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).
