DOCSLIB.ORG

ECONOMICS SERIES SWP 2015/8 the Effects of the 1915 Gallipoli

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
ECONOMICS SERIES SWP 2015/8 the Effects of the 1915 Gallipoli Faculty of Business and Law School of Accounting, Economics and Finance ECONOMICS SERIES SWP 2015/8 The Effects of the 1915 Gallipoli Campaign on Turkish Child Survivors in Anatolia Cahit Guven and Mehmet Ulubasoglu The working papers are a series of manuscripts in their draft form. Please do not quote without obtaining the author’s consent as these works are in their draft form. The views expressed in this paper are those of the author and not necessarily endorsed by the School or IBISWorld Pty Ltd. The Effects of the 1915 Gallipoli Campaign on Turkish Child Survivors in Anatolia Cahit Güven, and Mehmet Ali Ulubaşoğlu* Deakin University, Australia December 2015 Abstract Despite being one of the most significant wars in world history, the Gallipoli Campaign has been subject to little systematic investigation for its consequences. We investigate the long-term socioeconomic effects of this war on children who lived in Anatolia and were aged under five in 1915. Combining Turkish census data with military records on the province-level Turkish soldier mortality rate in the campaign, we find that, at the sample average of soldier mortality rate (3.18 soldiers per 1,000 people in a province), children under five in 1915 (i.e., treatment group) were 2.8% more likely to remain illiterate, or lost 0.2 years of schooling, compared to children born during 1916 to 1920 (i.e., control group). These are significant effects given that the literacy rate for the whole cohort is 35% and average years of schooling is 1.55. Our results are robust to controlling for birth-province fixed effects, other major shocks faced by the treatment and control groups during childhood, placebo tests, and alternative definitions of treatment. Keywords: Gallipoli War; Natural Experiment; Socioeconomic Outcomes in Adulthood; Children; Turkey. * Corresponding Author: Department of Economics, Deakin University. Email: [email protected] 1 1. Introduction The Gallipoli Campaign is one of the hardest fought wars in modern human history. It was hard fought because it engaged several different global powers and approximately 900,000 soldiers from around the world over a narrow strip of geographical space on the Gallipoli peninsula, involving heavy weaponry and chest-to-chest fighting, resulting in the death in action of about 140,000 soldiers from all sides within eight months during February to September 1915. Bullets that hit each other in the air during fighting, epitomizing the intensity of the clashes, are still exhibited at the Gallipoli War Museum in Çanakkale, Turkey. This heavy fighting has produced such a strong legacy that the belligerent powers still commemorate the war 100 years later in different settings. The Turks celebrate their naval victory annually on 18 March, while in the antipodes, Australia and New Zealand observe 25 April as a public holiday (i.e., ANZAC day) to observe the anniversary of their amphibious landing on the peninsula. Legendary events that occurred during the campaign are still told with enthusiasm: the Man with the Donkey (John Simpson Kirkpatrick), who carried wounded soldiers on his donkey for three and a half weeks under the bullets before being killed, is still told on the ANZAC side; while Seyid Onbaşı, a corporal who reportedly lifted and carried alone an artillery shell weighing 254 kg, which then hit the HMS Ocean of the British Navy, is a hero on the Turkish side. The campaign also had drastic political consequences; the inability of the Allied Powers to push further into the Dardanelles and to capture Constantinople led to the Bolshevik Revolution and the collapse of the Tsarist regime in Russia in 1917.1 1 The war was also a strong contributor of the formation of national identity in Australia (Nelson, 1997); thousands of Australians visit the battlefield annually today (Hyde and Harman, 2011). The Gallipoli War also influenced some developments in modern medicine (Harrison, 1996) as it involved the use of chemicals, and played a crucial role in the introduction of chemical warfare to the Middle East (Sheffy, 2005). See Evans (2000) and Travers (2001). 2 The human cost of the Gallipoli Campaign was traumatic. The war theatre witnessed the death of approximately 140,000 soldiers from all sides. While the Allied Powers together lost 57,000 soldiers, Turkey lost 86,000. The total number of casualties on both sides was a whopping 500,000 (Erickson 2001). The impact of the war on Turkey was extreme. Defending the motherland had consumed years of the country’s economic, environmental, and demographic resources. Moreover, a large proportion of the soldiers killed were from Anatolia (the region that roughly makes up Turkey’s contemporary boundaries). The disappearance of thousands of labor force-age male individuals in a short period of time from a geographical space that is similar in size to Texas in the US, or New South Wales in Australia, created a massive vacuum in the country and left the predominantly agrarian population of Anatolia in dire circumstances. Less noticed, however, is the variation across Anatolian provinces in terms of the numbers of soldiers lost. Data available from the military records of Turkey document the fact that 75% of the total death toll came from provinces to the west of Ankara, a mid-Anatolian province. While this variation can be explained by the geographic proximity of the western provinces to the Gallipoli peninsula, it also points to the reality that the western part of the country was ravaged. This paper seeks to examine the effects of the Gallipoli campaign on children who lived in Anatolia and were aged under five in 1915. We utilize the rich information in the Turkish census waves of 1985, 1990 and 2000 on the adulthood outcomes of the survivor children as observed in the census years, including literacy, schooling, welfare, and disability. While the severe effects of the Gallipoli War on Turkey’s economy and manpower during the period of conflict are well known, little is known about its long-term consequences. Theoretical predictions in the literature on the consequences of wars and conflicts are too ambiguous to allow a priori conclusions about the effects of wars. On one hand, individuals who 3 face war and conflict during childhood could have a lower human capital due to war-time stress, depression, and malnutrition (Akbulut-Yuksel, 2014; Akresh et al., 2012; Kesternich et al., 2014). Individuals may even be hit by wars in utero. Barker’s hypothesis posits that adverse conditions in the foetal environment, such as malnutrition, have a lasting impact on individuals’ subsequent health and well-being (Stein et al., 1975; Glewwe and Jacoby, 1995; Maluccio et al., 2009). On the other hand, wars and conflicts may be followed by “creative destruction,” due to post-war recovery and rehabilitation, such that they could even improve the economic conditions (Blattman & Miguel, 2010; Miguel & Roland, 2011; Brakman et al., 2004; Kecmanovic, 2013). The empirical evidence on the consequences of wars and conflicts is not straightforward, either. For instance, it has been found that prenatal exposure to the Korean War (1950–1953) had a negative effect on socioeconomic and health outcomes at older ages (Lee, 2014). Several studies also document wars as having negative effects on the schooling of school-aged children; see Swee (2015) for Bosnia and Herzegovina; Verwimp and Van Bavel (2013) for Burundi; Chamarbagwala and Moran (2011) for Guatemala; Shemyakina (2011) for Tajikistan; and Alderman et al. (2006) for Zimbabwe. Going further back in history, it is found that school-aged children in Germany and Austria during World War II received less education, and went on to earn less and have poorer health in adulthood (Ichino and Winter-Ebmer, 2004; Akbulut-Yuksel, 2014; Kesternich et al., 2014). On the other hand, de Groot and Goskel (2011) find the Basque Region conflict to have had a positive impact on education. A recent study by Bozzoli et al. (2013) finds that self-employment in Colombia is lower in regions that have been exposed to conflict, but higher in places with higher proportions of displaced persons. Perhaps the most surprising result is that found by Miguel and Roland (2011) in the context of the devastating American bombing of Vietnam during the Vietnam War (1967–75). They find that local living 4 standards and human capital levels converged rapidly across bombed and non-bombed districts in Vietnam following the war, such that the differences today are statistically insignificant. This finding implies that a rapid post-war recovery can leave few visible economic legacies in 25 years, and is in contrast to the poverty-trap models of the implications of large shocks. Our study is part of the literature that analyzes the early childhood outcomes of wars. Empirically, a focus on young children could produce more reliable estimates, given that the selection bias concerning the impacts of war is likely to be smaller for children than for adults or combatants.2 Our focus on World War I is also notable, because there have been hardly any studies in the literature exploring the long-run impacts of WWI at the micro-level.3 One of the important exceptions is Abramitzky et al. (2011), who study the impact of male scarcity in France as a consequence of WW I on assortative matching using French census data for early 1900s and French soldier mortality at WW I. Our empirical framework takes a treatment versus control approach, in which we compare the adulthood socioeconomic outcomes of those who were born during the periods 1911 to 1915 (i.e., the treatment group) and 1916 to 1920 (i.e., the control group). We use the Turkish census waves of 1985, 1990 and 2000 to identify the individuals who were born during the period 1911 to 1920, and the socioeconomic outcomes of those individuals in adulthood.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Gallipoli Campaign
    tHe GaLlIpOlI CaMpAiGn The Gallipoli Campaign was an attack on the Gallipoli peninsula during World War I, between 25 April 1915 and 9 January 1916. The Gallipoli peninsula was an important tactical position during World War I. The British War Council suggested that Germany could be defeated by attacks on her allies, Austria, Hungary and Turkey. The Allied forces of the British Empire (including Australia and New Zealand) aimed to force a passage through the Dardanelles Strait and capture the Turkish capital, Constantinople. At dawn on 25 April 1915, Anzac assault troops landed north of Gaba Tepe, at what became known as Anzac Cove, while the British forces landed at Cape Helles on the Gallipoli Peninsula. The campaign was a brave but costly failure. By December 1915 plans were drawn up to evacuate the entire force from Gallipoli. On 19 and 20 December, the evacuation of over 142,000 men from Anzac Cove commenced and was completed three weeks later with minimal casualties. In total, the whole Gallipoli campaign caused 26,111 Australian casualties, including 8,141 deaths. Since 1916 the anniversary of the landings on 25 April has been commemorated as Anzac Day, becoming one of the most important national celebrations in Australia and New Zealand. tHe GaLlIpOlI CaMpAiGn The Gallipoli Campaign was an attack on the Gallipoli peninsula during World War I, between 25 April 1915 and 9 January 1916. The Gallipoli peninsula was an important tactical position during World War I. The British War Council suggested that Germany could be defeated by attacks on her allies, Austria, Hungary and Turkey.
    [Show full text]
  • With the Judeans in the Palestine Campaign the Macmillan Company Kbwyork • Boston • Chicago • Daixas Atlanta • San Francisco
    ^^0^ ^(y a' ^0^ o^, *. ^V ^q,/*Tr.-* ^<^/o ^-^^ .o^\i^:.'/%''"'-^'''' 1--•^^ c\. "^0'^ o. %-!-:.-.- *« 'i;' vV <^ ''o ^^-n^A. ,0 * " A*^ '^<,.''*'o,T** .0^ \^ *^^^'* '^<^"*-o.?*' .0^ ^• ^^M^^ o\ />*^<^ •; '^^ 5>^ •!nL% Ik A? * > .0^ '"^-. ^^ ^^ * \<,^' ' > 4.*' ''*^_ <p^ .1-4-*' ..• -• ..I'^L', .'.^ia' % " ' *-./ - "'^.c.^^ WITH THE JUDEANS IN THE PALESTINE CAMPAIGN THE MACMILLAN COMPANY KBWYORK • BOSTON • CHICAGO • DAIXAS ATLANTA • SAN FRANCISCO MACMILLAN & CO.. Limited LONDON • BOMBAY • CALCUTTA MELBOURNE THE MACMILLAN CO. OP CANADA. Ltd. TORONTO PHYSICAL MAP OF PALESTINE Scale of miles 6 10 20 40 60 80 100 Scale of kilometres 6 10 20 40 GO 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 WITH THE JUDEANS IN THE PALESTINE CAMPAIGN BY LIEUT.-COLONEL J. H. PATTERSON, D.S.C. AUTHOR OF "the MAN-EATERS OF TSAVo/' "iN THE GRIP OF THE NYIKa/' "wITH THE ZIONISTS IN GALLIPOH" THE MACMILLAN COMPANY 1922 All rights reserved PRINTED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 1\^'. ^'^.y' Copyright, 1922, By the MACMILLAN COMPANY. Set up and electrotyped. Published, November, 1922. FERRIS PRINTING COMPANY NEW YORK CITY -6 DEC '22 C1A692250 PREFACE THE formation of a Battalion of Jews for service in the British Army is an event with: out precedent in our annals, and the part played by such a unique unit is assured of a niche in history, owing to the fact that it fought in Palestine, not only for the British cause, but also for the Restoration of the Jewish people to the Promised Land. In writing the following- narrative, my object has been to give a faithful account of the doings of this Jewish Battalion while it was under my command.
    [Show full text]
  • Master Thesis Set out to Find out What Kind of Picture of Egypt the British Military Personnel Portrayed to Their Friends and Family Back at Home
    Nuancing the picture of Egypt A study of how Egypt was portrayed home by British military personnel during the First World War University of Bergen Master’s thesis Department of Archaeology, History, Cultural Studies and Religion Autumn 2020 Sigrid Buhaug Kluck 1 Table of contents Sammendrag ............................................................................................................................................. 4 Preface ...................................................................................................................................................... 5 Chapter 1: Introduction and methodology................................................................................................. 6 Methodology and sources .................................................................................................................................. 10 Letters ................................................................................................................................................................ 13 Postcards ........................................................................................................................................................... 15 Photographs ....................................................................................................................................................... 16 Chapter 2: Historical background ........................................................................................................... 18 Egypt 1869-1914
    [Show full text]
  • The Great War Began at the End of July 1914 with the Triple Entente
    ANZAC SURGEONS OF GALLIPOLI The Great War began at the end of July 1914 with the Triple Entente (Britain, France and Russia) aligned against the Triple Alliance (Germany, Austria- Hungary and Italy). By December, the Alliance powers had been joined by the Ottoman Turks; and in January 1915 the Russians, pressured by German and Turkish forces in the Caucasus, asked the British to open up another front. Hamilton second from right: There is nothing certain about war except that one side won’t win. AWM H10350 A naval campaign against Turkey was devised by the British The Turkish forces Secretary of State for War Lord Kitchener and the First Sea Lord, Winston Churchill. In 1913, Enver Pasha became Minister of War and de-facto Commander in Chief of the Turkish forces. He commanded It was intended that allied ships would destroy Turkish the Ottoman Army in 1914 when they were defeated by fortifications and open up the Straits of the Dardanelles, thus the Russians at the Battle of Sarikamiş and also forged the enabling the capture of Constantinople. alliance with Germany in 1914. In March 1915 he handed over control of the Ottoman 5th army to the German General Otto Liman von Sanders. It was intended that allied Von Sanders recognised the allies could not take Constantinople without a combined land and sea attack. ships would destroy Turkish In his account of the campaign, he commented on the small force of 60,000 men under his command but noted: The fortifications British gave me four weeks before their great landing.
    [Show full text]
  • The Forgotten Fronts the First World War Battlefield Guide: World War Battlefield First the the Forgotten Fronts Forgotten The
    Ed 1 Nov 2016 1 Nov Ed The First World War Battlefield Guide: Volume 2 The Forgotten Fronts The First Battlefield War World Guide: The Forgotten Fronts Creative Media Design ADR005472 Edition 1 November 2016 THE FORGOTTEN FRONTS | i The First World War Battlefield Guide: Volume 2 The British Army Campaign Guide to the Forgotten Fronts of the First World War 1st Edition November 2016 Acknowledgement The publisher wishes to acknowledge the assistance of the following organisations in providing text, images, multimedia links and sketch maps for this volume: Defence Geographic Centre, Imperial War Museum, Army Historical Branch, Air Historical Branch, Army Records Society,National Portrait Gallery, Tank Museum, National Army Museum, Royal Green Jackets Museum,Shepard Trust, Royal Australian Navy, Australian Defence, Royal Artillery Historical Trust, National Archive, Canadian War Museum, National Archives of Canada, The Times, RAF Museum, Wikimedia Commons, USAF, US Library of Congress. The Cover Images Front Cover: (1) Wounded soldier of the 10th Battalion, Black Watch being carried out of a communication trench on the ‘Birdcage’ Line near Salonika, February 1916 © IWM; (2) The advance through Palestine and the Battle of Megiddo: A sergeant directs orders whilst standing on one of the wooden saddles of the Camel Transport Corps © IWM (3) Soldiers of the Royal Army Service Corps outside a Field Ambulance Station. © IWM Inside Front Cover: Helles Memorial, Gallipoli © Barbara Taylor Back Cover: ‘Blood Swept Lands and Seas of Red’ at the Tower of London © Julia Gavin ii | THE FORGOTTEN FRONTS THE FORGOTTEN FRONTS | iii ISBN: 978-1-874346-46-3 First published in November 2016 by Creative Media Designs, Army Headquarters, Andover.
    [Show full text]
  • Anzacs and the Great
    SARAH MIDFORD Gallipoli, Anzacs and the Great War La Trobe University eBureau Melbourne,VIC3086,Australia www.latrobe.edu.au PublishedinAustraliabyLaTrobeUniversity LaTrobeUniversity2017© Firstpublished2017 Copyright Information CopyrightinthisworkisvestedinLaTrobeUniversity.Unless otherwisestated,materialwithinthisworkislicensedundera CreativeCommonsAttribution-NonCommercial-NonDerivatives License CCBY-NC-ND http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ ISBN978-0-9953727-1-9 DOIhttps://doi.org/10.26826/1002 Other information EditedanddesignedbyBiotext Enquiries: [email protected] 2   Gallipoli, Anzacs and the Great War SARAH MIDFORD 3   Contents Introduction 4 Chapter 1: HistoryofGallipoliand theregion 23 Chapter 2: BattlefieldGallipoli 38 Chapter 3: TheGallipoliarmistice 55 Chapter 4: Enduringthewar 59 Chapter 5: BroadeningthedefinitionofAnzac 79 Chapter 6: Grief,commemorationandmemory 93 Chapter 7: Anzaclegacy 105 About the author .Sarah MidfordisaLecturerintheSchoolof whencomposingtheAustralianAnzacnarrative HumanitiesandSocialSciencesatLaTrobe Herresearchfocusesontheculturalimpactofwar University.SheteachesClassics,Australian inhistory,literatureandcommemorativeprocesses StudiesandInterdisciplinaryStudiesandin throughouthistory,anddrawsconnections 2016receivedanAustralian Award for University betweentheancientandmodernworlds.Sheis Teachingforonlinecurriculumdesign.Sarah’sPhD,
    [Show full text]
  • Islam and the Great War in the Middle East, 1914–1918
    Journal of the British Academy, 4, 1–20. DOI 10.5871/jba/004.001 Posted 19 January 2016. © The British Academy 2016 Rival jihads: Islam and the Great War in the Middle East, 1914–1918 Elie Kedourie Memorial Lecture read 8 July 2014 EUGENE ROGAN Abstract: The Ottoman Empire, under pressure from its ally Germany, declared a jihad shortly after entering the First World War. The move was calculated to rouse Muslims in the British, French and Russian empires to rebellion. Dismissed at the time and since as a ‘jihad made in Germany’, the Ottoman attempt to turn the Great War into a holy war failed to provoke mass revolt in any part of the Muslim world. Yet, as German Orientalists predicted, the mere threat of such a rebellion, particularly in British India, was enough to force Britain and its allies to divert scarce manpower and materiel away from the main theatre of operations in the Western Front to the Ottoman front. The deepening of Britain’s engagement in the Middle Eastern theatre of war across the four years of World War I can be attributed in large part to combating the threat of jihad. Keywords: Ottoman Empire, Great War, jihad, WWI, Middle East. The Ottoman entry into the First World War should have provoked little or no concern in European capitals. For decades, the West had dismissed the Ottoman Empire as Europe’s sick man.1 Since the late 1870s, the European powers had carved out whole swathes of Ottoman territory for their empires with impunity. The Russians annexed the Caucasian provinces of Kars, Ardahan and Batum in 1878.
    [Show full text]
  • Gallipoli in the First World War*
    Gallipoli in the First World War* Prepared by Prof. Dr. Recep Boztemur Middle E ast T echnical University * Text and some pictures are quoted from www.canakkale.gen.tr 77 THE FIRST WORLD WAR In the beginning of the 20th century, Europe was overflowing from its frontiers. Economical rivalry, imperialism, and nationalist movements were dividing the continent into two blocs. The conflict was rising between Germany-France and Russia-Austria. The tension in Europe had reached its highest point on 28 June 1914 with the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand, heir of the Austro-Hungarian throne by a Serbian nationalist. On 28 July 1914, Austria had declared mobilisation then the Great War began. In Europe, two blocs had appeared: the Central Powers (Germany, Austro-Hungary and Italy) and the Triple Alliance (Britain, France, and Russia). With the outbreak of the war, Italy had declared neutrality but one year later joined the Triple Alliance. On the other hand, the Ottoman Empire was losing its large territories in which many nations and beliefs had persisted for over 600 years. Both internal and external conflicts and wars were weakening the strength of the Ottoman Empire. Finally, the Ottoman Empire, with a series of military defeats in Tripoli and in the Balkans, lost nearly all its territories in Europe except the Trace. Moreover, it lost its power and international prestige. From then on, the death of the empire was certain and European powers were planing to share the heritage. As seen, the Twentieth Century had compelled the Turks to grant zones of influence to European powers: Britain (Egypt-Palestine), France (Syria and the Lebanon), Austria-Hungary (Bosnia-Herzegovina), and Italy (Libya).
    [Show full text]
  • Re-Reading the Past:Two Armenian Memoirs from the Ottoman Army and Official Turkish Historiography
    RE-READING THE PAST: TWO ARMENIAN MEMOIRS FROM THE OTTOMAN ARMY AND OFFICIAL TURKISH HISTORIOGRAPHY By Idil Onen Submitted to Central European University Department of History In partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts Supervisor: Professor Nadia Al-Bagdadi Second Reader: Associate Professor Brett Wilson CEU eTD Collection Budapest, Hungary 2017 Copyright in the text of this thesis rests with the Author. Copies by any process, either in full or part, may be made only in accordance with the instructions given by the Author and lodged in the Central European Library. Details may be obtained from the librarian. This page must form a part of any such copies made. Further copies made in accordance with such instructions may not be made without the written permission of the Author. CEU eTD Collection Abstract The aim of my research is to analyze the position of two Armenian officers’ memoir who participated the First World War in the Ottoman Army. In order to do so, I will examine the memoirs of the Second Lieutenant Kalusd Sürmenyan, who wrote a part of his book on his hometown Erzincan in 1947, and Captain Sarkis Torosyan, who published his memoirs in the Unites States of America in 1947. To accomplish the analysis of these historical texts and their context, the two research questions will direct my study: first, deals with how these officers were seen and remembered by Turkish historiography, either through their treatment or their erasure, while the second attempts to re-consider the end of the Ottoman empire turning to these two army officers themselves and expressing their memories and experiences.
    [Show full text]
  • The Role of the Ottoman Empire in the First World War
    Salve Regina University Digital Commons @ Salve Regina Pell Scholars and Senior Theses Salve's Dissertations and Theses 6-1-2009 The Sick Man’s Last Fight: The Role of the Ottoman Empire in the First World War Henry A. Crouse Salve Regina University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.salve.edu/pell_theses Part of the European History Commons, and the Islamic World and Near East History Commons Crouse, Henry A., "The Sick Man’s Last Fight: The Role of the Ottoman Empire in the First World War" (2009). Pell Scholars and Senior Theses. 40. https://digitalcommons.salve.edu/pell_theses/40 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Salve's Dissertations and Theses at Digital Commons @ Salve Regina. It has been accepted for inclusion in Pell Scholars and Senior Theses by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ Salve Regina. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Crouse 1 The Sick Man’s Last Fight: The Role of the Ottoman Empire in the First World War “O Muslims, know that our Empire is at war with the mortal enemies of Islam: the governments of Muscovy, Britain, and France. The commander of the Faithful summons you to Jihad.” Henry A. Crouse HIS 490-01: Senior Seminar Brother John Buckley, FSC, Ph.D. June 5, 2009 Crouse 2 The Great War in 1914 to 1918 destroyed mighty empires, and created nations from their ashes. Both the Allied and Central Powers had been dominated by powerful empires. The Ottoman Empire, established by the Turks was at one point the largest empire in the world.
    [Show full text]
  • Gungor on Ulrichsen, 'The First World War in the Middle East'
    H-War Gungor on Ulrichsen, 'The First World War in the Middle East' Review published on Wednesday, January 13, 2016 Kristian Coates Ulrichsen. The First World War in the Middle East. London: Hurst & Co., 2014. xiii + 263 pp. $35.00 (cloth), ISBN 978-1-84904-274-1. Reviewed by Hakan Gungor (Florida State University)Published on H-War (January, 2016) Commissioned by Margaret Sankey Kristian Coates Ulrichsen presents a multidimensional perspective of the First World War in the Middle East. The First World War in the Middle East endeavors to demonstrate how the roots of ongoing issues such as Arab nationalism, political Islam, Arab-Israeli conflict, and even terrorism lay in the legacies and decisions of the Great War. His work, thus, examines the military campaigns, political decisions, and diplomatic engagements from the end of Tanzimat in 1876 to the Treaty of Lausanne in 1923. Although the author covers a large period, the core of the book spans from 1914 to 1918. Ulrichsen effectively shows how the war shaped people’s identities and everlasting problems through examinations of the major campaigns in the region: Dardanelles, Mesopotamia, and Caucasus. The author divides the work in three parts. In the first part, which includes two chapters, Ulrichsen examines the overlapping interests of the British, French, Ottomans, Germans, and Russians in the Middle East before 1914. The author argues that colonial penetration in the region and competing in interests ignited “pan-Arab[ism]” and the sense “of belonging” (p. 12). Direct Western intervention in the politics and economics of the region, as seen in the Urabi Revolution in Egypt, brought about a forceful response to colonialism.
    [Show full text]
  • ÇANAKKALE ARAŞTIRMALARI TÜRK YILLIĞI Yıl 15 Güz 2017 Sayı 23 Ss
    ÇANAKKALE ARAŞTIRMALARI TÜRK YILLIĞI Yıl 15 Güz 2017 Sayı 23 ss. 247-264 Geliş Tarihi: 11.10.2017 Kabul Tarihi: 18.10.2017 On the Fate of Ottoman Cultural Properties during the Gallipoli Campaign Turan TAKAOĞLU* Mithat ATABAY** Öz Bu çalışma Birinci Dünya Savaşı sırasında Çanakkale Savaşı esnasında İtilaf devletleri askeri güçlerinin Çanakkale Boğazının Trakya ve Anadolu kısımlarında kalan topraklarında bulunan askeri nitelik taşımayan mimari yapılar üzerinde yaptığı tahribatın boyutlarını irdelemeyi amaçlar. Savaş ve uyuşmazlık zamanlarında kimlik, inanç ve ortak hafıza gibi milli kimliği temsil eden kültür varlıkları veya sivil ve mimari öğeler düşman güçler tarafından çoğu zaman hep bilerek hedef alındığı durumlar olmuştur. Kale ve benzeri askeri yapılar savaş zamanında canlı hedefler olduğundan dolayı savaş gemileri ve uçakların her zaman hedefleri doğru bir şekilde vuramadığından dolayı söz konusu askeri yapılar etrafında bulunan yapılara kasti olmayan hasarlar da verilmiş olduğu durumlar vardır. Ancak, 1915 yılına ait bazı tarihi Osmanlı belgeleri Çanakkale Savaşı sırasında İtilaf devletlerinin havadan veya denizden yaptığı bombardımanlar sonucu bazı askeri karakteri olmayan Osmanlı kültür varlıklarının belirli oranda tahrip olduğu ve hatta bu tahribatların bazılarının gereksiz yere bilinçli olarak yapıldığı dikkat çeker. Bunun sonucu olarak Çanakkale Savaşı sırasında ve hemen öncesinde askeri yapıları barındıran ve Çanakkale Boğazı’nın güney kıyısı yerleşimlerinden Çanakkale (Çanak, Kale-i Sultaniye), Erenköy ve Kumkale gibi yerleşimler yanında Gelibolu Yarımadası’nda bulunan Seddülbahir ve Bolayır konumları gereği sivil ve dini mimarilerinde tahribat yaşamışlardır. Gelibolu Yarımadası bünyesinde stratejik konumlarda bulunan Maydos ve Krtihia köyleri de İtilaf devletlerinin hedef haline geldiğinden buralarda bulunan bazı sivil ve dini mimari yapılarda tahribat yaşanmıştır. Osmanlı kültür mirasının korunmasına yönelik Türklerce alınan bazı önlemlerin de olması da bu bağlamda dikkat çekici bir durumdur.
    [Show full text]