Don't read to refute
or to lie! Don't read to believe and submit to anything either!
Neither do read to talk and lecture! Read to assess, compare
and think!
Francis Bacon
Dagobert Von Mikusch; Ghazi Mustafa Kemal - The Man Between
Europe and Asia, (Translation Esat Nermi Erendor), Remzi Publishing
House, Istanbul, 1981, 406 p., 14x20.
The work by the renowned German Orientalist Dagobert von Mikusch
was very much debated in Ataturk's Turkey and in Europe in the
years it was published, expressions used by Mikusch and his
approach to events gave way to many different comments on the
book.
In his book, Mikusch tells Ataturk's life in chronological
order yet as stated in the Preface, the work undertaken is not
a biography of Ataturk. While the life of Ataturk is dealt with,
the Ottoman Empire he lived in and other states, which had relations
with the Empire, have been examined in social, political and
economic terms, hence a study of comparative history is produced.
While miscellaneous events about Ataturk are told; comparisons
with similar events in European history are also included. In
these assessments, the author's deep and sincere admiration
for Ataturk is clearly felt.
This admiration is not expressed as a eulogy or glorification
as we see in Oriental literature. What is emphasized is how
an extraordinary individual differed from his contemporaries,
how he managed to overwhelm events with his realist and rationalist
attitude instead of submitting himself to the course of events
and how he always proved to be right.
Mikusch produced his work not for the Turkish reader but for
the European reader. The book that was first published in 1929
has been translated into different languages numerous times
after a final chapter was added later on. It has been simultaneously
published in Britain, France, Italy and the United States of
America. Mikusch's work, which has been translated into a total
of seven languages, has attained its position amongst the unique
studies of the world with this aspect.
Some of the published translations of Dagobert con Mikusch's
Ghazi Mustafa Kemal / The Man Between Europe and Asia are as
follows:
________; Ghazi Mustafa Kemal, Zwischen Europa und Asien,Leipzig:
P. List, 1929.
________; Mustapha Kemal: Between Europe and Asia, (Translated
by John Linton), New York: Doubleday, Doran, 1931.
________; Ghazi Mustapha Kemal, La Resurrection d'un Peuple,
Tr. par A. Vaillant et J. Kuckenburg, Paris: Gailimard, 1931.
________; Gasi Mustafa Kemal, Il Fondatore della Nuova Turchia,
Fratelli Treves, Milano, 1932.
The first chapter of the book mentions the childhood years
of Mustafa Kemal Pasha and the differences of opinion over his
education within his family, his commencement to education at
Fatma Kadin School with a ceremony is also mentioned. Here,
Kemal Pasha's remarks and his father's pro-Western and pro-innovation,
his mother's religious and conservative attributes are accentuated.
At the same time, that the Ottoman Empire is not yet shattered,
the populace lives happily, Turks are a loyal community within
the state or that they feel themselves as such are also emphasized.
The prosperous life of non-Muslims is depicted through the use
of satire.
While describing the life of Mustafa Kemal Pasha, Mikusch mentions
that there was a degree of estrangement between him and his
mother and tells that this was caused by his mother's marriage
with someone called Ragip of Mora. The author further presents
some hints as to the internal conflicts Mustafa Kemal Pasa had
at these times.
While describing the March 31st incident (1), Mikusch tells
that Hasan Fehmi Bey who was shot dead in this incident was
buried to the tomb of Mahmut II upon the order of Adulhamid
II, that Adulhamid II did not have an influence in the March
31st incident and that he even remained neutral. According to
Mikusch, by remaining neutral, the Sultan lost the Islamists
who were his last supporters. Moreover, the author resents that
despite the success of the division led by Mustafa Kemal Pasha
as the Chief of Staff, the reputations of Mahmut Sevket Pasha
and Enver Pasha increased in the end.
In one section of the book, Mikusch makes a huge historical
mistake. The author who claims that the Committee of Union and
Progress has subjected the Armenians to genocide demonstrates
how big a fallacy he is committing by saying that this so-called
genocide should even be equated with the genocide by the Whites
on the Indians in America. The author also emphasizes that the
Republic of Turkey has later on endorsed this alleged genocide
perpetrated by the Committee of Union and Progress and that
Turkey should adopt common sense about this issue. It is understood
from the expressions he uses that Mikusch does not have sufficient
information about the deportation. Alongside this, it is possible
to suggest that, by including only biased views on this subject
in particular, the author has compromised objectivity in the
book. That the mass genocide movement by Armenian bandits in
Anatolia, which was undergoing a period of war, is not included
in the book shows that the author views this subject partially.
Frequent comparisons and contrasts between the Committee of
Union and Progress and Mustafa Kemal Pasha are seen in Mikusch's
work. In the comparisons made, judgments to the effect that
Mustafa Kemal Pasha is right and Union and Progress is not are
discerned. One comparison in the book is as follows:
"Mustafa Kemal who went to Salonica after March 31st
went to Crystal Palace and attended a meeting. Attendants were
discussing liberation and the implementation of revolutions",
the author describes this incident in Mustafa Kemal Pasha's
words, he describes that "someone present shouted 'I
would like to be like Cemal Bey' and others applauded him. According
to them, you need to be a great man first, the homeland needs
to be liberated later. Mustafa Kemal is of the opinion that
the homeland needs to be liberated first, then you can be a
great man. The biggest difference between those who were there
and Mustafa Kemal is this".
In connection with this incident, again at the same place,
Cemal Pasha asks the opinion of Mustafa Kemal about an article
of his published anonymously in a newspaper. After reading the
article, Mustafa Kemal responds: "Just a sketchy work by
a journalist". When Cemal Pasha reminds him that it is
his own article, Mustafa Kemal advises him: " To give up
on the idea of seeking applauds from fools, to struggle for
the homeland without toadying to anyone, that everyone will
try to prevent him if he acts by looking down on others, or
otherwise if he admits that he is weak and works without asking
for help from anyone, he will overcome hurdles and to simply
discredit ignore those who look down on others".
In occasional analogies, Mikusch uses Enver Pasha as well and
establishes a connection between him and Napoleon. Here, considering
the readership the book is aimed at, we can say that the author
tries to better introduce characters in the book by referring
to statesmen the readership is well-acquainted with.
The author also states that Mustafa Kemal Pasha did not get
along well with his friends who held power. "He clearly
took an opposing stance against the policy of Enver Pasha. Mustafa
Kemal Pasha absolutely did not want the fostering of close relations
with Germany. On that point, he was in agreement with Cemal
Pasha. He strongly condemned extending an invitation to the
German military delegation presided by General Liman Von Sanders.
He was saying that this would be an insult on the Turkish nation".
After the author states that a very important factor behind
the appointment of Mustafa Kemal Pasha to Sofia as a military
attaché was his open statement of his views within the Committee
of Union and Progress, he also provides extensive information
about Mustafa Kemal Pasha's relations with the Sofia Attaché-Military
and Fethi Bey.
The author mentions that Enver Pasha played a very important
role in the participation of the Ottoman Empire in World War
I and he evaluates this incident as the beginning of the collapse.
Furthermore, Mikusch does not consider post-World War I ceasefire
provisions as harsh or rigid against the Turks.
The following chapters of the book describe Mustafa Kemal Pasha's
post-ceasefire activities in Istanbul (entering the cabinet,
preventing the vote of confidence and the like) and his assignment
to Anatolia. In the mean time, the occupation of Izmir is also
described.
After the activities of Mustafa Kemal Pasha in Samsum, Amasya
and Havza are outlined in the book, Erzurum and Sivas congresses
are described extensively. While the cutting-off of communications
with Istanbul, the resignation of Damat Ferit Pasha, Anatolia-Istanbul
relations and the government of Ali Riza Pasha are explained,
the author says that the Sultan sacrificed his son-in-law for
the sake of his throne and he bowed to the "rebellious
general".
Afterwards, Mikusch refers to the arrival of Mustafa Kemal
Pasha in Ankara, parliamentary elections, meetings in Istanbul
and the invasion of Istanbul. While describing Ismet Pasha among
those who went to Anatolia; it is stated that he was successful
at war and at peace negotiations, he transformed his hearing
difficulty into a diplomatic skill, he only heard those he wanted
to hear, or he used his health as a shield to request repetitions
of what is said to be able to purchase time for preparing a
good response.
Mikusch recites the statement of General Lawrence in Times
on 30 May 1920 in describing the Treaty of Sevres to the reader.
In the statement, Lawrence says: "This treaty is the
affirmation of victors' greediness, each partner is trying to
get the big piece for itself. Even if this treaty is ratified,
it will not live longer than 3 months". By reciting
this statement by Lawrence, the author tries to emphasize that
Sevres died even before it was born.
In the chapter titled "Europe and Asia", again
comparisons are used extensively. The Turkish army is depicted
as calm, patient, modest and obedient, while Europeans are depicted
as energetic, full of great hopes, anxious, used to comfortable
living, intolerant to deprivation and defiant of defeat. While
depicting Mustafa Kemal Pasha in this section, Mikusch says
that he was not reluctant in his behaviors for that he would
gain enmity, he was sarcastic, he would attain people's admiration
yet he was also vulnerable. He particularly stresses that Mustafa
Kemal was not a moderator or a delightful-speaker like Ismet
Pasha, and he was not unshakable in character or naïve like
Fevzi Pasha. The author depicts those who always surrounded
Mustafa Kemal Pasha as regular guests on the dining table and
as a peer group, and accuses them of being more royalist than
the royal himself, of ruining certain events because of their
misconduct.
After describing the Mudanya Battle, Mudanya and Lausanne Treaties,
Mikusch states in the section on the promulgation of the Republic
that the new mission of Mustafa Kemal Pasha was to modernize
the Turkish nation. In the following sections, reforms like
the abolishment of the Caliphate and the Standardization of
Education are mentioned as efforts towards secularization, Mustafa
Kemal's friends' opposition, the establishment of the Patriotic
Republican Party and the ensuing political and societal events
are explained to the reader in detail.
Mikusch relates the Sheikh Sait Rebellion to the abolishment
of the Caliphate. Along with this, it is said that with the
crushing of the Sheikh Sait Rebellion and the subsequent reforms,
the opposition was muted, that the enemies of Mustafa Kemal
gave up, hence whatever he transforms was accepted to be right
and prospective reforms were not met by opposition.
In the final chapter of the book, issues like the Economic
Depression of 1930, Liberal Party, Ataturk's Westernization
Drive, Turkism Activities and Planned Economy are dealt with.
Finally in his book, Dogobert Von Mikusch profiles Ataturk
as " A great man at the historical crossroads of the great
formation movement between Europe and Asia; a man who put himself
forward for the sake of the Orient and thus managed to stop
the tide from the Occident to the Orient which looked unstoppable
at the most dangerous moment, at the point where the two continents
merged" to emphasize how important a role he had in the
creation of modern Turkey.
Mikusch took care to underscore one particular point to the
European reader in his book. And this was the inconvenient setting
Mustafa Kemal Pasha operated under especially during the War
of Liberation. What is stressed especially in the book is that
under such a setting which would estrange the European in the
first instance, Ataturk's achievement of what was said to be
not achievable, his winning of what is said to be not winnable,
his doing of reforms which are said to be not doable are his
real acts to be admired.
Mikusch further emphasizes the tensions between a great figure
who can foresee the future and those figures who can only see
what is before them today, those who cannot think beyond the
conventional and refers to how skillful Ataturk was in distancing
himself from these tensions. Hence, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk is
turned into a legend in a tragedy with a happy end.
The author's admiration for Mustafa Kemal Ataturk is exposed
in the enthusiasm this legend is expressed. Expressions of anxiety,
admiration and an outpouring of emotions are frequently detected
in those sections of the book depicting Mustafa Kemal Pasha.
In those sections, the artistic side of the author is clearly
seen.
Typology, traditions and positive-negative aspects of the people's
of the era are told in the book through successful depictions,
at times as absorbingly as in a novel. In addition, the book
also has the character of a historical novel and its language
is quite plain. The author approaches events relatively objectively
as an outside observer.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. March 31st Incident: Popular rebellion that broke out
in Istanbul on 14 April 1909 according to the Gregorian calendar
(translator's note).