The greatest danger!

“We are Turkish nationalists, but we are enemies of the principle of racism in our country. The very painful tragedies of the leaders of racism, fabricated for political grudges in our country, are vivid in our memories.”

This is how the part that made President İsmet İnönü’s speech on May 19, 1944—then known as Youth and Sports Day—famous began. İnönü then gave an example, mentioning how those who practiced racism had previously attacked Turkish soldiers from behind during the Balkan War for “political reasons,” that is, as a tactic aimed at determining the direction of developments; he spoke of how those racists would try to get out of the situation after the great harm their attitudes and behaviors in 1944 would cause the country by again saying it was for “political reasons.”

İnönü, who was an active Unionist (İttihatçı) even before the declaration of the Second Constitutional Era (Hürriyet), knew the period he cited well. In his life, there were no shortage of examples to show that he was consistent in his criticisms here. However, to be frank, it was also for “political reasons” that İnönü made this speech on May 19, 1944, and not much earlier.

**

As is known, these were the years of World War II. İnönü was trying to keep Turkey out of the war by following a policy of balance, but there were those in the country who sympathized with the Germans and the Soviets.

Let’s take a step back: Those who carried out the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia in 1917, with the hope of a communist world revolution, waited for the German revolution, which seemed very close. When the expected did not happen, they determined their new duty with the Communist International (Comintern), which they founded in 1919 to unite the world’s communist parties, as supporting national liberation movements fighting against imperialism. The founding of the TKP (Communist Party of Turkey) and the Soviet support given to our War of Independence took place during this process.

As early as 1935, the Comintern emphasized the necessity for communist parties to form a broad popular front with segments acting against fascism in their countries. In other words, the conjunctural goal was to defeat the rising fascism. Of course, there were different developments in between. But in the end, in 1943, the Comintern was dissolved on the grounds of preventing propaganda that communist parties were Soviet satellites and enabling them to act more independently and strongly in their countries. The aim of pleasing countries like the USA and the UK, which were the Soviets’ allies in the war, should not be overlooked in this.

The brochure titled “The Greatest Danger! The Inside Story of a Current Contrary to the National Turkish Cause” was published in 1943 in such an environment. Although it was written by TKP General Secretary Reşat Fuat Baraner, it bore another signature, that of F. Erkman, for reasons that can be guessed. It was written in a very Kemalist language to serve its purpose.

The brochure defended Turkish nationalism but found Turanist ideals, which it called Turkism (Türkçülük) and which exceeded Turkey’s borders, to be racist and opposed them. It stated that those who defended this idea, even if they claimed to be national, served the interests of Germany, which had used them in various forms since the last period of the Ottoman Empire. And the thing it called the “greatest danger” was Turkey being dragged into a catastrophe by being pushed into the war on Germany’s side with this Turkist thought, which it saw as “contrary to the national Turkish cause.”

Two things must be remembered: At that time, Turanism meant the desire to unite with Turkic peoples living within Soviet borders. The Soviets, on the other hand, were in favor of Turkey maintaining its policy of neutrality in the war.

Let us put aside the alignments in Turkey and the world of that day for a moment and note this from the most basic humanitarian point: Standing against Hitler’s fascism was a requirement of human dignity. On the other hand, the brochure, sometimes hitting below the belt, described the enthusiasm of Peyami Safa, a German sympathizer, as that of a man “as thin as a grasshopper” in the face of a “huge giant” when criticizing him for seeing the USA as weak. It referred to England, which it stated was exposed to his threats, as “our ally.” It is clear that the author of the brochure was doing this for “political reasons.”

**

The people targeted by the brochure were mostly gathered around the Çınaraltı magazine of the period. Upon the echo created by the brochure, the magazine prepared a survey consisting of nine questions in the summer of 1943 and directed this survey to several well-known writers and journalists, some of whom were not on the same line as them.

“Can you imagine a Turkish patriotism that is hostile to Turkism?” “Understand Turkism however you want, but are you a Turkist?” The answers proceeded as no to the first and yes to the second.

As can be seen, the questions had a leading side. On the other hand, no matter how leading the questions were, at least some of those who answered did not separate Turkism from Turkish nationalism, contrary to what was mentioned in the brochure, and did not understand it in a racist or Turanist way. The form of the second question, which implied that Turkism could be understood in different ways, showed this. The answers given to some other questions also pointed to this.

The brochure claimed that Turkists were racist without exception; that they did not see the nation as a unity of language, culture, and ideal as in the CHP program, but required unity of race and blood. It is understood that the other two questions in the survey were based on these claims in the brochure: Turkists see “political racism” as subversion and racism as a scientific subject. Do you agree with this? “Do you agree with those who understand the nation, together with Ziya Gökalp, as a unity of language, culture, conscience, and religion?”

One of the participants, who defined himself as a Turkist like the others, while answering the first question here, said, “I think of the cause of Turkism within the framework of the national borders established by Atatürk and protected by our National Chief İnönü,” essentially answering from a place consistent with the definition of Turkish nationalism in the brochure.

Again, some who defined themselves as Turkists expressed their objections while answering the second question here; they stated that they did not see religion as the mortar of this yeast. In other words, they did not let themselves be carried away by the leading nature of the question, they became attentive, and moreover, they adopted an attitude close to that in the CHP program that the brochure emphasized.

When asked what they thought about the brochure considering Turkism as German propaganda, the vast majority of those who answered the survey opposed this, stating that the brochure itself was a piece of propaganda.

One of the participants in the survey, which was also applied to some young people a few weeks later, Necmettin Erbakan, who had just graduated from high school, answered this question from the column where his passport photo was located as follows: “The only thing I will say to this is that seeing Turkism as the greatest danger will be the greatest danger.”

**

To put it in the language used by the actors of the period, the fight between the Turkists and the communists intensified. What happened between the two old friends Nihal Atsız and Sabahattin Ali was placed at the center of this fight. Meanwhile, it began to be understood that Germany would not be able to win the war. The government, not wanting to appear on the losing side, ensured the trial of Turkists who stood close to Germany, such as Atsız, on May 3, 1944, which would later be remembered as Turkism Day. İnönü’s famous speech also took place “for political reasons,” but during this process, about two weeks later, on May 19.

**

Which Turk would you like to see resurrected (excluding the last 50 years)? What is the most wrong move in our history (excluding the last 50 years)? If there were a miracle, what would you wish for the Turks? In which century would you like to live?

Throughout 1962, the Milli Yol magazine, which published on the line of Alparslan Türkeş and called itself Turkist, asked these open-ended questions and devoted space in its column for weeks to the 121 answers that came by mail from its Turkist readers.

About half of the Turkists who participated in the survey expressed that they wanted to live during the time of the sultans corresponding to the period taught in textbooks as the “rise era” of the Ottoman Empire, by answering Fatih Sultan Mehmet, Yavuz Sultan Selim, or Suleiman the Magnificent. One-sixth preferred to live during the time of the Göktürk State, which they saw as the purest form of Turkishness. About as many wanted to continue living exactly on that day to contribute to the struggle for the existence of Turkishness. In other words, about as many saw the existence of Turkishness as being in “danger.”

Although the miracle expectations of the Turkists varied, the answers were concentrated on the point of all Turks uniting and the establishment of a great Turkish state.

About one-third of the Turkists wanted Yavuz Sultan Selim to be resurrected. 18 percent said Fatih Sultan Mehmet, 10 percent Kürşad, 8 percent Suleiman the Magnificent, 7 percent Mete Han, 5 percent Sultan Alparslan, and 4 percent II. Abdülhamid.

About one-third of the Turkists who participated in the survey pointed to Baltacı Mehmet Paşa not destroying the Russian army when he had the opportunity at the Prut War in 1711 as the biggest mistake in our history. 9 percent said the fact that devshirmes were brought to important points in the Ottoman administration; 8 percent the dethronement of II. Abdülhamid; 6 percent Timur fighting Yıldırım Beyazıt; 6 percent the granting of capitulations to foreigners.

Turkists were actually establishing a link between Yavuz Sultan Selim, whom they desired to be resurrected, and the Prut War, which took place about two hundred years after him and which they defined as the biggest mistake. The anti-communist hysteria that had been ingrained in minds for years had captured the historical perception of the Turkists of that day. The justifications of some of those who answered Yavuz Sultan Selim were as follows: “to destroy the microbes gnawing at our spiritual existence,” “because he would immediately cut off the head of anyone who did not unite,” “for the extermination of the sold-out communist dogs among us.” The reason why the Prut War answer was given so much was clearly seen in this expression: “If the Russian army had been destroyed then, Russia and communism, which are a plague on the world today, would not exist.”

**

“The first step taken on May 19 was crowned with the declaration of our Republic on October 29, after a struggle adorned with difficulties and heroism. Thus, the Turkish nation has once again declared to the whole world that it will break the dirty hands reaching for its independence and future, regardless of who is behind them. I want you to know that this will is standing tall today just as it was 107 years ago. [...] With the process of a Turkey without terror, we are trying to save our country from a half-century-old plague on one hand, and to strengthen our national unity and solidarity on the other, and to hand over a country where there is prosperity and brotherhood to you.”

These words are from a speech President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan gave about two weeks ago on the occasion of the Commemoration of Atatürk, Youth and Sports Day. How nice!

**

On one hand, we listen with astonishment and anger to the demand of the leader of a party founded as Turkist for status to be given to Öcalan; on the other hand, to the speeches of the Ambassador of the United States of America residing in the Çukurambar district of Ankara, which every unfortunate person wants to see. We just listen.

We are proudly and quite skillful at protesting the Zionist Israeli government that is committing a massacre in Palestine. But even when the bombs launched from Israel fall on Iran, we continue to hold demonstrations that only and only stand by the Palestinian people. By equating Hamas with the Kuvayı Milliye, which was brought together by the march that started on May 19. “For political reasons,” without ever mentioning the name of Trump, who wants to turn Gaza into a tourist city, and the pro-Israel USA.

Fortunately, these days some are loudly talking about the state mind coming into play. The state mind that did not feel the need to come into play in Ergenekon, in Balyoz, on July 15; in the poverty, hopelessness, and rot experienced until today! Very well!

It seems that, as in the last period of the Ottoman Empire, different ideas are being brought together with a Unionist attitude, and the future of the country is being tried to be directed. Those who, until yesterday, were making propaganda by turning history upside down with a crudeness that even Abdülhamid would look at with contempt, have suddenly become Unionists. How nice!

There is no freedom, equality, brotherhood, justice, but there is Union (İttihat)! There is no implementation of the constitution, but there is Union! There is not a single word to the Ambassadors of the Great Powers, but there is Union!

This Union can only be the Union of those waiting in another queue because they were kicked out of Abdülhamid’s door. Not a millimeter beyond that!

**

By the way, what is today’s “greatest danger”? What else will we witness “for political reasons”? Which Turk will we desire to be resurrected in today’s world? Will we wait for the blue-eyed, blonde-haired man mentioned in that beautiful folk song to be resurrected and come from Samsun again? Will we put aside fantasies and want to live in today?