War has effects far beyond the immediate winners and losers, beyond the large-scale political effects, effects which reverberate throughout the military, the soldiers, the leadership, and throughout society as a whole. This panel examines various ways in which late Ottoman society was affected by wars from the 1878 Russo-Ottoman war through WWI. Combining social, cultural, and intellectual historical approaches, the panel illustrates some of the ways in which a broader understanding of the large-scale effects of war can help us to understand political and social change in the final decades of the Ottoman Empire.
The first paper looks at the effects of war on cultures of violence in late nineteenth century Istanbul. Based on contemporary newspaper accounts and archival police documents, it argues that a disproportionate amount of violence was committed by refugees from Balkan and Caucasian conflicts, and further that it was in large part their experiences as inhabitants of a war zone that created in these people their propensity for violence. The brutalizing effects of war can, it will be argued, persist for years or even decades.
The second paper examines the cultural and social effects of World War One on the Ottoman peasantry. The people were directly affected by large-scale conscription, wartime casualties, in some regions combat, deportation and refugee movements, and by special taxes, requisitions, and forced agricultural employment. Amongst other things, these circumstances brought about strategies by which the peasantry could challenge the state. Drawing on examples from across the Ottoman Empire and utilizing a variety of archival and non-archival sources, this paper examines the complex and dynamic wartime relationship between the state and the peasants, and war's impact on ordinary peasant families' lives.
The third paper examines Mustafa Kemal AtatArk's thoughts on war, leadership, and duty, drawing on Atatork's own unpublished writings on the subject from before the War of Liberation. The paper includes discussions of his views on the effects of war on human society, and of how aspects of Atattrk's understanding of military leadership carried over to his practice of political leadership.
In this paper I examine patterns of violence in Istanbul in the 1890s and early 1900s with reference to the amount and types of violence committed by war refugees. In particular I look at refugees from the 1878 Russo-Turkish war, both from the Balkans and from the Caucasus. I also look at refugees from later Balkan conflicts. I argue that refugees committed a disproportionate amount of criminal violence, and that their violent acts were often more extreme than those of other groups.
There are no convenient statistical compilations covering acts of criminal violence in late Ottoman Istanbul. However, newspaper accounts and official police reports of violent incidents generally provide information about the perpetrator which includes place of origin and status, one category of status being 'refugee.' Thus although results must of necessity be somewhat tentative, there is strong evidence that refugee violence is qualitatively and quantitatively different from that of other groups.
I also look at other factors which might incite this particular group to violence. I argue that factors such as poverty, which could cause this group to engage in higher levels of violence than the general population, are insufficient to explain the degree of difference from the patterns of the general population.
The argument that exposure to and experience of violence can lead to an increased acceptance of and propensity to violence draws on the works of sociologists and anthropologists such as Norbert Elias and Anton Blok, and more directly for the Ottoman case on historian George Gawrych's 1986 article "The Culture and Politics of Violence in Turkish Society, 1903-14." The conflicts from which the subjects of my paper were fleeing were particularly brutal ones, and thus could be expected to have a particularly brutalizing effect, not only on those who participated in such acts of violence, but also those who were victims of these acts, or even those who only witnessed them.
This paper aims to examine the cultural and social dimensions of the devastating experience of the First World War for Ottoman peasantry. War brought enormous physical and psychological burdens to ordinary people living in the Ottoman countryside in the form of death, disease, shortages, hunger, violence, crime, and state oppression. In order to fight the war effectively, governmental and military policies extended the state's capacity of intervention into the distant corners of the empire to extract people and resources to a degree not seen before. Ottoman countryside was the main theater of this process.
The wartime dynamics of rural society and the experiences of the rural population were largely shaped by three distinct phenomena: the impact of large-scale conscription and wartime casualty rates on peasant households, the destruction wrought in major regions by combat, deportation, and refugee movements, and, finally, the hardships created by state intervention in the agrarian economy. In the countryside, the government resorted to harsh impositions ranging from special wartime taxes (tekalif-i harbiye) to grain requisitioning and forced agricultural employment (m(kellefiyet-i ziraiyye) in order to maintain the agricultural production levels necessary to sustain the military and urban population.
Weary of these increasingly gruesome policies, people began to question the government's war effort, especially towards the end of the war. Rural producers tried to challenge state policies through developing several creative strategies. By drawing on examples from across the Ottoman Empire and utilizing several archival and non-archival sources, I will examine this complex and dynamic wartime relationship between the state and peasants in the Ottoman countryside. This discussion on war's impact on ordinary peasant families' lives, I believe, will enhance our understanding of the very late Ottoman period.
"Mustafa Kemal Atatark's Military Thoughts on War, Leadership, and Duty, 1909-1918"
Scholars have not rigorously analyzed Mustafa Kemal Ataturk as a military figure. Such an analysis would involve a careful and systematic treatment of his military thought and action. Yet, it is in the conduct of war that Mustafa Kemal first gained fame. More attention to his military career would thus help enlighten understanding of this complex leader. In this, it is important to appreciate what Mustafa Kemal thought about his profession.
This paper examines Mustafa Kemal's thoughts on war, leadership and duty by focusing his military writings prior to the War of Independence. These include the translation of two German tactical manuals into Ottoman Turkish, a letter written during the Libyan campaign, Conversation with 'Officer and Commander' composed in 1914 as military attachl in Sofia, a training manual to commander for the newly formed XVI Corps; and his report of 20 September 1917 as Commander of Seventh Army. Conversation with 'Officer and Commander' reveals Mustafa Kemal's ideas on the nature of war in some detail. His report of 20 September 1917 discusses the effects of war on human society. These two documents help explain Mustafa Kemal's attitudes toward to the importance of training in his commands and the character of his commands.
The paper ends by placing significance of the above material into a larger context. Mustafa Kemal's ideas are compared to those of Carl von Clausewitz, Colmar von der Goltz, and the German tradition of war. Moreover, I look at how aspects of Atatkrk's understanding of military leadership carried over to his practice of political leadership.
