nationalist aspirations. Held in Serbian collective memory as a fateful defeat that led to the loss of independence, the Battle of Kosovo became the region’s ‘sacred place’. Drawing from the body of epic poetry, referred to as The Kosovo Cycle, late nineteenth-century South Slav composers relied on male heroes as their subjects, as evident in their choral compositions and local Singspiels. This paper explores the shift from old forms and the ‘heroic’ male characters to female figures in the Kosovo Myth, as evident in early twentieth-century music. The fictional characters Kosovka devojka [The Maiden of Kosovo] and Majka Jugovića [The Jugović Mother] represented the highest ideal of family values, affirmative of a patriarchal construction of femininity. While both characters offered the South Slav composers a narrative focused on universal family values rather than individual ethnic histories that could facilitate crossing ethnic boundaries, the Jugović Mother emerged as the region’s universal inspiration; the choice of a maternal figure rather than a young woman confirms the practice of attributing women, traditionally viewed as inferior to men, a positive value through the concept of motherhood. Extending its scope to female characters outside of The Kosovo Cycle, this paper opens a debate on gender representation in music of the South Slav region beyond the national discourse.

Bir İngiliz İstihbarat Raporuna Göre İzmir’in İşgali Sonrasında Afyonkarahisar’da Vuku Bulan Olayların Özeti (25 Ağustos 1919)

The Ottoman Empire had to accept that it was defeated in the First World War by signing the Armistice of Mudros. After the armistice, the Allied Powers began invasions, citing their own security. So much so that the strategic and geopolitical points of Western and Central Anatolia became their first target. After the Greek occupation of Izmir, one of the places that experienced this invasion process most effectively was Afyonkarahisar. The city was at an important point, especially in terms of being at the junction of highways and railways. It was also in an important position militarily. Some of the ammunition belonging to the Turkish Army, which was reorganized at the end of the armistice, was also stored in Afyon. Again, the 23rd Division of the 20th Corps, headquartered in Ankara, was also here. Afyon was also among the places of duty of the 12th Corps in Konya. Therefore, all these reasons made the occupation of the city necessary for the Allied Powers. This location of the city attracted the attention of the Allied powers. Thus, British troops first came to Afyon to check the terms of the armistice. Later, on April 9, 1919, French and on May 21, 1919, Italian forces reached the city, respectively. Struggling with the most difficult conditions of the armistice, Afyon would experience the last Greek invasion.
 The main theme of this paper will be to reflect the occupation atmosphere in Afyonkarahisar, which is one of the cities that played an important role in the occupations that started with the signing of the Armistice of Mudros, from various aspects. In the study, the military intelligence report dated 25 August 1919, prepared by the Black Sea Army in Istanbul and submitted to the British General Staff, will be examined. The present report will also form the main material of the paper.

Atatürk Dönemi Zafer Bayramı Kutlamaları (1929-1938)

Holidays are important days that unite society, consolidate feelings of unity and togetherness. The important days that countries have experienced in the past have been the national holidays of those countries. In Turkey, the events of the period of the National Struggle also constituted the days of the militia. One of the important days in the National Struggle is the date of August 30. The offensive, which began on August 26, 1922, resulted in the victory of the Turkish nation. The Great Offensive caused the hopes of the Turkish nation to flourish again and to regain its former strength. The offensive was planned in great secrecy. Only Gazi Mustafa Kemal Pasha and his close friend were aware of when the attack would be made. Before the Great Offensive, Gazi Mustafa Kemal Pasha was given the title of Commander-in-Chief again. . The Great Offensive, which ended with the decisive victory of the Turkish army on August 30, was greeted with great joy.
 It is important for nations to remember their past and raise new generations connected to their country in terms of the way holidays are celebrated and to know from which date they are celebrated. Therefore, on August 30, 1924, victory was celebrated in Dumlupinar with a ceremony attended by Gazi Mustafa Kemal Pasha. Two years after this ceremony, a law was passed in the Grand National Assembly of Turkey and it was decided that the date of August 30 should be celebrated as a holiday. The draft law on the celebration of August 30 was adopted in 1926. there were no major victory celebrations that took place at the senior level until the mid-1930s. But especially after 1930, Victory Day on August 30 was celebrated with great enthusiasm all over the country.

Yunan Başkomutanı Trikopis’in Esareti Üzerine

Greek General Trikopis who was the First Greek Corps Commander that had to withdraw from Afyonkarahisar wanted to unite with the General Franco’s forces, which he thought were in Dumlupınar, and to establish a new line of defence in this place. However, Trikopis tried to escape together with a part of accompanying forces by entering into a mountainous and forested area through Kızıltaş valley when the Turkish army surrounded the Greek forces in the Aslihanlar region in Dumlupınar. His aim this time was to meet with Franco in Uşak. 
 When Uşak was captured by the Turkish forces on September 1, this hope of Trikopis also disappeared. The accompanying soldiers could not adequately nourish and rest. Undisciplined behaviours also began among his soldiers. He settled on the hill with an altitude of 1155 ….. on the south of Aşağı Karacahisar village and started to take defence measures. However, the soldiers did not want to fight against the Turks. Thereupon, Trikopis got a text explaining this case prepared and received the signatures of military officers. He decided to surrender under these circumstances. He specially wanted that the person to whom he would surrender was at the rank of division commander. He surrendered to the Turkish army on 2 September 1922 at around 18.15.
 The purpose of this study is to discuss the imprisonment and captivity process of Trikopis, the Greek Chief Commander, in the light of, primarily, archival resources, press of the period, memories, and other resources. The study will reveal who captured Trikopis, his dialogues and relations especially with Mustafa Kemal Pasha and other Turkish military officials during his captivity, and his life in captivity. 
 There is no scientific study regarding the captivity of Trikopis. This research aspires to fill the mentioned gap.The research will use the techniques of history methodology including the classification, analysis, composition, criticism, interpretation, and comparison methods.

İran Basınında Türk-Yunan Savaşı: Büyük Taarruz

We are commemorating the centennial of the Great Offensive, which freed Anatolian Turks from slavery, recreated them, and equipped them with national consciousness and the determination to be one of the more powerful states in the world arena. Starting from the idea that this blessed offensive has served as a beacon of hope for all oppressed states desperate in the face of European imperialism, this study examines the coverage of the offensive in the neighboring Iranian state. In the first quarter of the 20th century, Iran was subjected to political and military intervention by Russia and England as a result of colonial competition among European states. Therefore, the Iranian government was in a difficult position. The country was governed by Reza Shah Pahlavi, acting in an unofficial capacity. Because the two countries shared a border as well as a religion and Iran had Turkish speaking citizens, and more importantly, because Reza Shah Pahlavi wanted to create an independent and modern country, he developed close ties with Turkey. As a result, the Iranian press paid great attention to the Turkish War of Independence and considered the Turkish victory a victory for Islam. The newspapers Fikr-i Âzâd, Şafak-ı Sorh, İkdâm, Tufan and Iran were examined as a representative sample of the Iranian press as they ran the majority of the articles. After translating the articles on the Great Offensive into Turkish, the data collected were classified. Most of the data were recorded after verification using primary and secondary sources. The Iranian press described the Greek presence in Anatolia as an “occupation,” and exalted the Turkish advance that started on August 26th by referring to it as a “conquest.” They thought that the great losses suffered by the Greeks and their irregular retreat in the face of the Turkish army were well-deserved. In short, the Iranian government viewed Turkey and Iran as sharing the same fate, and attributed great significance to the Turkish War of Independence.

İngiliz, İtalyan ve Fransız Basınında Büyük Taarruz ile İlgili Yayınlanan Haberler ve Türk Basınındaki Yansımaları

The Turkish Army launched an unexpected offensive against the Greek Army on August 26, 1922.The political authorities of England, France and Italy were shocked when they heard this sudden attack of the Turks while they were preparing for a peace conference that would end the Turkish & Greek war in 1922. The British, Italian and French press informed their readers on developments at the front during the Great Offensive. The press of three states did not hide the Turkish successes against the Greeks. Especially the French and Italian press did not hide the joy they felt for the victory of the Turks against the Greeks. They concluded that the Turkish army and Mustafa Kemal had a great success in this war, the Greeks were defeated, and the result of the war was a disaster for the Greeks. The French and Italians, who turned their backs on the British policy in Anatolia, showed the world public opinion through the press that their position is rightful, by this victory. According to the French and Italian press, two sides lost this war. One is England, and the other is Greece. The British press, on the other hand, did not hesitate to criticize its own administration and Prime Minister Lloyd George's policy in Anatolia, and cited the Turkish success as a bankruptcy of this policy. The Turkish press also conveyed the news from three big states’ press to their readers. Thus, showed both the outside world and its own public that the Turks were rightful and successful in the Turkish & Greek war in Anatolia.
 In my study, the main source is 1922 dated English and Ottoman newspapers. The data related to Italian and French press are taken from the works written by experts of the subject. The aim of the study is to reveal how the Great Offensive subject was handled by the big states and to show how the Turkish press is interested in it. In addition, the study is important in terms of seeing the compatibility of the news in Turkish and foreign press about the Great Offensive.

Büyük Taarruz ile Nablus Muharebesi’nin Karşılaştırmalı Nicel Analizi

The Great Offensive was a successful war of destruction that resulted in the Turkish troops besieging and destroying some of the Greek troops on August 26, 1922. In the success of this war of destruction; Reasons such as the infiltration of the cavalry, the secret shift of the army to the south of Afyonkarahisar, the effective firing of the artillery units can be said. The Battle of Nablus was a successful battle of extermination that resulted in the British army's encirclement and annihilation of Ottoman troops on 19 September 1918 and their drive north. The secret of the success here can be explained by the backward infiltration of the cavalry units, the high numerical superiority and the high number of aircraft attacks. These two attacks are also the early applications of the blitzkrieg tactics used by the Germans in the Second World War.
 The aim of this study is to compare the Great Offensive and the Nablus Operation with quantitative data. For this, the numbers, classes, locations and geographical slopes of the military units in both battles were determined and new criteria were established for the battles of destruction by establishing connections between them. As a result, it has been determined that the Great Offensive and the Battle of Nablus are very similar to each other strategically, but there are serious differences between the degrees of difficulty. It was determined that the Turkish army took a great risk in the Great Offensive, the geographical conditions were unfavorable in the place where the main attack was made, and there was no numerical advantage. In the Battle of Nablus, on the other hand, it was determined that the risk was low, the superiority of numbers was felt in all areas and the attack was made from a flat land.

We are not them! Self-presentation of North African Muslim soldiers in the German captivity in 1914–1918

ABSTRACT During 1914–1918, the French Army deployed almost 270,000 Muslims from Algeria, Tunisia and Morocco. As early as August 1914, the Germans captured the first of them. For the Germans, the POWs were Muslims who should show solidarity with Muslim Ottoman Empire and, therefore, join the Turkish Army. Such stigmatization of the captives’ identity provoked unexpected reactions. Some prisoners declared that ties linking them with the territory in North Africa from which they came and communities living there were more significant than religious links. This article stresses that the identity of the captives was multi-layered and the subject of a game played by both sides. The Germans had specific goals for the prisoners, and recognition of the religious layer of the soldiers’ identity was directed towards these goals. The captives had their own plans and did everything they could to achieve them. Qualitative analysis of French documents explains the intentions that prisoners of war from Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia had in emphasizing selected layers of their identity. Choosing one layer of their identity for self-presentation at the expense of another was a means to that end.

BÜYÜK TAARRUZ ÖNCESİNDE YUNANİSTAN’IN ANADOLU’DATUTUNMA ÇABALARI: İSTANBUL’UN İŞGALİ PROJESİ VE ANADOLU’DA MUHTARİYET İLANLARI

Until 1922 the Turkish Army won a great victory against the Greeks on the Western Front of the Turkish War of Independence. Before the Great Offensive the Greek Army in Anatolia thought that Turks could not make an attack and sent some of its troops in Eskişehir to Çatalca. Having no strength to fight and hoping for peace as soon as possible, the Greeks put into action plans to occupy Istanbul in order to put pressure on the Allied Powers and to deal a final fight to the Turks. The Greeks made their intentions known to the Allies on July 29, 1922. The Greeks' project was not accepted by the Allies, the Ankara Government and the Ottoman authorities. The fact that this project came to the agenda caused a great tension between the Allies and the Greeks. Greeks gathered their soldiers from Anatolia to Çatalca for this project and this made it easier to launch the Great Offensive in the future. With the Turkish success in the Great Offensive this project was ended. The second project of the Greeks, who realized that they could not hold on in Anatolia, was to establish autonomous administrations. On 30 July 1922, under the protection of the Greek government, an autonomous government was declared in Izmir. Afterwards, autonomous administrations were established in Balıkesir and Bursa. While the Greeks suggest that the project preserves peace in Anatolia, the world perceived it differently. There were perceptions that the Greeks would enlist the Anatolian people and taxes would be taken from the people of the region in order to improve their own finances. These administrations were not accepted by any authority. Faced with the objections of the Allies, Greeks had to withdraw from these projects as well. With the start and success of the Great Offensive, the plan of Greeks to maintain in Anatolia came to an end.
 In the source of this study, newspapers published in 1922, talks in the Turkish and British parliaments, and the publications written by experts in the field were used. The aim of the study is to shed light on how the two plans developed by the Greeks to stay in Anatolia were implemented and how they were received by the international public. The study will also be useful to see how was the military, financial and moral strength of the Greek side before the Great Offensive.

1922 Manisa Büyük Yangını: Harîk-i Hâil

Manisa was invaded by the Greeks on May 25, 1919. After three years of Greek occupation, the city was liberated on September 8, 1922. Having lost the war, the Greek army burned and destroyed many settlements. Some cities were burned by private groups. These groups, called the Fire Battalions, played a role, especially in the burning of large settlements. Manisa is one of these cities. Two days before the Greek army left the city, these fire battalions set fire to the city from various parts. A significant part of the people took shelter in the mountains and had to watch the fire from there. The fire was extinguished by the Turkish army on 8 September. Commissions were created to determine the loss of life and property. This study is based on archival documents related to the subject. The aim is to determine the consequences of the fire. Previous publications on the subject contain limited information. This is the first study in which all the documents identified on the subject are evaluated.

Turkish Racism Against Kurds: Colonial Violence, Racist Slurs and Mob Attacks

Throughout the 20th century, the modern Turkish state has dealt with ethnically, socially, historically, and religiously defined groups living in the remaining Ottoman territory with different forms of integration and authoritarianism. It built a racialized social regime based on Turkish supremacy, and the state has ruled northern Kurdistan as a colony. This article focuses on Turkish racist slurs and racist mob attacks targeting Kurds in Turkish cities and analyzes them in relation to Turkish colonial domination in northern Kurdistan. It argues that the Turkish army has an important place in making the racialized social regime and producing and disseminating the racialized ideas, slurs and practices targeting Kurds. The article also identifies the year 2005 as a milestone in the history of Turkish-Kurdish relations and Turkish racism. In that year, following the flag-provocation event in Mersin, which was carried out by the Turkish deep-state forces, ‘respect the flag’ demonstrations were organized throughout Turkey. These demonstrations mobilized thousands of Turks around anti-Kurdish sentiments, and since then, the number of racist mob attacks against Kurds in Turkey has increased significantly.

1853-56 OSMANLI-RUS HARBİ’NDE DOĞU CEPHESİNDE BİR İNGİLİZ SUBAY: YARBAY WILLIAM FENWICK WILLIAMS'IN ASKERÎ RAPORLARI

Bu çalışma 19. yüzyılın ikinci yarısında modern savaşların başlangıcı sayılan Kırım Savaşı'nın doğu cephesine odaklanmaktadır. Bilindiği üzere Kırım Savaşı, Avrupalı büyük güçlerin ittifak hâlinde Slav yayılmacılığına karşı koyduğu ve modern teknolojilerin harp için kullanıldığı ilk savaş idi. Osmanlı Devleti hem ekonomik hem de harp becerisi açısından bu savaşı yürütecek yeterli donanıma sahip değildi. Ancak dönemi itibarıyla İngiltere ve Fransa gibi devletlerin deniz aşırı politikaları ve dış tehdit algıları, onları Osmanlı-Rus anlaşmazlığında Türklere ekonomik ve askerî destek vermeye mecbur kılmıştı. O nedenle Müttefikler, Osmanlı ordularının Ruslara karşı savaşma kabiliyetini artırmaya çalışırken diğer yandan da önemli subaylarını Türk ordusuna görevlendirmişlerdi. Müttefikler, Kırım'da yoğun çarpışmalar yaşadığından 1853-56 Osmanlı-Rus Harbi, tarihe daha çok Kırım Harbi olarak geçmiştir. Oysa aynı yıllarda Osmanlı orduları doğuda da Ruslara karşı ciddi mücadeleler yürütmüştür. Kırım'a nispeten coğrafyanın ve iklim koşullarının savaşın seyrine önemli etki ettiği Doğu cephesi bu bakımdan Kırım'ın popülaritesinin gölgesinde kalmıştır. Fakat savaş yıllarında aynı durum söz konusu olmadığı için Birleşik Krallık başarılı subaylarından William Fenwick Williams'ı Erzurum'da konuşlanan Anadolu ordularına müttefikler adına göndermiştir. Williams'ın bu doğrultuda İstanbul'daki İngiliz elçiliğine yazdığı raporlar, dağılma sürecindeki Osmanlı Devleti'nin ordusunu anlamamız açısından önemlidir. Çünkü Williams'ın aynı zamanda Osmanlı merkezine gönderdiği direktifler de Türk ordu yapısının değişmesinde etkili olabiliyordu. Dolayısıyla bu çalışma, 1853-56 Osmanlı-Rus Harbi esnasında Williams'ın gönderdiği askerî raporlara odaklanmakta, onların analizine çalışmaktadır.

Historical, cultural and musical analysis of folk songs about the Çanakkale battle in Albanian Music Folklore: Albanian teachers’ opinions

Albanian culture coexisted for a period of over 500 years with Ottoman culture, at the turn of the new century, along with the Balkan troubles that led to the continued embrace of the transition from an old culture to the ideology of the Young Turk movement, and the continuation of joint Albanian-Turkish actions, in order to protect the Albanian Vilayets from the Serbo-Montenegrin occupiers. Early nineteenth-century Turkey emerged from bloody wars on all sides of its borders and from a weak government led by Abdul Hamid II faced a new war in 1915 now in defense of the Dardanelles in the bloodiest battle "The Battle of Canakkale". The First World War found Albanians divided and occupied in some of its territories, however, from 1912 Albania had declared Independence, but Kosovo, Skopje and Bitola, Ulcinj and Bar had remained outside the borders, while Chameria - the South of Albania had been invaded by Greece. During the First World War a large number of Albanians remained in the Turkish military service, many others joined the Turkish army, mainly Albanians who had migrated to Turkey from the violence of the Serbo-Montenegrin invaders, as well as some more from Kosovo, Skopje, Tetovo, Presevo, Shkodra, Ulcinj, etc who volunteered to help the Turkish army. According to history, oral literature and written documents, many Albanians died heroically, it is said that about 25,000 martyrs had died in this battle. In their honor, the Albanian people composed songs, it is worth mentioning the "song dedicated to the Battle of Canakkale" by the most prominent folklorists of the Albanian nation. Our research was done through a semi-structured interview with: 5 teachers of Albanian literature (at the same time master’s students at the University "Kadri Zeka" in Gjilan, Kosovo); 5 history teachers (at the same time master’s students at the University of Prishtina “Hasan Prishtina”, Prishtina, Kosovo); 2 independent researchers from the Institute of History "Ali Hadri" Prishtina, Kosovo.

The Polish-Turkish war of 1620–1621: Myths and istorical reality

The subject of the investigation is created by historiography, prospects of the Polish-Turkish war in its diversity of existing concepts; the major event in it turns out to be the Battle of Khotyn. The topic of the article is the study of existing myths, generated by worldviews of the authors, traditional heredity of theoretic-methodological principles of knowledge of the historical process, which used their own sympathies and antipathies, the dominant ideology in society, which distorted the reality of the causes of the war and its course. The aim of the research is, on the basis of the analysis of the sources and scientific achievements of scientists, to determine the main myths of the Polish-Turkish War, the content of each and to argument their unreliability. The methodological principles of the research are first principles of historism, objectivity, and systematicity; theoretical findings of neo-positivism, the school of «The Annals» and the «new political history». Problematic-chronological, historical-genetic, historical-comparative, historical-systemic methods, as well as methods of rational reconstruction of the text and historical-cultural attribution are used. Results. It is established the mythologization of the «triumph of Polish weapons» near Khotyn that began with the sacralization of this event in the breve of Pope Gregory XV in 1621 and 1623. The 10th of October (the next after the conclusion of the Treaty of Khotyn, when the Turkish army left its positions) was announced by them as a holiday in honor of Mary the Mother of God and the patron saints of Poland as a sign of victory. Thus, the spiritual matrix of its perception by Polish society and researchers was laid for centuries. In Ukrainian historiography, the cult of majesty of Khotyn began to form in the mid-50s of the 20th century. In Polish and Ukrainian historiographies, in spite of historical reality, the leading myths were about Porto as a brutal aggressor, who sought to «enslave» Poland and Ukraine, reach the Baltics, unite with Protestants, and defeat Austria. Simultaneously, the myth about the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth as a peaceful state, devoid of imperial plans to defeat Turkey and establish protection over the Danube principalities was also formed. In its turn it formed the basis for the emergence of the myth about the beginning of war not by the Polish army’s intervention in Porto in the autumn of 1620 (Tsetsor campaign) and its defeat, but by the Turkish army’s counterattack in the summer of 1621. The mythology of reticence or negative assessment of Borodavka’s activity, which played a decisive role in the formation of a powerful Cossack (Ukrainian) army, providing it with proper weapons, provant and food, and timely arrival in Khotyn, is wrong. Most Polish historians, contrary to the truth, continue to hide the key role of the Cossacks in the Battle of Khotyn, putting the Polish-Lithuanian army in the forefront. Last, perhaps most common, myth about the brilliant victory of the Commonwealth army over the Turkish invaders is as unsubstantiated as the previous ones.Conclusions. The abovementioned myths, created during the XIX–XX centuries, in Ukrainian and Polish historiographies, significantly distort the historical reality of the causes of the Polish-Turkish war, its initiator, the date of the beginning, the consequences of the Battle of Khotyn and its historical significance. Their disproof will contribute to the reconstruction of a more truthful (adequate reality) of this significant event in Central and Eastern Europe.

The Greco-Turkish War of 1919-1922: the formation of new Turkey and the collapse of the idea of Great Greece

The paper deals with the history of the Greco-Turkish War of 19191922. As a result of the defeat in the Ottoman Empire in the First World War, the country became the object of the division of the Entente countries and their satellites. The Turkish sultan became a puppet of the leadership of the British Empire. In May 1919, a large-scale Greek intervention in Anatolia began. In 1920, the Sultans government recognized the imposed humiliating Treaty of Sevres, which divided the territory of Turkey between neighboring states and great powers. However, a powerful patriotic movement arose in Anatolia, led by Mustafa Kemal. Playing on the contradictions between the Entente countries and at the same time on their confrontation with Soviet Russia, M. Kemal led Armenia out of the war, deprived the Greeks of support from France and Italy, re-equipped the Turkish army and gained time to prepare for the defeat of the Greek military forces. The successive victories of the Turks in 19211922 near the village of Inonu, the Sakarya River and the town of Dumlupinar caused the final collapse of the idea of Great Greece. The results of the national liberation struggle of the Turkish people were fixed by the Lausanne Treaty of 1923. The final results of the Greco-Turkish War of 19191922 determined the geographical boundaries and political system of the modern Turkish Republic.

From the Western Front to the Heights of Ankara

Abstract The Defence in Depth tactical doctrine was developed by the German Army during the First World War in order to overcome the increasing French and British offensive capability on the Western Front. This article attempts to analyse how the Turkish High Command accepted and implemented the German Defence in Depth doctrine as a guiding principle during the defensive and pivotal Battle of Sakarya (1921) as a part of the 1919–1922 war with Greece. Despite the sudden change of tactical doctrine and lack of experience, the Turkish Army successfully employed it, and the new tactics proved instrumental in the Turkish victory. Although the Germans designed this concept for trench warfare, the Battle of Sakarya proved that it could also be applied, with some modification, to a war of manoeuvre.

Soundscapes of the Nation: Silenced Others and Animal Languagesin Haw and Oko

Kemal Varol’s 2014 novel Haw is an account of the multiple facets of the war between the Turkish army, Kurdish guerrilla and other underground organizations during the 1990s in eastern Turkey, recounted by a dog. İdris Baluken’s Oko (2019) is the story of its eponymous dog protagonist Oko’s journey as he finds himself involved in a group fighting to prevent another dog massacre from happening again. By looking at two contemporary novels that address the Kurdish issue in Turkey from the perspective of dogs, this paper aims to explore the implications of the biopolitical reach of the sovereign state and its impact on the definition of citizenship. Taking this shared symbol as a point of departure, this paper investigates nation-building processes in Turkey and how the definition of citizenship is contingent on the voices and languages that are silenced. What is the relation between language and belonging? To what language does one belong? What possibilities of resistance does the language of the non-human animal contain in its encounter with the violence of the sovereign power?

Армия и внешняя политика Турции: современное состояние ПВО

The article is devoted to the analysis of the state of the air defense forces of the Army of the Republic of Turkey. The object of the study is the military-technical development of Turkey. The subject of the study is the current state of Turkey's air defense. The purpose of the study is to demonstrate the current state of Turkey's air defense. For this purpose it is necessary to solve the following tasks: to consider command structure of Turkish Air Defense Forces; to analyze available samples of equipment in Turkish Air Defense Forces; to consider successes of Turkish Military Industrial Complex in construction of own samples of Air Defense Forces. The research methodology is based on a systematic approach to consider the Turkish MIC as an integral system. Event analysis is applied to trace the main developments in the field of Turkey's air defense development. Source analysis is used to study the websites of the official agencies of the companies in the field of the military-industrial complex. General scientific methods of analysis and synthesis, induction and deduction are used in the work. It is noted that Turkey has switched to an offensive foreign policy, which requires it to have a high level of preparedness in all spheres, including the military. The article presents the structural organization of the management of the Turkish air defense forces. The samples of weapons available in the Turkish army are analyzed. Their quantitative and qualitative characteristics are given. It is noted that the purchase of the S-400 air defense system by Turkey was of a political nature. The successes of the Turkish military-industrial complex in the development of air defense systems are demonstrated, but at the moment these developments cannot meet the needs of the army. It is concluded that the Turkish air defense forces are experiencing difficulties due to limited capabilities and require updating and expanding the existing arsenal

Bitka kod Sent Gotharda-Morgensdorfa/Modinaca, 1. avgusta 1664. godine

The 17th century was one of the most turbulent centuries in the history of Europe. Both its beginning and its end were marked by wars with the Ottoman Empire, the first half by a 30-year religious war, and the second half by a mini-ice age, in addition to the final turnaround in the Austrian-Turkish wars. Given all of this, the Austrian-Turkish war between 1663 and 1664 seems to be only a minor episode. Nevertheless, this war was considered an important turning point in European history. It coincided with the time when the surface area of the Ottoman Empire in Europe was at its largest and signaled the end of the Ottoman power and domination in South-Eastern Europe. The battle of Saint Gotthard did not change the course of European history; however, it did expose some of the weaknesses of the Austrian Imperial Army on the one hand and the failings of the Turkish Army on the other. It can be argued that the experience of this battle convinced the Austrian emperor that victory in the Austrian-Turkish war was possible. At the same time, this was an essential motivational aspect for Hungary in the coming fighting with the Turks. During this period, Hungary was still mainly under the occupation of the Ottoman Empire. The above-mentioned was followed by the slow, but persistent decline of the Ottoman rule in the Western Balkans.

«Больной человек» на тонущем корабле: образ Турции в российской печати времен Первой мировой войны

The article examines the development of the image of Turkey in the Russian press in 1914-1918. Perceiving the Ottoman Empire as a minor power with a weak army, Russian newspapers and magazines took into account the great strategic and political significance of the new Russian-Turkish war in solving Russia’s “historical tasks” in the Black and Mediterranean Seas. Periodicals of different orientations assessed the significance of the new Russian-Turkish war in different ways. For the conservative press, this was primarily the return of the “cross to St. Sophia”, the return of the Orthodox tsar to Constantinople. The liberal press paid more attention to the economic opportunities from the capture of the Straits. However, for both of them, the victory in the war was perceived as a natural result of the Russian-Turkish confrontation and symbolized the final “expulsion” of Turkey from Europe. In a broader sense, this meant the expulsion of Aziatchina [Asianism] from the “civilization” area. This reasoning was facilitated by major victories on the Caucasian Front (as opposed to the main front in Europe) and regular reports from official sources (Petrograd Telegraph Agency, General Staff) about the socio-economic and political crisis in the Ottoman Empire. The condescending attitude, the underestimation of the combat capability of the Turkish army and Turkey’s resistance to a protracted war prevailed. In many ways, therefore, the Caucasian Front remained secondary, although victory in this theater made it possible to open the Straits and receive large consignments of weapons and ammunition from the Western allies. In 1917, the “dream of Tsargrad,” tacitly proclaimed as the main goal of Russia in the world war, became one of the key factors in the political crisis. In the socialist press, Constantinople and the Straits became the personification of Russian imperialism and the cause of the deaths of millions of soldiers, the impoverishment of the people, and the depletion of the economy. Against this background, the image of Turkey underwent tangible changes. The conservative press developed the image of Turkey as an “Eastern despotism,” a historically doomed autocracy. In fact, it became a new ideological frame for the old military goals of Russia in the world war. The social democratic press turned more to the suffering of ordinary Turks, who were forced to shed blood for goals they did not know. The commonality of the fate of the Turkish and Russian peoples in their long and difficult struggle with the autocracy for the establishment of democracy was emphasized. The economic and political crisis in Russia actually led the second point of view to victory, which influenced the general course of the Russian Revolution. The author declares no conflicts of interests.