|
Makale Özeti:
|
When you check the bibliography of aimost any book about the Gallipoli Campaign, you see that British writers (or Australians, Canadians, ete.) referred only to sources in English and Turkish authors used Turkish-only sources. The \vriters referred to non-English or non-Turkish sources only if they vvere available in translation or that language was personally known by the vvriter. In other \vords, ali sources about Gallipoli not in a language knovvn by the author were not considered. Writers in English excluded ali French, German, Turkish, and Russian books and any other non-visual unpublished material such as arehive documents. Turkish vvriters are slightly luckier, having access to a greater number of translated vvorks; nevertheless, the situation is generally the same.
What sources are we talking about? Firstly, eye-witness accounts by those vvho took part in the campaign and accounts by contemporary historians. Turks of that generation wrote in Ottoman Turkish (the seript did not change until 1929) and English vvriters would probably have knovvn French, if not German. Once vve reach the 1960s and beyond, fevver and fevver Turkish historians could read Ottoman seript (though in recent years it has become a prerequisite in university history departments), and hovv many contemporary English vvriters knovv enough Gothic German or French to read original documents in those languages?
|