Creating an official Kemalist from a popular historian

Why was this article written? 

A phenomenon that has caught my attention for some time now encouraged me to write under this title. I have encountered many articles that declare Cemal Kutay—a right-wing popular history narrator who, in reality, had been “reproaching” the Atatürk and İnönü eras for over half a century—as the spokesperson for official Kemalism. In this article, I intend to examine the content and function of the Cemal Kutay corpus a little more closely. 

WHEN/HOW DID I SEE CEMAL KUTAY?

Cemal Kutay is a fine example of the secret history narrative. In academic literature, the secret history narrative has also been referred to as meta-history in recent times. I saw the late Kutay twice. In the 1990s. The first time was at his home, and the second was at a conference he gave at Boğaziçi University. My first encounter was on the occasion of our visit to him regarding a film that Boğaziçi University Atatürk Institute Director Mim Kemal Öke wanted to make together with Halit Refiğ. 

The reason I was present at this visit was that Professor Mim Kemal insisted that I also be involved in the academic background of the film. Halit Refiğ was known as the director of the film “Yorgun Savaşçı” (The Tired Warrior), an adaptation of Kemal Tahir’s work that had been burned and destroyed as a 12 September measure. Thank God, it was later determined that a copy of the film had been saved. And I would like to remind you that it was shown on TRT during Fikri Sağlar’s tenure as Minister of Culture. At the time I am referring to, it was not yet known that Halit Refiğ’s film had been saved. Professor Mim Kemal Öke, the grandson of Atatürk’s doctor Mim Kemal Öke, wanted to make a historical film with the famous director of alternative cinema, Halit Refiğ. The subject was exciting for me as well: the Malta exiles.

We had gone to Cemal Kutay’s house in Kadıköy Bahariye for this reason (the three of us). You can imagine how exciting the visit was for me. Books, magazines, and documents were practically bursting from every corner. At that time, apart from Ambassador Bilal Şimşir’s book “Malta Sürgünleri” (Malta Exiles), there was also Cemal Kutay’s book addressing the exiles. 

According to Professor Mim Kemal’s plan, Cemal Kutay would be the historical consultant for the film, he himself would write the screenplay, Halit Refiğ would direct the film, and I would be the assistant. In this way, as a “rookie,” I would slowly learn the ropes. 

In his pleasant conversation, Kutay practically tore our history to shreds. He did not neglect to show us some documents and items in between. He even showed us the pen with which Rauf Bey signed the Armistice of Mudros as a sacred relic. You can imagine my astonishment when I saw the pen.

There was going to be a Maltese girl in the screenplay, and one of our friends from the Institute was going to play the role. The project was quite exciting for a curious young assistant like me. As you can imagine. Then the project quickly fell off the agenda. 

I saw Kutay for the second time at an Atatürk Conference he gave at Boğaziçi University. I would like to share a few words that remained in my mind from the speech. With a tearful tone of voice: “That hero Kemalettin Sami… Fevzi Pasha, who read the Quran in his tent until morning….” These expressions were about the Battle of Sakarya. Meanwhile, the fact that the Public Relations Director, who was overly emotional during the speech, started to cry remains a pleasant memory in my mind. 

Who was Cemal Kutay, who could make people cry with his enthusiastic speeches on the National Struggle and Atatürk?

I learned quite a lot over time, of course. About this erudite historian. The first piece of information about him that shocked me was learning that he was the person who denounced Sabahattin Ali in Konya (1932). The second was that his lineage on his father’s side was based on the famous Bedirhani tribe. To be honest, I had thought he was Circassian. Because he was occupied with figures like Rauf Bey, Ethem, and Kuşçubaşı Eşref.

Cemal Kutay is one of the important figures of the secret history, covered history, and history-behind-the-fog literature. However, in his history narrative, Atatürk maintains his sanctity -at the discursive level-. What is criticized is the single-party oligarchy that formed around him over time. It is İsmet Pasha. In this typology, Kutay can be positioned somewhere between Ziya Şakir (Soku) and Feridun Kandemir.

Kutay’s wide range of interests and publications

Cemal Kutay fit a very wide range of interests into his century-long life (1909-2006). It is also understood that he witnessed many events since his time as a correspondent for Hakimiyet-i Milliye. He met with many people, from Said Rıza to Said Nursi. His field of interest covers a wide spectrum, from spy stories to Atatürk’s religious beliefs. In terms of the subjects he highlighted in the political conjuncture. 

As is known, his most notable publication coincides with the Democrat Party era. Between 1952-1957. The 20-volume “Türkiye İstiklal ve Hürriyet Mücadeleleri Tarihi” (History of Turkey’s Independence and Freedom Struggles). These volumes actually consist of magazines published in monthly fascicles. The eight-volume “Tarih Konuşuyor” (History Speaks) series was published between 1964-1968. There are also four-volume books on Celal Bayar and Rauf Orbay. Other series such as “Bilinmeyen Tarihimiz” (Our Unknown History), “Sisli Tarihimiz” (Our Foggy History), and “Örtülü Tarihimiz” (Our Covered History) are also available among Kutay’s publications. 

There is a point that should be reminded: when examined carefully, it is seen that many of these books are commentaries on documents and memoirs. Some are also redundant. That is, Cemal Kutay republished what he had previously published under other titles with corrections and additions. 

The issue of the “predecessors and successors”

The most important issue regarding those who enjoyed Kutay’s special interest is the “predecessors and successors” issue in the National War of Independence. Here, Fevzi Pasha is always skipped over, and İsmet Pasha’s late accession to Ankara is always kept under fire. It is interpreted as a lack of faith in the national liberation. The predecessors are Rauf Bey, Ali Fuat Pasha, Kazım Karabekir Pasha, and Refet Bele. These names were unfairly crushed by the CHP oligarchy. Kutay writes as if there were a will independent of Atatürk in this liquidation event. While Cebesoy and Bele were made deputies and ministers by winning their hearts during Atatürk’s lifetime, it is not possible to consider old comrades Rauf Bey and Karabekir in the same context. 

The way Kazım Karabekir Pasha is handled

The events that developed with the response given by Karabekir Pasha from his mansion in Erenköy, where he lived in seclusion and under actual surveillance, to the memoirs published by Mahmut Soydan, the founder of İş Bank and owner of Milliyet Newspaper, under the title “Ankaralı’nın Not Defteri” (The Notebook of the Ankaralı) in 1933, play a key role in Karabekir literature. The national struggle reckoning, which began with a few letters Kazım Karabekir sent to the newspaper one after another, turns into a conflict. When it is understood that Karabekir’s challenge to the leader, which started with letters, would continue with a counter-Nutuk (Speech), the situation changes. The repressive apparatus, which included former Independence Tribunal members, the administration, and the judiciary, seizes Karabekir’s War of Independence memoirs. According to Kutay’s narrative, the CHP oligarchy, aware of the memoirs, destroys Karabekir’s memoirs despite İnönü’s intervention. In short, Karabekir’s move to claim a share in the leadership of the National War of Independence, almost above Atatürk, is repelled.

It would later be understood that the original of the memoirs had been saved, and only the printed ones had been destroyed. This version of the memoirs was printed by Sinan Matbaası in 1952. The next version would be published by Türkiye Yayınevi in 1960 as 1141 pages. 

After Atatürk’s death, Kazım Karabekir was integrated into the new structure under the leadership of the National Chief by having his heart won over by İnönü. But I think Karabekir only kept quiet and continued his claim. Even though he was a CHP deputy and Speaker of the TBMM when he passed away in 1948. 

This is the reason for the great credit the Islamist right gives to Kazım Karabekir Pasha—despite having nothing to do with Islamism—is that he is the author of the counter-Nutuk who challenged the leader. The reason for Kutay’s interest is the struggle he gave against the siege of the Erenköy mansion. In this case, Kutay ignores Karabekir’s “return to the state” under İnönü’s patronage and places him in the position of the real second man in the national liberation leadership. By neglecting the area of conflict with the single man, the bill is again handed to İnönü. 

Kutay’s Rauf Bey narrative

A historical identity to which Kutay shows special interest is Rauf Bey. If we need to dwell a little on the Orbay identity, he lived mostly in England after being sentenced to 10 years in absentia in the İzmir assassination case (1926). After Atatürk’s death, his reputation was restored, and he was elected as a deputy. As an independent candidate without joining the CHP. When the World War broke out, İnönü appointed him as the London Ambassador.  

Orbay, unlike Cebesoy and others, did not show a desire to enter politics while transitioning to multi-party life. On the contrary, there was a state of reluctance towards politics in Rauf Bey. What Rauf Bey did not tell or could not tell became the main topics that both Feridun Kandemir and Cemal Kutay followed up on. Orbay, who gave positive responses to the pressure to tell what he knew, which they started from the mid-50s, gave long interviews to Kandemir and Kutay towards the end of his life. 

These interviews were published in long serials in Kandemir’s “Yakın Tarihimiz” (Our Recent History) magazine. It is possible to find these publications of Kandemir in libraries in 4 volumes. Cemal Kutay’s four-volume Rauf Bey book is also based on these interviews and the documents he obtained from him. Thus, the front Kandemir opened with Karabekir was continued with the theme of “Rauf Bey, who was innocently convicted” by the Independence Tribunal. 

The situation of Ali Fethi Okyar

The easiest figure in Cemal Kutay’s literature is Ali Fethi Okyar. There is no aspect in him that needs correction or bending. Fethi Bey is not a real opponent of Atatürk. Okyar is often a political option that can be put into play against İnönü.  

He never broke away from the leader and played the role of a wise warner when necessary. He maintained his existence as an option kept in reserve alongside the party’s middle-stream line. I would like to remind you that Kutay’s publications regarding Fethi Bey were made not during the first wave of democratization in the early 50s, but during the era of the 61 democracy. 

While Kutay was turning Fethi Bey’s memoirs into a voluminous book, he was speaking more than Fethi Bey. Fethi Bey’s Presidency of the Grand National Assembly of Turkey, his Prime Ministries, and his comings and goings to the Paris and London embassies are interpreted within the framework of the supreme interests of the state and the leader’s appreciation. In short, there is no seriously problematic area regarding Fethi Okyar that needs to be resolved in the Kutay corpus. 

Kutay and Kandemir’s exoneration of Kuşçubaşı Eşref

An interesting figure that Kutay exonerated together with Feridun Kandemir is Eşref Kuşçubaşı. Kuşçubaşı Eşref, who was on the list of 150 people along with 9 people around Çerkes Ethem, is one of the figures whose name is frequently mentioned in the “Assassinations of Atatürk” series. The impression I have is that after the Ethem Forces were disbanded in 1921, the Teşkilat-ı Mahsusa (Special Organization) cells (mostly Circassians) acting under him or independently of him planned an assassination of Atatürk via the Greek islands. They took action. They failed. 

A similar plan was also in question for İnönü. There are telegrams stating that some former Teşkilat-ı Mahsusa members were in Europe and that an assassination could be carried out against the Turkish delegation in Lausanne—especially against İnönü. Claims that Eşref Sencer Kuşçubaşı was not involved in the assassination business form the essence of the Kutay corpus. 

My opinion, however, is that the probability of Kuşçubaşı Eşref being involved in these attempts is high. After Kuşçubaşı returned to the country 27 years later—after the Democrat Party came to power—he was included in the group of those misunderstood within the framework of the Menderes governments’ front strategy against İnönü. Kuşçubaşı was exonerated by Kutay as a result of a series of pamphlets and books in which he was the main actor. Kuşçubaşı had done his best for the homeland in the Hejaz, in the Najd Deserts, and in Basra. Moreover, he had saved Atatürk in Tripoli, which was the first action field of the Teşkilat-ı Mahsusa. Thus, Kuşçubaşı Eşref was elevated from the position of someone who assassinated Atatürk to the position of a patriot who saved Atatürk in Tripoli, and the misunderstanding about him was corrected and he was historically exonerated. According to Kutay, the manuscripts of Kuşçubaşı’s unpublished memoirs were culled by Celal Bayar and used in his own memoirs. In the end, in this case study as well, there is a long-term victimization of a patriot, and the leader has no direct involvement in this matter. 

The Origin of Kutay’s Oppositional Counter-History Narrative

The source of Cemal Kutay’s counter-history narrative may have to do with his dismissal by Falih Rıfkı Atay during the transformation of Hakimiyet-i Milliye into Ulus. Just like in the example of Necip Fazıl becoming an enemy of İnönü and the CHP after his candidacy for CHP deputy was rejected. After this, there were several attempts to start a newspaper, the first of which was with Bayar’s eldest son, Refii. 

His counter-history narrative (popular right-wing secret history) can, in my opinion, be started with his publication of the Millet Magazine in 1945. 1945 is a meaningful date. It is a breaking point. It constitutes a threshold in Turkish political life. 

After this, he is always seen around the Democrat Party. Almost all of the voluminous volumes were first published as speculations in history, serialized in magazine format. As can be understood, these are publications that attract attention and have a heavy commercial aspect. There is always a veil of fog lifted by the author in the articles. The author is the person who solves an event that has taken place in history with a connection that we cannot understand or see. In the lines of Cemal Kutay, you are suddenly enlightened with a completely different truth. 

There is an important point that should not be skipped here: There is fundamentally no problem in the line of political development coming from the Young Turks to the Democrat Party. The problem is either with the CHP oligarchs who exploit Atatürk or with İnönü, who made all the anti-religious, pro-Western people influential in the party and the country’s administration. This is the basis of Kutay’s effort, together with Kandemir throughout the 50s, to present the real heroes of the National Struggle in parallel lanes. These are also the “Democrat” victims of the early Republican period. 

Counter-revolution literature derives sources from the secret history narrative

A segment that benefited most from the environment of freedom created by the 1961 democracy is “right-wing” Turkey. During this period, a counter-revolutionary publishing industry emerged that benefited from the freedom of the press in the broadest sense. The oral opposition focused on mosques and timekeepers that spread by word of mouth in the 30s turned into written, printed opposition. Writers such as Necip Fazıl, Kadir Mısıroğlu, and Mustafa Müftüoğlu became visible. A literature consisting of voluminous volumes that now confidently demand a totalitarian state order, talk about the “Ideolocya Örgüsü” (Ideology Web), that Lausanne was actually a defeat, or about “Lying History” has developed.  

Actually, a move close to this had been carried out by DP Samsun deputy Fehmi Ustaoğlu at the very beginning of the 50s. Ustaoğlu had attempted to open a front with his article “It is by no means true that our nation is indebted to the Kemalist revolution.” Bayar, who foresaw where the matter could go, suppressed this rebellion and liquidated the deputies who crossed the party’s red lines. After this, the counter-revolutionary literature had to retreat to the “limits of insinuation.” 

It was during this period that, right next to Kutay’s literature of the “democratic victims” of the revolution, a “counter-revolutionary literature” that derived power and sources from it found the opportunity to sprout and develop. By surviving the interim regime periods in a “full cover” position. 

What should be the final word on Kutay?

March 12 and September 12 pushed writers who interpreted Atatürk’s revolutions on the basis of “Populism-Statism-Secularism” out of the field. They even put them on trial. As in the case of Uğur Mumcu. When this happened, while the privilege of interpreting Atatürk’s revolutions in an acceptable way remained with parties without a representative base like the CGP, what remained in the hands of the military was a hollowed-out “Wardrobe Kemalism.” 

This is the reason why Cemal Kutay was constantly invited from Lions and Rotary clubs to military high schools, War Academies, and universities, and was awarded honorary doctorate titles after September 12, being considered the representative of acceptable Kemalism. 

The secular republican professors of the academy say that Kutay was not a historian, that he did not receive formal education related to history, and that his publications spanning half a century were based on speculations he made on documents he obtained in some way. To this, claims that Kutay was a conservative writer who distorted the truth in the documents he interpreted are added from time to time. I must also state that I more or less agree with these interpretations. 

I understood over time that Cemal Kutay, whom I saw sitting in a treasure trove of abandoned documents that left me in awe when I was first taken to his house on the occasion of a film project, interpreted the piles of information that had passed to him and were overflowing from the cabinets according to the needs of those in power at times. 

In general, the customers of his publications are the segment that is aggrieved by the Turkish revolution. This is immediately noticeable. The counter-revolutionary literature also frequently uses him as a source. Example: Like saying that Vahdettin sent Mustafa Kemal Pasha, the Army Inspector, to Anatolia with enough money to buy one-tenth of Istanbul. While his readership presented such an appearance from the 50s to the 80s, it is truly astonishing that he could be considered the representative of official Kemalism, especially from the perspective of the Marxist left. The fact that such a perception has been created can perhaps be interpreted as an ironic legacy that September 12 Kemalism left to our history.