dc.contributor.author
Morack, Sara Ellinor
dc.date.accessioned
2018-06-07T19:19:21Z
dc.date.available
2017-03-21T09:06:11.428Z
dc.identifier.uri
https://refubium.fu-berlin.de/handle/fub188/5979
dc.identifier.uri
http://dx.doi.org/10.17169/refubium-10178
dc.description
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
dc.description.abstract
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.
de
dc.description.abstract
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.
de
dc.format.extent
xi, 373 Seiten
dc.rights.uri
http://www.fu-berlin.de/sites/refubium/rechtliches/Nutzungsbedingungen
dc.subject
Greek-Turkish Population Exchange
dc.subject
abandoned property
dc.subject
nation-building
dc.subject.ddc
900 Geschichte und Geografie
dc.subject.ddc
900 Geschichte und Geografie::950 Geschichte Asiens
dc.subject.ddc
900 Geschichte und Geografie::950 Geschichte Asiens::956 Geschichte des Nahen Ostens (Mittleren Ostens)
dc.title
The Dowry of the State? The Politics of Abandoned Property and the Population
Exchange in Turkey, 1921-1945
dc.contributor.contact
ellinor.morack@uni-bamberg.de
dc.contributor.firstReferee
Freitag, Ulrike
dc.contributor.furtherReferee
Herzog, Christoph
dc.date.accepted
2013-11-01
dc.identifier.urn
urn:nbn:de:kobv:188-fudissthesis000000104399-7
dc.title.translated
Die Mitgift des Staates? Der Streit um verlassenes Eigentum und der
Bevölkerungsaustausch in der Türkei, 1921-1945
de
refubium.affiliation
Geschichts- und Kulturwissenschaften
de
refubium.mycore.fudocsId
FUDISS_thesis_000000104399
refubium.note.author
Entstanden an der durch die Exzellenzinitiative des Bundes geförderten
Graduate School Muslim Cultures and Societies, FU Berlin.
refubium.mycore.derivateId
FUDISS_derivate_000000021218
dcterms.accessRights.dnb
free
dcterms.accessRights.openaire
open access