1/5 THE MAN BETWEEN EUROPE AND ASIA Research Assistant Salim GÖKÇEN Atatürk University Department of History 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:
2/5 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.
3/5 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
4/5 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
5/5 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). www.stradigma.com monthly strategy and analysis e magazine STRADIGMA.com is a FORSNET e publication