Letter: History's lessons on Turkish intervention
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Sir: In your editorial 'A proper role for Turkey in Bosnia' (8 March) you write that before Austria took over in 1878 'the Ottomans ruled Bosnia with 120 officials', but that subsequently, 'Viennese bureaucracy required 9,533'. You imply that this self-evidently reflects credit upon Turkey.
Leaving aside the important distinction between the Ottoman Empire and the modern Republic of Turkey, this is not the case.
The Ottoman Empire required comparatively few civilian officials because it provided little in the way of services. In the events leading up to the Austrian takeover a demand the Sultan could not bring himself to accept was to apply direct taxes, locally levied in Bosnia and Herzegovina, to the local needs of the provinces.
The Austrians, on the other hand, imposed a modern 19th-century colonial administration, investing in roads and bridges, combatting tuberculosis and malaria, and introducing improved animal breeds, steel sloughs, irrigation, and protection of forests.
A British visitor to Bosnia in 1906, M Edith Durham, remarked: 'The officials . . . give the impression of being overworked,' and 'The large majority (of officials) were Slavs.' Admittedly 'Everything was centralised . . .' and 'They wrestled with a mass of detail'. (M. Edith Durham, Twenty Years of the Balkan Tangle, 1920.)
Yours faithfully,
JOHN G. HILLS
Horsham, Sussex
9 March
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments