 |
|
 |
|
  |
|
|
|
|
|
Turkologie / Osmanistik |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Turkologie / Osmanistik |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cemil Kocak:
The speech which Mustafa Kemal Atatürk delivered to the Republican Peoples Party Congress in 1927 is currently still being regarded -even in the academic arena- as the most important document determining the historiography of the Turkish War of Independence and of the early years of the Turkish Republic. It is remarkable that the work / text in question should be so influential and so "permanent" even after a period of almost 75 years.
Stand 11. Februar 2001
Atatürk's Speech and Its "Alternatives": A Critical View
In my lecture, I will try to present a view of the "Speech" in a critical way that is quite uncommon. I will try to examine the text in itself, and within its historical context; and draw your attention to other texts that constitute alternative resources.
My thesis is as follows: The "speech" could have been very different from the way it is, because it is basically a political text. The moment it is removed from its historical context, it ceases to be a historical text and can only be studied as a political text. The speech is not an "objective" recital of a specific period; it is Mustafa Kemal Atatürk's personal and political narration of a specific period of time.
In my lecture, I will try to explain why and how even an academic discussion of this issue will inevitably find itself in the political arena. I will then talk about the historical adventure of the "speech" itself, and about the political outcome / fate of the important and prominent men mentioned in the "speech".
I will also refer to the memoirs on the War of Independence, of some of the important leaders of the War of Independence such as Kazim Karabekir, Ali Fuat Cebesoy, Rauf Orbay and some others. These are memoirs that can be regarded as alternatives to Atatürk's Speech and I will try to point out the differences between the texts and what they signify.
In a way, my lecture may be providing an answer to the question as to whether history can be written by those people who themselves have played a role in the making of that history, or who themselves have constituted that part of history.