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).
Editor's
Note
