id,collection,dc.contributor.author,dc.contributor.contact,dc.contributor.firstReferee,dc.contributor.furtherReferee,dc.contributor.gender,dc.date.accepted,dc.date.accessioned,dc.date.available,dc.date.issued,dc.description,dc.description.abstract[de],dc.format.extent,dc.identifier.uri,dc.identifier.urn,dc.language,dc.rights.uri,dc.subject,dc.subject.ddc,dc.title,dc.title.translated[de],dc.type,dcterms.accessRights.dnb,dcterms.accessRights.openaire,dcterms.format[de],refubium.affiliation[de],refubium.mycore.derivateId,refubium.mycore.fudocsId,refubium.note.author "0bd352ca-79b8-4762-9013-08022c6f8d0f","fub188/14","Morack, Sara Ellinor","ellinor.morack@uni-bamberg.de","Freitag, Ulrike","Herzog, Christoph","w","2013-11-01","2018-06-07T19:19:21Z","2017-03-21T09:06:11.428Z","2017","Note on transcription and names .............................................................. ix Acknowledgments........................................................................................ x Introduction ................................................................................................. 1 State of the art ..................................................................................... 8 Theoretical approach......................................................................... 23 Sources .............................................................................................. 33 1 Forced migration, settlement, and the emergence of “abandoned property” in Ottoman times ...................................................................... 41 1.1 Property and forced migration ............................................ 42 1.2 Migration and refugee settlement in the 19th century ...... 55 1.3 Migrations from the North Caucasus................................. 58 1.4 The Balkan Wars ................................................................. 67 1.5 The expulsions of 1913–14 .................................................. 74 1.6 The Armenian Genocide and abandoned property ........... 83 1.7 The regulation for Greek property .................................... 104 1.8 Custodian accounts ........................................................... 109 1.9 The deportees’ return: 1918–20 ........................................ 112 1.10 Conclusion: From empty land to “national” property ..... 118 2 Making sense of ethnic cleansing and genocide: Parliamentary debates concerning “abandoned property”, 1921–22 ............................. 123 2.1 Historical background: The War of Independence ......... 124 2.2 Abandoned property in parliament .................................. 139 2.3 The legal background ........................................................ 145 2.4 The first draft: Who were “the disappeared”? .................. 147 2.5 The question of proxies ..................................................... 154 2.6 The question of legality ..................................................... 161 2.7 “Fugitive”, “Disappeared” or “Deported”? ....................... 169 2.8 The state as universal custodian? ..................................... 173 2.9 Conclusion ......................................................................... 177 vi 3 Self-help, corruption, or theft? Debating practices of property appropriation in İzmir and western Anatolia, 1922–24 ........................ 181 3.1 İzmir, September 1922: destruction, death and exile ...... 181 3.2 The fate of “abandoned property” in Smyrna/İzmir ....... 188 3.3 İzmir’s looted wealth in parliament .................................. 195 3.4 Who took part in the looting? ............................................ 201 3.5 The identity of squatters .................................................... 204 3.6 Conclusion ......................................................................... 208 4 International agreements, national legislation, and the implemention in Turkey, 1923–45 ......................................................... 211 4.1 Negotiations in Lausanne .................................................. 211 4.2 The Mixed Commission and follow-up negotiations ....... 219 4.3 Preparations in Turkey, 1923-1924 ................................... 224 4.4 Squatting and resistance to exchangee settlement .......... 231 4.5 Transport and settlement .................................................. 238 4.6 Laws for property compensation: 1924 – 45 ..................... 239 5 The politics of property compensation in İzmir: 1924–34 ............ 249 5.1 Property allocation (tefviz) from 1924 onwards ............... 252 5.2 Contested categories .......................................................... 255 5.3 The importance of class ..................................................... 267 5.4 Allegations of corruption and fraud .................................. 273 5.5 Voluntary and involuntary cohabitation ........................... 274 5.6 Squatting ............................................................................ 280 5.7 Citizens as customers? The “temlik” law of 1928 ............ 287 5.8 The issue of debt, old and new .......................................... 302 5.9 The official end of the compensation process .................. 311 5.10 Compensation for non-exchangees ................................... 312 5.11 Compensation policies for “non-exchangees” .................. 316 6 Conclusion ....................................................................................... 323 6.1 The emergence of “abandoned property” ......................... 325 vii 6.2 (Absent) Christian property owners, Muslims, and the nation state ...................................................................................... 327 6.3 The impact of the 1923 exchange convention .................. 332 6.4 Nation, state and people .................................................... 335 6.5 Abandoned property as a commodity ............................... 340 6.6 Prospects for future research ............................................ 342 Bibliography ............................................................................................. 344 Index ......................................................................................................... 367","When the Greeks and surviving Armenians of present-day Turkey were forced to leave their homeland in 1922, the movable and immovable property they had to leave behind became known as „abandoned property“(emval-i metruke). In theory, this legal term implied that the absent owners continued to enjoy their property rights and were represented by the state. In practice, however, their houses, fields and belongings were stolen. They were used for the immediate housing needs of the remaining population, distributed among the rich and powerful and sold in public auctions. Initially, only a small part of abandoned property was under control of the new Ankara government, which was eager to use it as a source of revenue for the empty state coffers. Before it could do so, however, the government had to deal with various forms of active and passive resistance: homeless people and refugees squatted „abandoned“ homes and fields, and members of parliament initially refused to pass laws that would have legalized government administration of „abandoned“ property. From 1924 onwards, the property compensation for among incoming migrants from Greece (the so-called exchangees) threatened the financial interests of the state and pitted the newcomers against the existing population. By focusing on all these aspects of the „abandoned property“ question and the multiple forms of resistance against its administration by the state, this book offers unique insights into the social and political history of early republican Turkey.||1922 wurden Griechen und überlebende Armenier aus ihrem Heimatland, der heutigen Türkei, vertrieben. Ihr bewegliches und unbewegliches Eigentum blieb zurück und wurde als „verlassenes Eigentum“ (emval-i metruke) behandelt. Theoretisch bedeutete das, dass der Staat die Eigentümer vertrat und ihre Eigentumsrechte fortbestanden. Tatsächlich jedoch wurden Häuser, Felder und Besitztümer gestohlen. Sie wurden als Unterkünfte für die verbleibende Bevölkerung genutzt, unter den Reichen und Einflussreichen verteilt und in Auktionen versteigert. Die neue Regierung in Ankara war bestrebt, verlassenes Eigentum als Einkommensquelle für den chronisch unterfinanzierten Staat zu nutzen, verfügte anfangs jedoch nur über einen kleinen Teil davon. Es gab zahlreiche Formen aktiven und passiven Widerstandes gegen die Verwaltung durch den Staat: obdachlose Einheimische und Flüchtlinge besetzten „verlassene“ Häuser und Felder, und Abgeordnete im Parlament lehnten es zunächst ab, Gesetze zu verabschieden, die die Regierung ermächtigt hätten, „verlassenes“ Eigentum zu verwalten. Ab 1924 kam im Zuge des Bevölkerungsaustauschs mit Griechenland die Entschädigung für die Austauschmigranten hinzu, die den finanziellen Interessen des Staates widersprach. Diese Entschädigungspolitik spielte auch die einheimische Bevölkerung gegen die ankommenden Migranten aus. Die vorliegende Studie behandelt all diese Aspekte der Frage des „verlassenden Eigentums“ und leistet so einen wichtigen Beitrag zur Sozial- und Politikgeschichte der frühen Republik Türkei.","xi, 373 Seiten","https://refubium.fu-berlin.de/handle/fub188/5979||http://dx.doi.org/10.17169/refubium-10178","urn:nbn:de:kobv:188-fudissthesis000000104399-7","eng","http://www.fu-berlin.de/sites/refubium/rechtliches/Nutzungsbedingungen","Greece||Greek-Turkish Population Exchange||Turkey||abandoned property||nation-building","900 Geschichte und Geografie||900 Geschichte und Geografie::950 Geschichte Asiens||900 Geschichte und Geografie::950 Geschichte Asiens::956 Geschichte des Nahen Ostens (Mittleren Ostens)","The Dowry of the State? The Politics of Abandoned Property and the Population Exchange in Turkey, 1921-1945","Die Mitgift des Staates? Der Streit um verlassenes Eigentum und der Bevölkerungsaustausch in der Türkei, 1921-1945","Dissertation","free","open access","Text","Geschichts- und Kulturwissenschaften","FUDISS_derivate_000000021218","FUDISS_thesis_000000104399","Entstanden an der durch die Exzellenzinitiative des Bundes geförderten Graduate School Muslim Cultures and Societies, FU Berlin."