Tag: History

Turkey, Armenian allegations and the West

“soykırım” karaçalmasına karşı hazırladığım incelemenin İngilizcesini
sunuyorum.

Saygıyla. Prof.
Dr. Özer Ozankaya

Human angle

by Prof. Dr. Özer OZANKAYA

Over the past 40 years, many Western
governments have held the Turkish nation and the Turkish
Republic responsible for the bloody
Armenian-Turkish conflicts which were incited, particularly by Russia, Britain,
France and America, in the East and South Anatolian regions
during the final years of the Ottoman
State. Further, they have
concurred in the presentation of these events as a “genocide carried out by the
Turks against the Armenians”. Ignoring the requirements of objectivity and
consistency, they have approved parliamentary resolutions to this effect, and
even enacted laws punishing those who do not defend this position! Together
with the Armenian government, these Western states close their ears to Turkey’s
appeals for proposals to examine the issue in a scientific atmosphere according
to objective criteria.

Objectivity is the leading
requirement of international peace and democracy. It is also one of the foundations
of the Turkish Republic. As Atatürk warned, “Writing
history is just as important as making history. If the writer is not loyal to
the history-maker, then the unchangeable truth turns into something surprising
for humanity.” With respect to the Armenian genocide allegations, a significant
number of French scientists last month stressed that it was wrong for the
French Parliament to convert its political views on historical issues into laws
and resolutions, and argued that writing history should be left to researchers.
This statement is pleasing. As a sociologist, I would like to add my own
observations and remarks on the issue – not as rigid assertions, but as
suggestions which are open to criticism.

History written and rewritten

The destruction of the Ottoman State was accompanied by much suffering
on the part of Ottoman nationals as a result of conflicts of interest among the
industrialised Western states in their search for natural resources and
markets. The greatest anguish was experienced by the Turkish section of
society, which had borne most of the burden of the Ottoman State,
but been left out of all progress.

As America’s
Professor Justin McCarthy sets out in his research on migration in the region,
Ottomans of Turkish origin were cast out of homes which they had occupied in
Rumelia (Southeast Europe) for 500 years.
Similarly, an attempt was made to form a region deprived of Turkish population
in the East, in order artificially to create an Armenia. Armenian gangs, set up and
armed with the support of the British, Russians and French, launched an
initiative to massacre Turks, including women, the elderly and children, and to
force them to flee the region. The majority of the Armenian population could
not or did not rebel against these murders. However, although attacks on Turks
were successful in the western provinces of the Ottoman State,
they did not succeed in the East. The Ottoman
State obliged the population of
Armenian origin in this region – and this region only – to migrate southward, in
order to protect the Turkish population and prevent them from being stabbed in
the back while fighting against Russia.

During the War of Independence,
Armenians in French military uniform were used to attack Turks in Adana, Maraş and Gaziantep.
This made it even more impossible for the Armenians who had been subject to
deportation to return to their homelands upon the foundation of the Republic.
In short, the Armenian people in Eastern Anatolia
lost their opportunity to live in peace together with their Turkish neighbors
because they could not or did not refuse to serve as a vehicle for the
interests of the Western states. They had been present in the region for over a
thousand years. They ended their existence in the region by their own hands.

As of the 1990s, Armenian
politicians backed by the political West began to turn the incidents upside
down. Making no mention of the attacks on the Turks, they let it be known that
the Ottoman State and Turkish nation had carried out
a genocide against the Armenians, just as others had sought to annihilate the
Jews. The Republic
of Turkey had attached
great importance to preventing the past from poisoning the present, and chosen
not to put the responsibility of the political West for the painful incidents
mentioned above onto the international agenda. But this noble policy was
regarded as an indication of weakness and used against Turkey as a
weapon.

Points to consider

Slandering a nation is itself a
kind of genocide attempt. The inaccuracy of the propaganda has been proven many
times. Some of the convincing arguments used to debunk the smear campaign are
as follows:

1. The Ottoman State drifted into
World War I as a result of the efforts of Enver Pasha and similar state
administrators under the control of Germany. The whole Ottoman Army was
under the direct command of the German generals who constituted the “German
Military Training Council”. Liman von Sanders and Falkenhein are the best-known
examples. If the Ottoman
State were to commit
genocide against Armenian nationals, the German government would have ample
opportunity to document it. But no such document has been found in the German
archives.

2. The Ottoman State, which signed the Mondros Ceasefire
Agreement, surrendered the entire administration to the British, French and
Italian occupiers. The war criminals were delivered to the courts and exiled to
Malta.
However, although the states which had won the war seized all the archives of
the Ottoman state, they found no proof to indicate that genocide had been
implemented against the Armenians, and they were able to make no such
allegation. If any proof had been found in the British, French, Russian and
Italian archives up until now, it would have been declared to the whole world
many times over.

3. During the period of the Ceasefire and the Turkish War
of Independence, the American administration assigned General Mosley and
General Harbord to research the Armenian allegations. They stated that there
had been no genocide – only “mutual killings” – and noted that Turks had
suffered the greater losses during the clashes. They did not pass judgement as
to who started the killings: had it been the Turks, one doubts whether they
would have remained silent.

4. Prior to the 1877 Ottoman-Russian War, Britain, on account of its own colonialist
interests, was opposed to any attack to be launched by Russia on the Ottoman State
on the pretext of protecting the Armenians from oppression. Britain
assigned a Royalty captain to observe the situation on the spot. According to
Captain Peebody’s report, ‘Five Hundred Miles on Horseback in Asia
Minor’, the Armenians were not subject to pressure. Indeed, he
found them to be the most prosperous and richest section of society. However he
noted that they might not be entirely loyal to the Ottoman State.

5. We know that the Armenians
attacked their Turkish neighbors in French uniforms in the Adana-Maraş region.
Subsequently, French Prime Minister Clemenceau did not refrain from arguing
that the Armenians had nobody to blame but themselves.

6. The allegations of Armenian
genocide were never voiced during the time of Atatürk. Turkey received a special invitation to join the
League of Nations, and not a word was said
about the allegations.

7. Had the Armenians been
subjected to genocide in Turkey, the hundreds of Jews who escaped from Nazi
Germany, like the German scientists, artists and intellectuals who revolted
against the regime, would not have wanted to live in Atatürk’s Turkey rather
than the US, Switzerland or Canada. They would not have felt that they could
live in a fully free atmosphere in Turkey.

8. The Ottoman state had regarded
the Armenians as its ‘Teb’a-i sadıka’ – or most loyal citizens. For many
generations, the palace architects (such as the Balyan family) had been chosen
from among the Armenians, and Armenians had been appointed to the highest
official positions. The Armenians had become very close to the Turks in every
aspect of culture. They printed books in Turkish using the Armenian alphabet
and widely spoke Turkish even in their homes.

9. Even today, Armenians living
in many countries throughout the world frequently speak Turkish in their homes
and among themselves. If they had been obliged to emigrate due to genocide in Anatolia, which was their homeland for thousands of
years, they would scarcely want to continue speaking Turkish.

Turkish “encouragement”?

The best strategy which any
nation can follow is to possess a contemporary culture. A democratic
administration, freedom in philosophy, science and arts, an economy based on
advanced industry and technology, and a developed written language provide a
nation with the greatest possible security. However, following World War II,
Turkish politicians failed to pursue the enlightening revolutions which Atatürk
had begun. They sought easy ways of staying in power and served selfish
interests, leaving the vast rural population largely uneducated, and weakening
the Republic. In these circumstances, the political West, which has yet to
condemn colonialism, renewed its attacks on the Turkish
Republic and the Turkish nation, so as
to prevent the Atatürk model from becoming an example for the Islamic world and
the exploited nations, and to reduce Turkey to the level of a colony
once again. This was done sometimes under the guide of assistance; sometimes
with the aid of ignorant and/or self-seeking writers and academics, Turkish or
foreign. The Armenian genocide allegations have to be seen in this context.

In order to end the Armenian
slanders and prevent their use as blackmail for the achievement of political
and economic goals vis-a-vis Turkey, Turkish governments must express the
above-mentioned facts with a loud voice, and make quite clear that the behaviour
of governments which put this issue before their parliaments, raise it on
international platforms or enact laws infringing the freedom of thought and
forbidding any questioning of the genocide allegations will be regarded as
hostile and will meet with an appropriate response.

At the same time, it follows from
the above observation that Turkey
needs strong, democratic governments conscious of their accountability to
the nation. Officials outside and inside the country should be appointed not on
partisan lines but among people who are capable of safeguarding the nation’s
interests. And academics and intellectuals should lend their support within an
understanding of democratic citizenship.

(DIPLOMAT- February 2006 – Ankara)

Prof. Dr. Özer Ozankaya Kimdir?

1937 Kulp / Diyarbakır doğumlu olan Prof. Dr. Özer Ozankaya, 1959’da Ankara Üniversitesi Siyasal Bilgiler Fakültesi’ni bitirerek aynı fakültede Sosyoloji Asistanı oldu. ABD’de Syracuse Üniversitesi’nde “Türk ve Japon Çağdaşlaşma Deneyimlerinin Karşılaştırması” teziyle Sosyoloji Master Derecesi alan Ozankaya, Siyasal Bilgiler Fakültesi’nde sırasıyla 1966 yılında “Üniversite Öğrencilerinin Siyasal Yönelimleri” konulu teziyle doktor, 1970 yılında “Köyde Toplumsal Yapı ve Siyasal Kültür” konulu araştırmasıyla doçent ve 1978 yılında da “Türk Devrimi ve Yüksek Öğretim Gençliği” konulu araştırmasıyla profesör oldu.

Çeşitli üniversitelerde ders veren Profesör Ozankaya, 1990 yılında kendi isteği ile kadrolu öğretim üyeliğinden ayrıldı. Şu anda Orta-Doğu Teknik ve Bilkent Üniversitelerinde öğretim çalışmalarını sürdürüyor.

Atatürkçü Düşünce Derneği’nin kurucu üyesi olan 4. Genel Başkanlığını ve Genel Yönetim Kurulu Üyeliğini yapmış olan, Cumhuriyetçi Demokrasi Partisi’nin kurucu üyesi ve Gen. Bşk. Yrd. olan Prof. Ozankaya’nın yukarda belirtilenler dışında yayınlanan bazı yapıtları şunlar:

1) Toplumbilim, 10. Basım, CEM Yayınevi, 1999 (Türk Dil Kurumu 1976 Bilim Dili Ödülünü almıştır.)
2) Türkiye’de Laiklik, 7. Basım, CEM Yayınevi, 2000.
4) Cumhuriyet Çınarı
5) Sosyalizmin Çöküşü kapitalizmin Zaferi Değildir
6) Dünya Düşünürleri Gözüyle Atatürk ve Cumhuriyeti
7) Atatürk’s Legacy – Views by World-Famous Intellectuals,
8) NUTUK’tan Seçmeler, CEM Yayınevi, 2000.

Prof. Ozankaya, İngilizce, Fransızca, Almanca ve Osmanlıca’dan birçok temel yapıtı da dilimize çevirerek yayınladı. Emile Durkheim‘in İntihar, (3. Bsm, CEM Yayınevi, 2002), Max Weber’in Toplumsal ve Ekonomik Örgütlenme Kuramı (İMGE Yayınevi, 1994), E. H. Carr‘in Tarih Yazımında Nesnellik ve Yanlılık (İMGE Yayınevi, 1992), George Sabine‘in Yakın Çağ Siyasal Düşünceler Tarihi (4. Bsm. CEM Yayınevi, 2001), Şemseddin Sami, Kadın (Basın-Yayın Yüksek Okulu Yıllığı, 1981), Celal Nuri, Kadınlarımız (Kültür Bakanlığı Yayını, 1993) ve Celal Nuri, Türk Devrimi (Kültür Bakanlığı Yayını, 2002) bunlar arasındadır.

Prof. Ozankaya, Türk Sosyal Bilimler Derneği, Türk Sosyoloji Derneği, Mülkiyeliler Birliği, Türk Japon Kültürünü Araştırma ve Dayanışma Derneği gibi derneklerin de üyesidir.

February 12, 2009
Pontic Greeks

As a consequence of unveiling of a plaque, on 20th December 2008, located at the Migration Museum in Adelaide, South Australia, commemorating the Genocide of the Pontic Greeks, it appears to be fairly essential that the following statement be issued by the Rector of Giresun University, which is a university located on the Black Sea Coast.

“It is very well known by everyone approaching to recent history objectively that after the Treaty of Mondros, signed in 1918, armed activities of the Greek gangs threw Anatolia into disorder, severely threatened the security of life and property , and precautions were taken accordingly.

Pontic Greek problem and genocide allegations are not based on a historical and scientific basis. This is an issue, which the governments, having designs on Anatolia, want to take advantage of so as to fulfil their aims by distorting the historical truths and misusing the scientists. The said issue and allegations bare no relation to reality.

The best example to this is the following declaration published in Trabzon in the issue of “İstikbal Gazetesi” dated 18th February 1921 by Trabzon Orthodox Community.
“It is, not only for today but also for tomorrow, our forever principle to be allies of the Turks forever, whom we considered to be asserting our law as well while asserting their rights.”

Turkey and the Turks are a country and a nation, at peace with their history. As a country and a nation we do not have a history that we cannot give account of and feel shame for. Turkish history is full of noble, humanistic and meritorious behaviours, displayed in the presence of badness and injustice towards themselves. The most well-known example to this is the Battle of Gallipoli. The Turks did not ask the Anzacs, coming from thousands of miles away and attempting to invade Gallipoli and Anatolia, “Why are you here?”. Instead, in the post-war era, the Turks embraced the Anzacs and treated them friendly.

It is necessary that everyone see that the creators of badness, the exaggerators of badness and the illuminators of badness will not be able to be the creators of goodness and beauty. As long as we desire a more peaceful and liveable world, we are supposed to seek after good and beautiful things.

Giresun University, located on the most beautiful shores of the Black Sea, is inviting you to bring a world of peace to light, to bring you, the humans together, to illuminate the good and the beautiful.

Respectfully submitted for your information.”
Prof. Dr. Osman Metin ÖZTÜRK
Rector of Giresun University

www.giresun.edu.tr

rektor@giresun.edu.tr
0090 454 310 10 03
0090 506 531 28 88”

February 10, 2009
7,000 years older than Stonehenge: the site that stunned archaeologists
İşte size 12000 yıllık bir haber…… Gazetelerimizde hiç yer almıyor, ilgi görmüyor desek yeridir. Yukarıda saydığım “bıkıntı” konuların hepsi gidici ve geçici ama bu 12000 yıl dayanmış, umarım Türkiyenin bu ilgisizliğine karşın 12000 yıl daha dayanır.

ilginize sunarim.
K. A.

7,000 years older than Stonehenge: the site that stunned archaeologists

Circles of elaborately carved stones from about 9,500BC predate even agriculture
As a child, Klaus Schmidt used to grub around in caves in his native Germany in the hope of finding prehistoric paintings. Thirty years later, a member of the German Archaeological Institute, he found something infinitely more important: a temple complex almost twice as old as anything comparable on the planet.

“This place is a supernova,” said Schmidt, standing under a lone tree on a windswept hilltop 35 miles north of Turkey’s border with Syria. “Within a minute of first seeing it I knew I had two choices: go away and tell nobody, or spend the rest of my life working here.”

Behind him are the first folds of the Anatolian plateau. Ahead, the Mesopotamian plain, like a dust-coloured sea, stretches south hundreds of miles. The stone circles of Gobekli Tepe are just in front, hidden under the brow of the hill.

Compared with Stonehenge, they are humble affairs. None of the circles excavated (four out of an estimated 20) are more than 30 metres across. T-shaped pillars like the rest, two five-metre stones tower at least a metre above their peers. What makes them remarkable are their carved reliefs of boars, foxes, lions, birds, snakes and scorpions, and their age. Dated at around 9,500BC, these stones are 5,500 years older than the first cities of Mesopotamia, and 7,000 years older than Stonehenge.

Never mind wheels or writing, the people who erected them did not even have pottery or domesticated wheat. They lived in villages. But they were hunters, not farmers.

“Everybody used to think only complex, hierarchical civilisations could build such monumental sites, and that they only came about with the invention of agriculture”, said Ian Hodder, a Stanford University professor of anthropology who has directed digs at Catalhoyuk, Turkey’s best known neolithic site, since 1993. “Gobekli changes everything. It’s elaborate, it’s complex and it is pre-agricultural. That alone makes the site one of the most important archaeological finds in a very long time.”

With only a fraction of the site opened up after a decade of excavation, Gobekli Tepe’s significance to the people who built it remains unclear. Some think it was the centre of a fertility rite, with the two tall stones at the centre of each circle representing a man and woman. It is a theory the tourist board in nearby Urfa has taken up with alacrity. Visit the Garden of Eden, its brochures trumpet; see Adam and Eve.

Schmidt is sceptical. He agrees Gobekli Tepe may well be “the last flowering of a semi-nomadic world that farming was just about to destroy”, and points out that if it is in near perfect condition today, it is because those who built it buried it soon after under tons of soil, as though its wild animal-rich world had lost all meaning.

But the site is devoid of the fertility symbols found at other neolithic sites, and the T-shaped columns, while clearly semi-human, are sexless.

Gods

“I think here we are face to face with the earliest representation of gods,” said Schmidt, patting one of the biggest stones. “They have no eyes, no mouths, no faces. But they have arms and they have hands. They are makers.

“In my opinion, the people who carved them were asking themselves the biggest questions of all. What is this universe? Why are we here?”

With no evidence of houses or graves near the stones, Schmidt believes the hilltop was a site of pilgrimage for communities within a radius of roughly a hundred miles. The tallest stones all face south-east, as if scanning plains that are scattered with contemporary sites in many ways no less remarkable than Gobekli Tepe.

Last year, for instance, French archaeologists working at Djade al-Mughara in northern Syria uncovered the oldest mural ever found. “Two square metres of geometric shapes, in red, black and white – like a Paul Klee painting”, said Eric Coqueugniot, of the University of Lyon, who is leading the excavation.

Coqueugniot describes Schmidt’s hypothesis that Gobekli Tepe was a meeting point for rituals as “tempting”, given its spectacular position. But surveys of the region were still in their infancy. “Tomorrow, somebody might find somewhere even more dramatic.”

Vecihi Ozkaya, the director of a dig at Kortiktepe, 120 miles east of Urfa, doubts the thousands of stone pots he has found since 2001 in hundreds of 11,500-year-old graves quite qualify as that. But his excitement fills his austere office at Dicle University in Diyarbakir.

“Look at this”, he said, pointing at a photo of an exquisitely carved sculpture showing an animal, half-human, half-lion. “It’s a sphinx, thousands of years before Egypt. South-eastern Turkey, northern Syria – this region saw the wedding night of our civilisation.”

Bir arkadaşımın mesajından alıntı:
“Bir arkadasimdan gelen, Urfa Gobekli Tepe ile ilgili haber iceren gazete linkini yolluyorum. Turkcesi de arkadasimin yorumuyla asagida…

Bu ilginc yeri de gezmek umidiyle…

The Guardian:
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2008/apr/23/archaeology.turkey

Harran yakinlarindaki Gobeklitepe’de uzun yillardir surdurulen kazilar, prehistorik ve neolitik cag tarihiyle ilgili bilinenleri yerle bir edecek, tarih kitaplarinin yeniden yazilmasini gerektirecek kadar onemli bulgulari birbiri ardina dunyanin gozleri onune sermeyi surduruyor.

Kazilari yoneten Alman Arkeoloji Birligi bilim adamlarindan Prof. Klaus Schmidt, yaptigi basin aciklamasinda, “Bu mekan bir supernova,” dedi, “Gordugum anda, yalnizca iki secenegim oldugunu anladim:

Ya arkami donup buradan gidecek ve bundan hic kimseye soz etmeyecektim ya da butun omrumu buraya adayacaktim.”

Gobeklitepe’deki arkeolojik bulgular, gunumuzden yaklasik 12 bin yil oncesine, I.O. 9500’lere tarihleniyor. Yani, Stonehenge’den yaklasik 7, Mezopotamya’daki ilk kentlerden de 6 bin yil daha eski. Bir baska deyisle, dunyanin bilinen en eski uygarligi.

Calismalarin yapildigi alandaki en etkileyici kalinti, yaklasik 30 metre capinda bir megalitik “anit” ya da rituel merkezi. Kimler tarafindan ne amacla kullanildigi bilinmeyen bu alandaki dikilitaslarin uzerinde, yaban domuzu, tilki, aslan, kus, yilan ve akrep kabartmalari yer aliyor. T bicimli tas sutunlarin uzerinde, Klaus Schmidt’in “bilinen ilk tanri betimlemesi” adini verdigi figurler de yer almakta. Alandaki dikilitaslar, belirgin bicimde ve hassasiyetle, guneydogu yonune bakacak bicimde yerlestirilmis. (Akla ister istemez “Duat”i ve guneydogu goklerinde Orion ve Sirius’un yukselislerine ozel bir onem veren Eski Misir rahip kultlerini getiriyor.)

Bulgular, Catalhoyuk calismalarini yoneten Prof. Ian Hodder’i da oldukca heyecanlandirmisa benziyor. Hodder, “Gobeklitepe, bilinen herseyi tumuyle degistirdi,” diyor. Heyecanlanmayan, hatta bunu neredeyse hic umursamayansa, yalnizca biziz galiba. Uzerinde yasadigimiz topraklarin, dunyanin bilinen en eski uygarligina ev sahipligi yaptigi gibi muazzam bir bulgu ortaya cikiyor, arkeoloji dunyasi bu ruzgarla sallaniyor ama, bizim gazetelerimizde birakin manset olmayi, iki satir bir habere bile rastlamiyoruz. (Umarim, benim gozumden kacmistir ve birileri sayfa dibine bile olsa, iki kelam etmistir Gobeklitepe’yle ilgili.)”
December 29, 2008
The German-Turk Miracle: Arnold Reisman’s Turkey’s Modernization

Vol. 48 No. 4 (October 2007)

http://etc.technologyandculture.net/2007/12/17/the-german-turk-miracle-arnold-reismans-turkeys-modernization/#respond

Yakup Bektas

This book, long overdue, brings to light the little-known story of how Turkey welcomed (and thus saved) several hundred prominent, predominantly Jewish, intellectuals, scientists, doctors, legal scholars, architects, librarians, and musicians fleeing the Nazis. They came from Germany and other German-speaking parts of Europe, mainly Austria and parts of Czechoslovakia and Hungary, with a number also from France and Spain. Reminding us that the Ottoman Empire had long offered refuge to the persecuted, among them the Jews expelled from Spain in 1492, Arnold Reisman tells in Turkey’s Modernization: Refugees from Nazism and Atatürk’s Vision (Washington, D.C.: New Academia Publishing, 2006, pp. xxvii+571, $30) how the empire’s young heir, Turkey, again provided a safe haven from 1933 through World War II. In the absence of this Turkish effort, Reisman shows how the knowledge and expertise of these Jewish scientists and artists might have been lost forever, and he also shows how much Turkey’s own modernization and educational and social reforms owe to them.

What was left of the Ottoman Empire after World War I became today’s Republic of Turkey in 1923 following a difficult war of independence led by Mustafa Kemal, later called Atatürk, the republic’s founding father and first president (1923–38). Unceasing conflict had left the country impoverished and greatly reduced in territory and population, with all of its institutions in dire need of reorganization. A French-inspired model that the “Young Turks” had been designing for the disintegrating Ottoman Empire since the late nineteenth century began to take shape under the leadership of Atatürk. He envisioned a nation-state based not on religion or ethnicity but on “science” and positivist philosophy. The caliphate was abolished in 1924 and four years later the Latin alphabet was adopted to replace the Arabic script. Turkey’s new secular laws and dress codes emulated Western European models.

To help with this modernization effort and in particular with university and educational reforms, Atatürk’s government invited European experts to Turkey and also sent a large number of students to Europe for academic training beginning in 1927. Shortly after Hitler came to power in Germany in 1933, all professors of Jewish ancestry were dismissed, and Austria followed suit after its annexation by Germany. Atatürk’s government opened Turkey to these academics, offering them the best positions in Turkey’s few fledgling colleges at a time when Jews were elsewhere refused not only jobs but even visas. This intellectual influx suited Atatürk’s aims well and was particularly important to his radical program for reforming higher education on the European university model. In 1933, the old Istanbul Darülfünun was renamed Istanbul University, signifying its transformation from the “madrassa”-based system to the modern university.

In autumn that year, the first group of more than thirty professors arrived to start teaching at Istanbul University, among them pathology professor Philipp Schwartz, who, on behalf of a new organization established to help dismissed German professors find employment abroad, had negotiated an agreement with the Turkish government that was hailed as “the German-Turk miracle” (p. 9). Even Albert Einstein is believed to have been considering the Turkey option as he was waiting to hear from Princeton, which he had been told “would not hire a Jew” (pp. 318–20). Led by émigré professors, Istanbul University earned the rank of “the best German university” of the time, an official German document of 1939 describing it as having “turned Jewish” (p. 279). Indeed, the overwhelming majority of these “German professors”—as they were called in Turkey—were Jewish, although there were also a good number of non-Jewish anti-Nazi intellectuals and political dissidents, including Ernest Reuter, who became Berlin’s mayor after the war.

Turkish contracts and invitations even brought some out of concentration camps. When a son of chemistry professor Fritz Arndt was caught fighting the Germans during their invasion of Poland, the Turkish government intervened and got him to safety in Istanbul. But nothing was automatic: the deals had to be negotiated with and approved by the German government. Germany tried to persuade Turkey to employ only members of the National Socialist Party, but strong economic ties and Germany’s desire to secure an alliance made it possible for Turkey to bargain about such matters.

Apart from positions at Istanbul University, the émigré professors were also given posts at what became Istanbul Technical University (1944) and Ankara University (1946), as well as other public institutions such as the Academy of Fine Arts. The School of Language, History, and Geography (Ankara, 1935) could hardly be imagined without émigré professors such as Assyriologist Benno Landsberger, Hittiotologist Hans Gustav Güterbock, Sinologist Wolfram Eberhard, and Indologist Walter Ruben, who not only established these disciplines there but also became world-regarded authorities.

Reisman puts the number of these émigrés at “approximately 300 academicians and 50 technicians and supporting staff” (p. 9), or more than 1,000 men and women with their families. The émigré professors were offered high salaries, with many being honored as “ordinarius” or distinguished professor, and the list is very long: Erich Auerbach, who wrote his much-acclaimed literary critique Mimesis while in Turkey; philosopher-mathematicians Hans Reichenbach and Richard von Mises, two prominent figures of the “Berlin Group”; philosopher and Diderot expert Herbert Dieckmann; Orientalist Helmut Ritter; law scholars Ernst H. Hirsch and Andreas Schwarz; economists Alexander Rüstow, Alfred Isaac, and Wilhelm Röpke; biochemist Felix Haurowitz; botanist Alfred Heilbronn; physicist Arthur von Hippel; astrophysicist E. Finlay Freundlich; pediatrician Albert Eckstein; surgeon Rudolf Nissen; ophthalmologist Joseph Igersheimer; architect Clemens Holzmeister; opera director Carl Ebert; conductor Ernst Praetorius; composer Paul Hindemith. Among the women were applied mathematician Hilda Geiringer (von Mises) and architect and designer Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky. Reisman contrasts the egalitarian attitude toward women in Turkey (and Europe) with the situation in the United States, where he contends that sexual bias coupled with racial bias later made it difficult for these female émigrés to find tenured faculty positions.

Although conditions in Turkey in the 1930s and 1940s were not sufficiently ripe for reaping the full benefits of this émigré bonanza, as Reisman notes, its profound influence is still alive in Turkey, especially in the formation of its universities and the shaping of its higher educational programs. Émigré professors helped Atatürk and his modernizing elite define the foundations of a “modern society.” It is no exaggeration to say that they stimulated in Turkey an educational and intellectual renaissance that invigorated its institutions, from education to music, science and medicine to archaeology, architecture to urban planning, conservation to preventive health, and they promoted the establishment of libraries, theaters, and music halls.

The death of “the émigrés champion” Atatürk in late 1938 deeply saddened the newcomers. Ismet Inönü, the next president, continued Atatürk’s policy, but with a less charismatic leadership. When war broke out in 1939, Turkey resisted pressure from both sides to get involved. The German occupation of Bulgaria, Romania, and Greece terrified the émigrés, and Miriam Schmidt, at the time the teenage daughter of medical professor Karl Hellmann, recollects having “packed backpacks under our beds, in case the Germans came to Istanbul and we would have to flee to Anatolia” (pp. 396–7). Turkey’s government itself felt no less vulnerable. Although it managed to remain neutral, Turkey suffered economically. Serious inflation set in and by the end of the war food was rationed. Even highly paid professors felt the hardship, and after 1945 most of these refugee academics secured positions at the best colleges in the United States. Others left for Palestine (later Israel); some returned to Germany. After 1949, only a small number of them remained in Turkey, the departure of the others hastened not only by economic conditions but also by jealousies on the part of some Turkish professors and the opposition of Turkish nationalists to the renewal of their contracts.

The bulk of Reisman’s book is devoted to describing the background and personal stories of a large number of the émigrés, and their work and experience in Turkey. He draws on oral histories, personal correspondence with colleagues and friends (as many as seventeen of them corresponded with Albert Einstein), and memoirs, both published and unpublished, as well as his own correspondence with their descendants and students. Only in the last chapter does he depart from the main story, offering some insights into Turkey’s technological and industrial development by comparing it with Israel and India. His most valuable observation is that Turkish universities have until recently lacked a link to industry, perhaps primarily because funding has been provided exclusively by the state. But he does not tell whether this lack of cooperation with industry and other characteristics of Turkey’s current university system have anything to do with the German émigré legacy.

A number of minor shortcomings should be noted. Pages 397 and 399 have been transposed. Footnotes and references show imperfections, and online sources in particular are not fully digested. The book on the whole book could have been further refined, and the brief section on “Music and Islam” is too opinionated, especially relative to Iran and more particularly to the “expert” Reisman consulted there. The idea of “modernity” that emerges is simplistic, implying nothing less than a total assimilation to whatever is “Western.” But such flaws are trivial if not entirely irrelevant to the larger story.

Turkey’s Modernization ends with a quote from economist Fritz Neumark, an émigré who stayed in Istanbul until his retirement in 1953, expressing the “admiration and gratitude” toward Turkey on the part of “German scientists, politicians and artists who looked for and found shelter along the Bosporus during [a] difficult time” (p. 465). Reisman deserves the highest praise for shedding light on a major intellectual exodus of the twentieth century, especially because this aspect has drawn little attention in English. Although the role of émigré scientists and intellectuals in the transformation of other areas is well known, the story of Turkey’s experience deserves further study. This book stimulates such an endeavor and provides an excellent start.

Yakup Bektas, a graduate of the School of Language, History, and Geography in Ankara, is now with the Tokyo Institute of Technology.

Copyright© 2007, the Society for the History of Technology

December 7, 2008
Pre-Ottoman and Ottoman Symposium in Bishkek, Aug. 24-29, 2009

Kyrgyz-Turkish Manas University

International Committee of Pre-Ottoman and Ottoman Studies (CIEPO)

Interim Symposium

On the Central Asiatic Roots of the Pre-Ottoman and Ottoman Culture
August 24-29, 2009, Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan

First Circular

We are pleased to announce that the CIEPO Symposium on the Central
Asiatic Roots of the pre-Ottoman and Ottoman Culture will be held at
Kyrgyz-Turkish Manas University, Bishkek, 24-29 August, 2009.

The Organizing Committee calls for your presentation of current
research on the Central Asiatic roots of the pre-Ottoman and Ottoman
culture related to the themes of administrative, social, economic,
military, political aspects, as well as medicine, science,
architecture, education, trade, historiography, literature and
international relations.

Individual papers will be organized into sections by the Organizing
Committee. Abstracts for individual papers should not exceed 300
words. The desirable duration of a paper presentation is 15 minutes;
it should not exceed 20 minutes. In case it becomes necessary to limit
the number of papers, the selection will be made by members of the
Organizing Committee.

Pre-organized panels/sessions and thematic workshops should consist of
two to three papers, plus an analysis of them by a discussant (or a
designated chair) of ten to fifteen minutes maximum length. The papers
should center on a single theme or question, and the panel proposal
should include an abstract (300 words maximum) for the entire panel
explaining its theme and rationale and how the individual papers
contribute to that theme, in addition to an individual abstract (300
words maximum) for each paper. In case it becomes necessary to limit
the number of papers, the selection will be made by members of the
Organizing Committee.

The participants are requested to send Registration Form by the end of
December 2008 (request by email from organizers). The deadline for
the paper titles and abstracts and/or the initial proposals and
abstracts for pre-organized sessions and workshops abstracts is by the
end of January 2009.

The symposium languages are English, French, German and Turkish.

Participants are requested to finance their own travel expenses and
accommodation. The registration fee for the symposium is 50 (USD)
which should be paid to the accounts opened on behalf of the CIEPO (we
expect to give the name of bank and account number in 2nd circular).
The CIEPO membership should be paid 10 (USD) in advance as well.

The fees are intended to cover the expenses of lunch, farewell dinner
and excursion. The details about accommodation options (with prices)
will be provided also in the 2nd circular).

Sincerely yours,

Ilhan SAHIN
On behalf of Organizing Committee

Please submit your registration form and proposals to:
E-mails: ciepomanas@gmail.com
or ilsahin40@gmail.com
Tel. 00996 (312) 49 27 83 (internal number 12 03 and 12 06)
Fax: 00996 (312) 49 27 82

Presidents
Prof. Dr. Suleyman KAYIPOV (Manas University, Rector)
Prof. Dr. Ugur ORAL (Manas University, Deputy Rector)

Organizing Committee
Prof. Dr. Dilaram ALIMOVA (Uzbekstan)
Prof. Dr. Remzi ATAOGLU (Turkey)
Prof. Dr. Tuncer BAYKARA (Turkey)
Prof. Dr. Victor BUTANAYEV (Russia)
Prof. Dr. Jean-Louis BACQUÉ-GRAMMONT (France)
Prof. Dr. Cenis CUNUSALIYEV (Kyrgyzstan)
Prof. Dr. Rémy DORE (France)
Prof. Dr. Hikari EGAWA (Japan)
Prof. Dr. Feridun EMECEN (Turkey)
Prof. Dr. Yuliy HUDYAKOV (Russia)
Prof. Dr. Mushtaq A. KAW (India)
Prof. Dr. Olcobay KARATEEV (Kyrgyzstan)
Prof. Dr. Sergei KLASTORNIY (Russia)
Prof. Dr. Dariusz KOLODZIEJCZYK (Poland)
Prof. Dr. Hisao KOMATSU (Japan)
Prof. Dr. Bulat KUMEKOV (Kazakhstan)
Prof. Dr. Heat LOWRY (USA)
Prof. Dr. Anvarbek MOKEEV (Kyrgyzstan)
Prof. Dr. Ilber ORTAYLI (Turkey)
Prof. Dr. Ajay PATNAIK (India)
Prof. Dr. Tadashi SUZUKI (Japan)
Prof. Dr. Ilhan SAHIN (Turkey), General Secretary of CIEPO
Prof. Dr. Ahmet TASAGIL (Turkey)

Excursion program being planned for the congress participants

– Nevaket – archeological complex ruins of the medieval city of
   Turkic rulers of the 6th-12th century (Chuy valley)
– Site of ancient settlement Ak-Beshim – ruins of the medieval city
   Suyab. The capital of Western Turks, Turgesh and Karluk states (VI-Xth
   century, Chuy valley)
– Burana -archeological and architectural complex of 10th-12th
   century: The capital of Karahanid state (Chuy valley)
– Suusamir- summer quarters of the Avrasya nomads
– Koksay – location of Ancient Turkic runic inscriptions of the 8th
   century (Kochkor valley, Naryn oblast)
– Rock painting gallery Cholpon Ata- petroglyphs of the ancient Iron
   Age and Medieval Age, Northern shore of the Issyk-Kol lake
– Royal kurgans of Issyk Kol- funeral constructions of the ancient
   Saka society aristocracy
– The Ferghana Valley – historically most important staging-post on
   the so-called Silk Road for goods and people travelling from China to
   the Middle East & Europe

December 4, 2008
Turkish History: Truman Doctrine, Carter Doctrine and 1980 Turkish coup d’état

Truman Doctrine

.org/wiki/ Truman_Doctrine

Carter Doctrine

.org/wiki/ Carter_Doctrine

1980 Turkish coup d’état

.org/wiki/ 1980_Turkish_ coup_d%27% C3%A9tat

November 24, 2008