![Sample our Humanities journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5939/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Humanities.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
US–Turkish relations were marked by the primacy of military actors during the Cold War. This is considered to be the consequence of the so-called special relationship between the US and Turkish militaries based on mutual trust. However, historical record suggests that the two militaries clashed over a number of institutional, strategic and cultural matters from the onset. The US military assistance did not result in Turkish military’s transformation along the US military system. Nevertheless, it precipitated a long overdue generational change within a decade. The US-trained young officers purged the Prussian/German–trained old guard from the ranks.
Acknowledgment
Mesut Uyar would like to express his gratitude to the US Army Heritage and Education Center (USAHEC) for providing wonderful research environment at their site and financial support (The General and Mrs. Matthew B. Ridgway Military History Research Grant).
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Notes
1 Nur Bilge Criss, ‘U.S. Forces in Turkey’, in U.S. Military Forces in Europe: The Early Years, 1945–1970, ed. Simon W. Duke and Wolfgang Krieger (Boulder: Westview Press, 1993), 339–50; and Nur Bilge Criss, ‘U.S. Military Presence in Turkey Revisited’ (paper presented at NATO Science for Peace and Security Programme, Political and Social Impact of Military Bases: Historical Perspectives, Contemporary Challenges Conference, Joint War College, Lisbon, Portugal, 13–15 December 2007).
2 Craig Livingstone, ‘“One Thousand Wings”: the United States Air Force Group and the American Mission for Aid to Turkey’, Middle Eastern Studies 30 (1994): 778–825.
3 Howard A. Munson, ‘The Joint American Military Mission to Aid Turkey: Implementing Truman Doctrine and Transforming US Foreign Policy, 1947–1954ʹ (Ph.D. diss., Washington State University, 2012); and Robert Cassaboom and Gary Leiser, ‘Adana Station 1943–45: Prelude to the Post-war American Military Presence in Turkey’, Middle Eastern Studies 34 (1998): 73–86.
4 Sezai Orkunt, Türkiye-ABD Askeri İlişkileri (İstanbul: Milliyet Yayınları, 1978).
5 Barış Celep, Türkiye’ye Amerikan Askeri Yardım Kurulu (JAMMAT) ve Türkiye’deki Faaliyetleri (Ankara: Atatürk Araştırma Merkezi Başkanlığı, 2020); Erdal Akkaya, ‘Türk Ordusundaki Stratejik ve Doktriner Değişiklikler (1923–1960)’ (Master’s thesis, University of Ankara, 2006), 206–62; İskender Tunaboylu, ‘Deniz Kuvvetlerinde Sistem Değişikliği’ (Ph.D. diss., 9 September University, 2008), 65–88; and Recep Bülent Şenses, ‘The Transformation of the Ottoman and the Republican Army 1883–1960: Impact on Turkey’s Political Life’ (Ph.D diss., Yeditepe University, 2016).
6 The Mission was originally called the American Mission for Aid to Turkey (AMAT) and shortly afterwards renamed as the Joint American Military Mission for Aid to Turkey (JAMMAT), which was also subsequently changed to the Joint United States Military Mission for Aid to Turkey. For the purposes of this paper, JUSMMAT is preferred.
7 ‘11 Eri Çiğneyen Amerikalı Yarbay Serbest Bırakıldı’, Milliyet, 7 November 1959, ‘Morrison 1200 Dolara Mahkum’, Milliyet, 17 March 1960; and Doğan Avcıoğlu, Türkiye’nin Düzeni: Dün, Bugün, Yarın, vol. 1 (İstanbul: Tekin Yayınevi, 1982), 553.
8 ‘From Maj. Gen. H.L. McBride to the Minister of National Defense’, 22 May 1950, JAMMAT Army Group Adjutant General’s Section Decimal File, 256/84, Records of Interservice Agencies, RG 334, The National Archives (College Park, Maryland).
9 Mesut Uyar and Edward Erickson, A Military History of the Ottomans (Santa Barbara, California: Preager, 2009), 142, 202–8; and David. B. Ralston, Importing the European Army: The Introduction of European Military Techniques and Institutions into Extra-European World (1600-1914) (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1990), 67–71.
10 Pertev Demirhan, Generalfeldmarschall Colmar Freiherr von der Goltz (Göttingen: Göttinger Verlagsanstalt, 1960); F.A.K. Yasamee, ‘Colmar Freiherr von der Goltz and the Rebirth of the Ottoman Empire’, Diplomacy & Statecraft 9, no. 2 (1998): 98–119; and Şenses, ‘The Transformation of the Ottoman’, 14–15.
11 Mustafa Kemal Atatürk’s views on war and nation bear striking resemblances to Goltz’s work. Ayşe Gül Altınay, The Myth of Military Nation: Militarism, Gender and Education in Turkey (Hampshire: Palgrave MacMillan, 2004), 14–17; and M. Şükrü Hanioğlu, Atatürk: An Intellectual Biography (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2011), 31–47.
12 Walter Goerlitz, History of the German General Staff 1657–1945, trans. Brian Battershaw (New York: Barnes & Noble Books, 1995), 31–4, 96–7; and Karl Demeter, The German Officer-Corps in Society and State 1650–1945 (London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1965), 73–94.
13 Robert M. Citino, The German Way of War (Kansas: University Press of Kansas, 2005), 306–7.
14 Demeter, The German Officer-Corps, 80–1, 88–91.
15 Uyar, Erickson, A Military History of the Ottomans, 237, 240–2; and Gencer Özcan, ‘Türkiye’de Cumhuriyet Dönemi Ordusunda Prusya Etkisi’, İdea: İnsan Bilimleri Dergisi 1, (2009): 15–69.
16 Handan Nezir-Akmeşe, The Birth of Modern Turkey: The Ottoman Military and the March to World War I (London: I. B. Tauris, 2005), 115–17, 131–2; and Uyar, Erickson, A Military History of the Ottomans, 221, 241.
17 Naim Turfan, ‘Reporting Him and His Cause Aright: Mahmud Şevket Paşa and the Liman von Sanders Mission’, Cahiers d’etudes sur la Méditerranée Orientale et la Monde Turco-Iranien 12 (1991): 3–11, 29–33.
18 Dilek Barlas and Serhat Güvenç, Turkey in the Mediterranean during the Interwar Era: The Paradox of Middle Power Diplomacy and Minor Power Naval Policy (Indianapolis: Indiana University Turkish Studies, 2011), 69–72, 99–100.
19 A total of 24 army and 12 navy officers served at various Turkish senior military education institutions between 1925 and 1939. Deutsche Offiziere in der Türkei (Berlin: Reichsarchiv, 1940).
20 Afif Büyüktuğrul, Cumhuriyet Donanmasının Kuruluşu Sırasında 60 Yıl Hizmet (1918–1977), vol. 1 (İstanbul: Deniz Basımevi Müdürlüğü, 2005), 388.
21 ‘Turkey: Annual Report 1932; 17 January 1933, FO 371-16983, The National Archives, Kew (TNA).
22 Gül İnanç Barkay, ABD Diplomasisinde Türkiye: 1940–1943 (İstanbul: Büke Yayınları, 2001), 21.
23 Brock Millman, The Ill-made Alliance: Anglo-Turkish Relations 1939–1940 (Montreal: McGill-Queens’s University Press, 1998), 12, 30–2, 136–7; and Arthur S. Gould Lee, Special Duties: Reminiscences of a Royal Air Force Staff Officer in the Balkans, Turkey and the Middle East (London: Sampson Low, Marston & Co, 1946), 9, 13, 25, 38–43.
24 Millman, The Ill-made Alliance, 262, 268–70, 312.
25 ‘From Foreign Office to Angora’, 12 July 1943, FO 371-37519, TNA.
26 James Barr, Lords of the Desert: Britain’s Struggle with America to Dominate the Middle East (London: Simon & Schuster, 2018), 34–5.
27 Britain also provided training in Egypt and Britain. ‘From Angora to Foreign Office’, 11 January 1944; 17 April 1944; 19 May 1944; 18 September 1944, FO 371-44141, TNA.
28 Colonel Valentine (US Army), Captain Morgan and Lieutenant Shelmidine (US Navy) were assigned as instructors to the staff colleges in Istanbul to teach air and naval-air warfare in 1943. Turkish Chief of General Staff, 9th Section, File no. 44416, 31 July 1944, Lalahan Deniz Genel Arşivi Müdürlüğü (LDGAM, Lalahan, Ankara), . Lecture Notes by Colonel Valentine were subsequently turned into a textbook by the Air War College. F.B. Valentine and Celal Erikan, I. Sınıf Hava Tabiyesi Notları (Ankara: Harp Akademisi Matbaası, 1945). When Colonel Valentine’s contract expired at war’s end, Turkey requested a replacement from Washington. Though the State Department found meeting the Turkish request politically desirable, due to demobilisation in the US, officer availability was a problem. Lack of an institutional framework governing military relations between the two was the primary reason for US procrastination in designating a replacement for Colonel Valentine. ‘American Officer to Teach in Turkish Military Academy’, Department of State, Division of Near Eastern Affairs, 10 September 1945, 867.20/9-1045, ‘Records of the Department of State Relating to Internal Affairs of Turkey 1945-49, 867/11, National Archives Microfilm Publications M1292, National Archives, College Park, Maryland.
29 Haluk Ülman, Türk-Amerikan Diplomatik Münasebetleri 1939–1947 (Ankara: Sevinç Matbaası, 1961), 16–36; and Robin Denniston, Churchill’s Secret War (Stroud: Sutton Publishing, 1999), 17–80.
30 Ambassador Ertegün died in Washington during the war and was buried in Arlington. His remains were to be repatriated after the war. Gül İnanç and Şuhnaz Yılmaz, ‘Gunboat Diplomacy: Turkey, the US and the Advent of the Cold War’, Middle Eastern Studies 48 (2012): 401–11.
31 İbrahim Yurtsever (Ret. Colonel, Turkish Army), interviewed by authors, Ferahevler, İstanbul, 17 August 2006.
32 ‘Turkey (1950), Memorandum to Maj Gen Verne D. Mudge (Ret.), Senate Armed Services Committee from Maj Gen L.L. Lemnitzer, Director, Office of Military Assistance’, 20 June 1950, 18/78, 001-1219, Records of the Office of the Secretary of Defence, RG 330, NA; Selected Executive Session Hearing of the Committee, 1943–50: Military Assistance Programs Part 2, vol. 6 (Washington DC: Government Printing Office, 1976), 307–10, 322–3, 357–62; and Melvyn P. Leffler, ‘Strategy, Diplomacy, and the Cold War: The United States, Turkey and NATO, 1945–1952, The Journal of American History 71 (1985): 815.
33 ‘Transcript of Military Hearings for Bonner Sub-Committee’, 27 March 1952, Reports 250/3, RG 334, NA.
34 Harry S. Truman, Memoirs by Harry S. Truman, vol. 2 (New York: Doubleday & Co., 1956), 95–8, 103, 108.
35 ‘Communications First Task’, New York Times, 18 May 1947.
36 ‘Turks Agree – Turkey’s Army can be Great!’, Chicago Tribune, 13 June 1947. Normally, a US General would not be expected to pick on the defeated German Army as a yardstick to measure the potential effectiveness of a recipient of the US military assistance. General Oliver was probably aware that Turkish admiration of German military tradition survived the Second World War almost intact.
37 ‘Notes on a Meeting on Aid to Turkey on April 11, 14 April 1947, 867.24/4-1447, Records of the Department of State Relating to Internal Affairs of Turkey 1945 49, 867/11, National Archives Microfilm Publications M1292.
38 ‘Memorandum of Understanding Between the Department of State and the Department of War Regarding the Turkish Aid Program’, JAMMAT Army Group Adjutant General’s Section Decimal File, 256/83, RG 334, NA; 1st Report to Congress on Assistance to Greece and Turkey (Washington DC: Division of Publications Office of Public Affairs, 1947), 17–19; Norman, ‘Arming Turks’; Selected Executive Session Hearing of the Committee, 1943–50, 391–2; and George McGhee, The US-Turkish-NATO Middle East Connection (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 1990), 40–1.
39 Kara Ordusu’nun II. ve III. Safha Eğitimi için Direktifler (Ankara: Genelkurmay Basımevi, 1947).
40 Nurettin Türsan, Anılar (İstanbul: Arma Yayınları, 2009), 52–64; Adnan Çelikoğlu, Bir Darbeci Subayın Anıları: 27 Mayıs Öncesi ve Sonrası, ed. Ergin Konuksever (İstanbul: Yapı Kredi Yayınları, 2010), 50–5; and Dündar Seyhan, Gölgedeki Adam (İstanbul: Nurettin Uycan Matbaası, 1966), 9.
41 For example, General Fahrettin Altay, the legendary commander of the Turkish cavalry corps in the War of Liberation remained in command of the Second Field Army from 1924 to 1933. 2nci Ordu Tarihçesi (Konya: 2nci Ordu Komutanlığı, 1977), 165–8.
42 Şevket S. Aydemir, İkinci Adam, vol. 2 (İstanbul: Remzi Kitabevi, 1999), 21–2, 130, 143, 450–3; and Türsan, Anılar, 46–64, 89–90.
43 Bahtiyar Yalta, Kunu-ri Muharebeleri ve Geri Çekilmeler (Ankara: TTK Yayınları, 2005), 40–1.
44 Hamza Gürgüç, Rusya, Dünya Meselesidir: Rus Meselesi Karşısında Türkiye (Ankara: Genelkurmay Basımevi, 1950), 60.
45 ‘JAMMAT Monthly Progress Report’, January 1948, Adjutant General Section Central Files Unit 251a/13 RG 334, NA; ‘Memorandum of Understanding Between the Department of State and the Department of War Regarding the Turkish Aid Program’, JAMMAT Army Group Adjutant General’s Section Decimal File, 256/83, RG 334, NA; ‘Analysis of Military Aid Program to Turkey: Final Report’, 1950, JAMMAT Army Group Adjutant General’s Section Decimal File, 256/106, RG 334, NA.
46 ‘From Turkish Embassy Washington DC to the Acting Secretary of State’, 16 January 1947, 867.24/1-1647; ‘From the Department of State to American Embassy, Ankara’, 20 August 1947, 867.24/8-2047, Records of the Department of State Relating to Internal Affairs of Turkey 1945–49, National Archives Microfilm Publications M1292; and Munson, The Joint American Military Mission to Aid Turkey, 90–3.
47 ‘Histories’, 9 March 1950, 250/3; ‘JAMMAT Monthly Progress Report’, February 1948, JAMMAT Adjutant General Section Central Files Unit 251a/13, RG 334, NA.
48 ‘U.S. Mission Protests: Military Group in Turkey Says Allowance Slash is Onerous’, New York Times, 6 March 1949.
49 ‘U.S. Arms Aid Shown at Turkish Festival’, New York Times, 30 October 1949. In addition to his duty in the Infantry School, Lt. Col. d’Eliscu acted briefly as the chief instructor in orientation training of the conscripts of the Turkish Brigade earmarked for Korea in 1950. However, it was a very short-lived assignment due to his harsh treatment of the Turkish troops. Mesut Uyar and Serhat Güvenç, ‘One Battle, Two Accounts: The Turkish Brigade in Kunu-ri in November 1950’, The Journal of Military History 80 (2016): 1130.
50 ‘MAP – Military Missions’, 18 February 1958, 18/79/11, FY 1951 Turkey, RG 330, NA.
51 ‘Memorandum to Maj Gen Bolte from Lt Gen Egeli’, 20 October 1950, 18/78/001-121, Turkey 1950, RG 330, NA.
52 Kocatürk, Bir Subayın Anıları, 104.
53 Nurettin Koç, ‘Atatürk’ten Bu Yana Türk Silahlı Kuvvetlerinde Okuma Yazma Öğretimi’, in Türkiye’de İşlevsel Okur Yazarlığın Yaygınlaştırılması (Ankara: MEB Yaygın Eğitim Genel Müdürlüğü, 1981), 68–76.
54 ‘Report on Effectiveness of Forces as of 31 December 1953ʹ, 3/20, Turkey, RG 330, NA; ‘Military Attaché’s Annual Report for 1950 on the Turkish Army’, 5 January 1951, FO 371-95295, TNA.
55 İsmail Hakkı Oğuz, Ağla Yüreğim: Anadolu Devrimcisinin Not Defterinden (İstanbul: Gita Yayınları, 2007), 333–4.
56 Yurtsever, interview.
57 Kenan Evren, Kenan Evren’in Anıları, vol. 1 (İstanbul: Milliyet Yayınları, 1990); and Seyhan, Gölgedeki Adam, 34.
58 Kenan Kocatürk, Bir Subayın Anıları: 1909–1999 (İstanbul: Kastaş Yayınları, 1999), 434.
59 McGhee, The US-Turkish-NATO Middle East Connection, 45.
60 Koç, ‘Atatürk’ten Bu Yana’, 70–2.
61 Dr Paul Lubke’s email of 17 January 2007 to the authors. Dr Lubke provided technical and academic support to the preparation of textbooks and supplements used in literacy training. The training syllabus included civic education as well. Mehmet Tuğrul and Hamdi Olcay, Yurt ve Yaşama Bilgisi (İstanbul: Milli Eğitim Basımevi, 1959).
62 Yurtsever, interview; ‘Congressional Record – Senate’, May 1981, CIA-RDP90T0078R0010060001-7, 10642, NA.
63 ‘Analysis of Military Aid Program to Turkey: Final Report’, 1950, JAMMAT Army Group Adjutant General’s Section Decimal File, 256/106, RG 334, NA; ‘Memorandum of Conversation: Non-Commissioned Officer Corps for Turkey’, 14 November 1950, 18/79, 111 FY 1951, Turkey, RG 330, NA.
64 Çelikoğlu, Bir Darbeci Subayın Anıları, 70. See also Suphi Karaman, ‘Devrimci, Bağımsız, Türkiyeci Milli Savunma Stratejisi Nasıl Olmalıdır?’, in Türkiye’nin Milli Savunma Stratejisi ve Dış Politika Sorunları (Ankara: Ulusal Basımevi, 1965), 17.
65 JUSMMAT was ready to push the established rank boundaries even further. For instance, a G-3 report reads: ‘We would like to change the Turkish concept that a junior cannot inspect a senior, even though the junior represents a higher organization. We should push this so that soon there will be something out on a staff inspection system’. ‘Record of Army Team Chiefs Conference, 24–26 February 1954’, 31 March 1954, 255/81, G-3 Section Reports, Conferences, TUSAG Staff, 1954, RG 334, NA.
66 ‘Memorandum to Chief of Staff from and Maj. Gen. McBride’, 29 August 1949, 250A/9, Correspondence TGS, RG 334, NA; ‘MAP – Military Missions’, 18 February 1951, 18/79/111, FY 1951 Turkey, RG 330, NA.
67 ‘Military Attaché’s Annual Report for 1950 on the Turkish Army’, 5 January 1951, FO 371-95295, TNA.
68 ‘From Gen. Arnold to Gen. Harold Bull’, 28 May 1952; ‘Armed Forces Staff College Manuals’, 14 August 1952, JAMMAT Adjutant General Section Central Files Unit, 250/7, RG 334, NA.
69 ‘Turkish National War College’, 15 April 1952; ‘Turkish Military Staff College, Armed Forces War College Manuals’, 14 August 1952, JAMMAT Adjutant General Section Central Files Unit, 250/7, RG 334, NA.
70 Richard Lock-Pullan, ‘How to Rethink War: Conceptual Innovation and Airland Battle Doctrine’, Journal of Strategic Studies 28 (2005): 679–702.
71 Omar N. Bradley, ‘Creating a Sound Military Force’, Military Review 29, no. 2 (1949): 3–6; and Robert A. Doughty, The Evolution of US Army Doctrine, 1946–76 (Fort Leavenworth: Combat Studies Institute, 1979), 2–7.
72 ‘Report of Ad Hoc Committee on Turkish Infantry’, 2 January 1951, 250/7, 353 INF – Infantry School and Trg 1951, RG 334, NA.
73 See Jörg Muth, Command Culture: Officer Education in the U.S. Army and the German Armed Forces 1901–1940, and the Consequences for World War II (Texas: University of North Texas Press, 2011), 115–47.
74 Muhtelif Sınıfların Birlikte Sevk ve Muharebe Talimnamesi, section 1 (Ankara: Genelkurmay Matbaası, 1936); and Muhtelif Sınıfların Birlikte Sevk ve Muharebe Talimnamesi, section 2 (Ankara: Genelkurmay Matbaası, 1937).
75 James C. Corum argues that the Truppenführung ‘stands firmly in the tradition of Clausewitz, Moltke and Seeckt as an expression of the German way of war’. ‘Introduction’, in On the German Art of War: Truppenführung, German Army Manual for Unit Command in World War II, ed. Bruce Condell and David T. Zabecki (Pennsylvania: Stockpole Books, 2009), x.
76 Kocatürk, Bir Subayın Anıları, 420–1.
77 Ibid.
78 ‘Memorandum for Director, Office of North Atlantic Treaty Affairs’, 2 October 1953, 17/54, RG 330, NA.
79 ‘Turkey’, 7 October 1951. 320.2, RG 330, NA.
80 ‘Memorandum for Director, Office of North Atlantic Treaty Affairs’, 2 October 1953, 17/54, RG 330, NA.
81 See ‘Memorandum for Record: TUSAG Schools Conference, 2–4 February 1954ʹ, 15 February 1954, (55/81), Conferences TUSAG 1954, RG 334, NA.
82 Büyüktuğrul, Cumhuriyet Donanmasının, 945.
83 ‘Report on Effectiveness of Forces as of 31 December 1953ʹ, (3/20) Turkey, RG 330, NA.
84 ‘Memorandum for Record’, 6 December 1950, 250/6, Conferences TGS, RG 334, NA.
85 ‘Defence of Thrace Studies’, 10 November 1950, 250/6, Conferences TGS, RG334, NA.
86 ‘Memorandum for Record’, 6 December 1950, 250/6, Conferences TGS, RG 334, NA.
87 ‘Memorandum to Minister of Defense from Maj. Gen. W. H. Arnold’, 18 March 1953, 250/6, 320T, Turk Military, RG 334, NA; and Oğuz, Ağla Yüreğim, 307.
88 M. Sadi Koçaş, Pentomik Tümen (Ankara: E.U Basımevi, 1959), 29; Seyhan, Gölgedeki Adam, 24–8; and Oğuz, Ağla Yüreğim, 211–12.
89 ‘MAP – Military Missions’, 18 February 1958, 18/79, 111 FY 1951 Turkey, RG 330, NA.
90 The situation in Western Europe was no different than in Turkey. ‘With only 12 poorly trained and badly deployed divisions in Western Europe’, NATO’s short-term defence plan was ‘designed only to minimise panic and to avoid a repetition of the Dunkirk debacle of 1940, so that outnumbered NATO forces could make an orderly withdrawal in the face of a Soviet attack. The plan identified evacuation routes and assigned U.S. and British ships to rescue as many as possible. At best, the Allied forces might hold at the Pyranees’. Lawrence S. Kaplan, A Community of Interests: NATO and Military Assistance Program, 1949–1951 (Washington, DC: Office of the Secretary of Defence Historical Office, 1980), 85.
91 Ecevit Kılıç, Özel Harp Dairesi: Türkiye’nin Gizli Tarihi (İstanbul: Güncel Yayıncılık, 2007), 118.
92 Clay Gowran, ‘Turkey’s Prime Need: Railways and Good Roads’, Chicago Tribune, 19 June 1947.
93 See, for instance, Kocatürk, Bir Subayın Anıları, 216.
94 Yol Davamız: 9 Yılda 23000 Kilometre (Ankara: Başbakanlık Devlet Matbaası, 1948), 32; and Nazım Berksan, Yol Davamız Nerede? (Ankara: Akın Matbaası, 1951), 129–30.
95 Anılarla Karayolu Tarihi, (Ankara: KGM, 2007), 30.
96 Serhat Güvenç, ‘The Cold War Origins of the Turkish Motor Vehicle Industry: The Tuzla Jeep, 1954–1971ʹ, Turkish Studies 15 (2014): 539–40.
97 Düstur, Band III, vol. 30 (November 1948–October 1949), 1076.
98 Ekavi Athanassopolou, Turkey-Anglo-American Security Interests, 1945–1952: The First Enlargement of NATO (London: Frank Cass, 1999), 153.
99 ‘Memorandum to Chief, JAMMAT from Brig Gen Robert M. Cannon’, 9 February 1951, 250/3/322, Turkish Units 1951, RG 334, NA.
100 ‘Memorandum to Chief of Staff from Maj Gen W.H. Arnold’, 7 March 1951, 250/6/322, Turkish Units 1951, RG 334, NA.
101 ‘Memorandum to Chief, TUSAG from Lt. Colonel Robert W. Malloy’, 8 February 1951, 250/6/322, Turkish Units 1951, RG 334, NA.
102 ‘Annual Report on the Turkish Army for 1951ʹ, 11 January 1952, TNA, FO 371-101882.
103 ‘TUSAG Staff Conference’, 22 December 1954, 255/81, G-3 Section Reports, 1954, 337 Conferences TUSAG Staff, RG 334, NA.
104 ‘Record of Conversation between Fuad Koprulu and Maj. Gen. McBride’, 28 June 1950, 250A/9, Correspondence TGS, RG334, NA.
105 ‘Report on Effectiveness of Forces as of 31 December 1953ʹ, 3/20, Turkey, RG 330, NA.
106 ‘From Maj. Gen. H.L. McBride to the Minister of National Defense’, 22 May 1950, JAMMAT Army Group Adjutant General’s Section Decimal File, 256/84, Records of Interservice Agencies, RG 334, NA.
107 See Uyar and Güvenç, ‘One Battle, Two Accounts’, 1141–4.
108 See Muth, Command Culture, 3.
109 Yalta, Kunu-ri Muharebeleri, 363.
110 Walter F. Weiker, The Turkish Revolution 1960–1961: Aspects of Military Politics (Washington, DC: The Brookings Institutions, 1963), 124.
111 Oğuz, Ağla Yüreğim, 260.
112 Talat Aydemir, Ve Talat Aydemir Konuşuyor (İstanbul: May Yayınları, 1966), 66–7.
113 ‘Report on Effectiveness of Forces as of 31 December 1953ʹ, 3/20, Turkey, RG 330, NA.
114 M. Hikmet Bayar, Yarım Asırlık Asker, vol. 1 (İstanbul: Okuyanus, 2006), 169–70; and Çelikoğlu, Bir Darbeci Subayın Anıları, 56.
115 The purge was not limited to the senior officers. About 7200 officers, including 235 flag officers, were purged after the military coup in 1960. In other words, 90% of all flag officers, 50% of staff officers and 30% of majors were discharged. EMİNSU’nun Yuvaya Dönüş Davası (npp, np, 1972), 20.
116 For two years after the coup, some divisions were assigned colonels as commanders. ‘Orduda Generallerin Sayısı Artırılacak’, Yeni İstanbul, 22 July 1962.
117 Hanson W. Baldwin, ‘Turkey’s New Soldiers: Role of Junior Officers in Coup is Held a Result of Education and Environment’, New York Times, 5 June 1960.
118 See Gencer Özcan, ‘Türkiye’de Milli Güvenlik Kavramının Gelişimi’, in Türkiye’de Ordu, Devlet ve Güvenlik Siyaseti, ed. Evren Balta and İsmet Akça (İstanbul: İstanbul Bilgi Üniversitesi Yayınları, 2010), 307–51.
119 A case in point is the Korean War. Although the Turkish troops fought alongside the US units under the US command in Korea, Turkish officers found the experiences of the Chinese more relevant to their upcoming conflict with the Soviets, who enjoyed an overwhelming military superiority over Turkey. Major Turgut Sunalp, Kore Harbi (İstanbul: Harp Akademileri Basımevi, 1954), 109; and Ahmet Eren, Kore 1952–1953: Bir Türk Subayının Kore Günlüğü (İstanbul: Destek Yayınları, 2017), 142.
120 See Mahmut Boğuşlu, 1960–1978 Olayları: Anılar-Yorumlar (İstanbul: Kastaş Yayınları, 1995), 138.
121 Phillip Nash, The Other Missiles of October: Eisenhower, Kennedy and Jupiters, 1957–1963 (North Carolina: University of North Carolina Press, 2000), 164.
122 George Harris, Troubled Alliance: Turkish-American Problems in Historical Perspective, 1945–1971 (Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, 1972), 112.
Additional information
Notes on contributors
Serhat Guvenc
Serhat Guvenc is a professor of international relations at Kadir Has University, Istanbul, Turkey. He is the author of Turkish Quest for Dreadnoughts on the Eve of the First World War (2009), and (with Dilek Barlas) Turkey in the Mediterranean during the Interwar Era: The Paradox of Middle Power Diplomacy and Minor Power Naval Policy (2010).
Mesut Uyar
Mesut Uyar is dean of the School of Business and Social Sciences at Antalya Bilim University in Antalya, Turkey. Uyar is a retired Turkish Army colonel and former associate professor from the University of New South Wales in Sidney, Australia, and the Turkish Military Academy in Ankara. He has published numerous books and articles about the late Ottoman and modern Turkish armies.