Atatürk: Entelektüel Biyografi

by M. Şükrü Hanioğlu

Bu kitap, Atatürk’ün ayrıntılara inen entelektüel biyografisini ortaya koymayı hedeflemektedir.

Başta kendisinin not defterleri, okuduğu eserlere koyduğu işaretler ve düştüğü notlar, konuşmaları, mülâkatları ve kaleme aldığı kitaplar olmak üzere değişik yerli ve yabancı arşiv belgeleri ile dönem yayınlarına dayanan çalışma; cumhuriyet kurucusunun entelektüel altyapısı ve ideolojik tercihlerini irdeleyerek, modern Türkiye’nin sıklıkla atıfta bulunulan ancak içi doldurulamayan “kurucu ideolojisi”nin ana hatlarını belirlemeye, onu analiz etmeye de gayret etmektedir.

Atatürk’ü basmakalıp klişelerle değerlendirme külliyatından ayrılarak, okuyan, düşünen, tartışan ve dünya görüşü çerçevesinde millet inşa etmeye ve devlet kurmaya çalışan bir yirminci asır lideri olarak tahlil eden bu biyografi, alanındaki ilk akademik metin olma özelliği taşımaktadır.

Genres: History, Biography, Nonfiction, Politics, Middle East, Biography Memoir, Autobiography

1024 pages, Hardcover

First published January 1, 2011

About the author

He received his B.A. in Political Science and Economics and his Ph.D. in Political Science from Istanbul University. During his graduate years he taught late Ottoman diplomatic and political history as an instructor in the Political Science Department. He wrote his Ph.D. thesis on the political activities and thought of one of the founders of the Committee of Union and Progress, Dr. Abdullah Cevdet.

In 1981 he decided to work on the history of the Committee of Union and Progress during the period from 1889 to 1908, i.e. from its foundation to the Young Turk Revolution. Since the CUP was an underground organization, it was essential to use the organization's own papers to write its history. For this purpose he visited Albania in 1982. After examining the CUP papers there, he published the first volume of this project in 1986. The second volume appeared in 1992, to be followed by a third and final volume. Besides the original CUP documents, he has used other archival sources, including those found in the Turkish, German, Austrian, French, Swiss, Italian, Greek, and British archives.

From 1981 to the present, he has taught courses on late Ottoman political and diplomatic history, late Ottoman history, and Turkish political life, at Istanbul and Bosphorus Universities and the Turkish Naval Academy. He has also taught and conducted seminars at Columbia University, the University of Wisconsin, the University of Michigan, and the University of Chicago. At Princeton he has taught NES 433 (The Near East and the Eastern Question since 1815,) NES 439 (Nationalist Movements from Bosnia to Central Asia: 19th and 20th Centuries,) NES 543, 544 (Ottoman Diplomatics: Paleography and Diplomatic Documents,) and NES 572 (Problems in Late Ottoman & Modern Republican History.)

He supervised fourteen Ph.D. dissertations at Istanbul University, all of them on Ottoman intellectual and diplomatic history. A few examples are: "The Journal Mecmua-i Funun and Its Role in the Ottoman Enlightenment," "Cemaleddin Efgani and His Impact on Turkish Intellectuals," and "Huseyin Kazim and Turkish Nationalism."

At Princeton he has supervised six Ph.D dissertations on Ottoman-Turkish History.

Reviews

[Özlem · Rating 3 out of 5]

Atatürk üzerine yazılmış kitaplar arasında ciddi çalışılmış, ufuk açan, düşündüren, okunması gerektiğine inandığım bir kitap oldu. Bununla birlikte itiraz ettiğim noktalar da yok değil. Hepsine değinmek burada mümkün değil. Bu yüzden kendimce en çok öne çıkan konuyu belirtmekle yetiniyorum.


Atatürk 20. yy. tarih sahnesinin, sıradışı bir karaktere sahip, gerçekleştirilmesi çok güç başarılara imza atmış, tartışmasız en önemli başrol oyuncularından biri. Yazarın ana derdi bu başarıları yadsımaktan çok kaynağını doğru tespit etmek gibi duruyor. Fakat bu konuda yeterince tatmin edici bir tespit ortaya koyamamış bana kalırsa.

Atatürk'ün orjinal fikirlerle ortaya çıkan bir vizyoner değil; sadece içinde bulunduğu zamanın şartlarına bağlı olarak ortaya çıkan şansı ele geçiren ve bunu iyi kullanan bir lider olduğunu iddia ediyor yazar.

Dünya üzerinde hiçbir canlının gelişiminin içine doğduğu koşullardan bağımsız olamayacağı gerçeğini reddeden aklı başında bir insan olabileceğini zâten sanmıyorum. Orijinal düşünürler, bilim insanları, filozoflar, akademisyenler de dahil! O yüzden yazarın Atatürk'ün kişilik ve karakterini değerlendirmedeki bu "içine doğulan koşullar ve tarihsel dönem" takıntısı ve ısrarını gereksiz bulduğumu söylemeliyim. Bununla birlikte Atatürk'ün başarılarını sadece yalnızca içinde bulunduğu tarihsel dönem ve şartlara bağlamak gerçeği haddinden fazla zorlama ve basite indirgeme çabasına dönüşüyor.

Buradaki görüş insanın kendine özgü kişiliğini ve karakterini, yeteneklerini, zihinsel donanımını hiçe sayma ve insanı sadece içinde bulunduğu tarihsel dönemin edilgen bir ürününden ibaret görme eğilimi taşıyor. Bu indirgemeci tavra göre bir insanın hayatta etken bir aktör olması, öne çıkması kendi varlığına özgü özelliklerle mümkün olamaz. Bunun tek istisnası da ancak orijinal bir düşünür olmaktır gibi bir algı var kitapta. Aksi durumda kim olursa olsun daima bir başkasıyla değiş tokuş edilebilir; değişen sadece isim olur. O olmazsa diğeri onun yerini kolayca doldurur, ve benzer gelişmeler yaşanır. Yeter ki şartlar benzer olsun.

Durumun bu kadar pürüzsüzce basit olmadığını bilmek için neyse ki orijinal düşünür olmaya ihtiyacımız yok. İnsan karakteri içinde bulunduğu koşullardan etkilenir; fakat bu koşullar karakter üzerinde kesin belirleyici değildir. Bu, iki yönlü, etkileşimli bir süreçtir ve Hanioğlu'nun da bu gerçeği gayet iyi bildiğine dair sanırım hiçbirimizin şüphesi yoktur.

Kısacası Atatürk'ün askeri, siyasal ve toplumsal alanda başardıkları nasıl ait olduğu dönemin şartlarından bağımsız ele alınamazsa; onun kendine özgü karakterinden bağımsız olarak da değerlendirilemez. Karakter ve kişiliği neredeyse hiçe saymak bu çalışmanın ciddiyetine zarar veren en büyük etmen olmuş. Dolayısıyla yazar her ne kadar aksini ispat için var gücüyle çabalamış olsa da, Atatürk'ün kariyerini göz önüne alırken" büyük adam teorisi" ndeki "büyük" kısmı öyle kolayca çöpe de atılamaz.
"Atatürk'ün başarısının anahtarı fikirlerinin orijinalliğinde değil, ele geçirdiği fırsatın (tarihsel ve sosyal koşullarca belirlenen) ayırt edici niteliğinde yatar" demiş Hanioğlu. Görmezden geldiği veya gelmeye çalıştığı kısmı da ben ekleyeyim: Atatürk'ün başarısının anahtarı içinde bulunduğu tarihsel koşulları en etkin ve verimli şekilde yönlendirecek ve yönetecek sıradışı bir kişiliğe ve olağanüstü karaktere sahip olmasıdır.

[Onur Zeyrek · Rating 4 out of 5]

Kitabın amacı Atatürk'ün hayatını incelemekten ziyade Atatürk'le ilgili oluşmuş tek adam kültünü yıkmak. Dolayısıyla kitapta sürekli tekrar eden Atatürk bir ideolog değildi, fikirleri ve devrimleri orijinal değildi, Atatürk bir filozof değildi vb ifadeler bulmak mümkün. Yazarın Söylediklerinin büyük kısmına katılmakla beraber bence kitabın amacı Atatürk'ün mitleşen yüzünün ne kadar saçma olduğunu göstermek değil tam tersine bakir bir alan olan Atatürk'ün düşün dünyasını şekillendiren entellektüeller ve kitaplar olmalıydı. Bir diğer eleştirimse zamanın ruhuna atıfların oldukça az olmasıydı. Yazar Kitapta Atatürkü ve yönetimini defalarca otoriter olarak tanımlarken aynı yıllarda avrupanın faşizm tarafından yutulmak üzere olduğunu neredeyse hiç dile getirmiyor. Kafatası ölçümlerinden ve bunların billim dışı olduğundan bahsederken avrupada aynı yıllarda Türkiye'deki ırk çalışmalarının 10 katının yapıldığına değinmiyor. Kısacası zeitgeist'ı devredışı bıkarıyor. Bence genel okuyucuları bu konuda bilgilendirmeliydi. Eğer bu konularda bilginiz yoksa bir anda karşınızda kafatasçı, otoriter, tek partici, darwinist, materyalist, islam karşıtı bir adam portresi buluyorsunuz. Ancak gene de kitabı okumanızı tavsiye ederim. Kitap daha önce çok az çalışılmış bir alanda yazıldığı ve belli konularda bana farklı bir bakış açısı kazandırdığı için 4 yıldızı hakettiğini düşündüm.

[Inna Zolotar · Rating 3 out of 5]

Із хорошого - вступне слово Олександра Галенка, а також певне впорядкування хронології подій в Османській імперії-Туреччині наприкинці ХІХ - першій половині ХХ століття. Але добре виписаної біографії там нема. Є певні факти, та компліментарний для героя антураж. Майже нема проблемних питань, як то 1915-й з геноцидом вірмен. Тобто, що думав-говорив та як чинив Ататюрк у випадку таких проблем-викликів ми не дізнаємось. Майже не згадується про родинне життя Мустафи Кемаля, його стосунки з дітьми (прийомними), і взагалі нічого про дружину. Словом, взяти щось корисне можна, але це не є біографія, як я розумію, вона має бути написана.

[Eressea · Rating 5 out of 5]

這幾年台灣書市出了很多土耳其的書
但大多是伊斯坦堡城市史或遊記
鄂圖曼史只有一本被翻譯搞爛的奧斯曼的黃梁夢
反而沒人出民族救星凱末爾的傳記
等不及繁體出，有簡體傳記就先買來看了

這本書藉由傳主呈現土耳其由多民族伊斯蘭帝國
轉變為現代民族主義國家的過程
重點在思想變遷和社會變化
而不是傳主個人的生命細節
鑑於中文鄂圖曼史的書太少
這樣的寫法讓人一下知道好多以前不知道的事情
像是帝國歐洲領土出身的人被認為是出身高貴的菁英份子
比安那托利亞出身的人更受重用
所以近代歐洲領土喪失對帝國來說是很大的精神傷害
還有十九世紀中期改革以來
到一戰前夕已經養成一批十分西化的上層階級
帝國翻譯了幾乎所有歐陸思想家的各種著作
為民族救星的共和國打下了基礎

在我看來十九世紀中期開始的維新運動最後是非常成功的
雖然帝國在一戰後滅亡了
但是從這樣的改革中教出了凱末爾
讓土耳其成了唯一一個一戰戰敗國還能談到平等條約的國家
只是凱末爾全面的嚴厲改革畢竟還是無法深入民間
無論再怎麼西化歐洲也不接受土耳其是歐洲文化圈的一份子

而強人作風的後遺症便是救星沒後不滿百年而有艾爾多安
一樣的強人，卻要復興民族救星極力去除的舊帝國因素
連救星一手教出來的共和捍衛者軍隊都被大清洗
再無政變的能力了
雖然軍人干政也不是什麼值得一談的事情
但朝伊朗化邁進的土耳其也不是什麼好事吧

[George Serebrennikov · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent book, very well written and constructed. The life of Atatürk shows that it is after all possible, to transform large, backward country into modern society, and sustain such drastic transformation, despite all odds. The thing is that is not too many Atatürks lately… if ever.

[Ahmed Abrar · Rating 5 out of 5]

Don't know when we will be able to write such critical biographies of our national leaders.

আতাত্যুর্কের জীবনীটি পড়ে বুঝলাম, জীবনী বইয়ের তাৎপর্য আজও ফুরিয়ে যায় নি। কারো জীবন থেকে অন্তর্দৃষ্টি পেতে গেলে আজও জীবনীগ্রন্থ পাঠ করতে হয়। তবে তা সবিচার-চিন্তনী হতে হয়। কিছু বিক্ষিপ্ত বিষয় ভাগ করে নিতে চাই।

উসমানি সুলতান যে সময়ে বিলিয়ে দিচ্ছেন একের পর এক ভূখণ্ড, এলাকার মাস্তানদের/মার্সেনারিদের দিয়ে এলাকার দখল রাখা যে স্থায়ীভাবে টেকসই কোনো সমাধান না, সেটা মুস্তাফা কামাল বুঝেছিলেন।

কাহিনির ভেতরেও কাহিনি থাকে। উসমানি আমলের ‘মুসলিম উগ্রবাদ‘ প্রসঙ্গে আমরা পড়ি:

"First, European merchants benefited enormously from new liberal trade policies, and through partnerships with non-Muslim Ottomans came to control a sizable portion of Ottoman commerce. Second, a significant number of these non-Muslims obtained foreign citizenship to evade Ottoman taxes and acquire foreign protection, while intervention by European consuls on their behalf became a daily occurrence in the cities of Ottoman Europe. These phenomena gave rise to considerable bitterness among Muslims, who coined the popu- lar adage, "Non-Muslims have European protectors; we have no protector but God." Third, the Ottoman government granted particular privileges to certain Christian groups, such as its Greek Orthodox subjects, who were given the right to sail under the Russian flag. As a result of these factors, non-Muslims profited tremendously from the reform era. Many incidents construed as "Muslim fanaticism" had deep socioeconomic roots in the resentment felt by Muslims who bore the brunt of discrimination in an ostensibly Islamic empire. As we have seen, Mustafa Kemal's own grandfather ended his days as a fugitive in the Macedonian mountains on account of his role in an incident of just such a character. Similarly, his father blamed the failure of his import business on an administration powerless to stop Greek brigands working for nonMuslim merchants—a common complaint of Muslims in the large Ottoman cities of Europe."

আমাদের গণঅভ্যুত্থানের মধ্য দিয়ে গড়ে-ওঠা দলটি স্বপ্ন দেখিয়ে যে পুরোনো বন্দোবস্তেই রয়ে গেল, এর নমুনাও দেখি তরুণ তুর্কি/CUP দলের তরুণ সেনা কর্মকর্তাদের মধ্যে:

"Their main goal was to revive an ailing empire and save it from collapse. In contrast to many Russian officers of revolutionary bent, populist notions of Narodnism did not appeal to this generation of Ottoman officers. Although it paid lip service to the idea of serving the masses, the new officer corps was elitist at heart. In many ways, its position more closely resembled that of the military establishments in the developing countries after the Second World War. As members of a privileged group, the officers viewed themselves as being above the rest of society, which it was their natural right to lead. Like other members of the Ottoman intellectual elite at this time, and many military men since, they were profoundly attracted to Gustave Le Bon's notions of crowd psychology, in which the military held pride of place as an indispensable part of the ruling elite. They did not aim to empower disenfranchised social elements to overthrow the established order; on the contrary, they sought to strengthen the existing order the better to exercise their leadership over the feckless masses."

সরল একরৈখিক ইতিহাস-কথনের বিপরীতে আমরা দেখি আগ্রহ-সহকারে, কামাল পাশার আমলের তুলনায় বরং উসমানি সালতানাতের শেষের দিকে সত্যিকারের নারীবাদী আন্দোলন গড়ে উঠেছিল:
"...all seventeen women deputies handpicked by Atatürk in 1935 represented the regime's ideal type of the politi cally engaged woman committed to defending the interests of the republic. These women were neither feminists nor genuine politi cians. In fact, in 1923 Mustafa Kemal had persuaded some feminist-oriented women not to form a political party.
...In retrospect, it can be said that the leaders of the Late Ottoman women's movement, despite wearing traditional garb, advanced modern ideas and made substantial gender-related demands."

[Cgcang · Rating 3 out of 5]

Surprisingly shallow and somewhat disjointed. No wonder Hanioğlu felt obliged to expand the book to 1000 pages as it was being translated into Turkish.

While the findings of the book and its core arguments merit attention, the book itself hardly works as a biography, due to its mostly unchronological and patchy structure. It reads less like a well-organized and coherent intellectual biography and more like a collection of articles focusing on specific themes of Atatürk's intellectual life, resulting in certain gaps, some of which are critical.

The book is not unimportant, but it would be best read in conjunction with other books that focus on Atatürk's intellectual development and its impact on the Turkish Revolution (unfortunately, very few exist in English). As a standalone intellectual biography, it leaves much to be desired.

[Murtaza · Rating 5 out of 5]

The abrupt transformation of the traditional world of the Ottomans into the modern one of the Turkish Republic is one of many such transformations that occurred in 20th century Asia. Ataturk was the prime mover of this break with the past in the Muslim world. Following his successful prosecution of the Turkish War of Independence, he was afforded a tabula rasa on which to create an entirely new vision of society.

But Ataturk's unimpeachable military record contrasts with his very mixed legacy as a statesman. He did "modernize" Turkey, but it was a very particular type of modernization that reflected the intellectual trends of that era in Europe. Fascist, pseudoscientific and racist theories of history and biology were a part of Ataturk's worldview and his plan to create a modern Turkey. He could not imagine a modernity that was not European, seeing it as many of his contemporaries did: a "universal civilization." While he did reform Turkey in certain positive respects it is questionable whether he needed to completely deracinate society to do so. As this book documents, the late Ottoman period was filled with competing reform trends, few of which advocated the outlandish measures that Ataturk pursued.

This book is an excellent account of Ataturk's intellectual development and the world that shaped him. It's full of fascinating historical and contemporary anecdotes about the late Ottoman period and the still-enduring scientistic-nationalist religion of Kemalism that Ataturk gave birth to. While I was familiar with the broad narrative, the granular recounting of the minor episodes and individual stories of the time period was completely engrossing. Although the book is scholarly in style it is also legitimately funny, in part due to the pure absurdity of much of the history under examination.

Ataturk was arguably the most consequential Muslim to have lived in the 20th century. He influenced his own society, and the world of Islam, in such a way that it will never be the same again. But for all his greatness he clearly suffered from a staggering inferiority complex, one that led him to desperately
seek out racial theories and dubious Westwrn pseudoscientists to "prove" that Turks were truly a great race, on par with Europeans. The consequences of this ahistorical nationalism and the schizophrenic societies it birthed in the Muslim world are still with us.

This is definitely one of my favorite Ataturk biographies, well written and full of entertaining historical anecdotes. Highly recommended for those interested in Turkey and 20th century Asian intellectual history in general.

[Gregor Schafroth · Rating 2 out of 5]

+ Credibly summarises the most important Topics that occupied Atatürk
+ Some historical background for the time before him (Osman Empire) is given

- Atatürk as a person and how he developed is barely covered. Specially after his rise to power this topic is totally ignored by the author
- The book is not chronological and often gets lost in details that are not important for the reader.
- The book is repetitive
- The book does not at all talk about what happened after Atatürk died. I wanted to read this book in order to understand todays Turkey better. That is why I expect from the author that he also quickly mentions what follows after Atatürk. He omits to do so.

Overall the information given are just about satisfactory.

[Omar Taufik · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book about Atatürk was different than the other books on his subject which are usually about the historical Mustafa Kemal Atatürk or the other category written from religious backgrounds demonizing him. It will also not fall in the category of the official or academic works turning him into sort of an icon/idol.

The book will show Mustafa Kemal in contextual manner starting from birth in late Ottoman Salonica, his upbringing, his education, his Ottoman military/political career until the end of the great war (WW1), the war of independence, the foundation of the modern republic of Turkey, the famous and controversial Kemalist reforms.
The role of Mustafa Kemal in these events is seen in it's natural context and relating the intellectual impact which shaped his thought, beliefs and actions taken even many years later..
The author's effort in gathering such interesting and useful information regarding various thinkers/scientists/ political & social events and then relating it to the gradual intellectual development of Mustafa Kemal gives the reader a clearer picture and from a different perspective. A perspective to see him out of his famous historical military/national hero/ founder of the republic picture. A perspective to realize and understand that even the controversial religious reforms despised by the more religious side or the remarkable modernization praised by the more secular side .. are not something invented personally by Atatürk, but actually have roots in his own intellectual development formed in it's natural context .. and even deeper roots going back many decades before his birth ...
A long going process where he actually did his role in his time as others did their role in their own time and context.

A very good recommendation especially for readers interested in the intellectual aspect of the subject.

[Victoria Pushyna · Rating 5 out of 5]

Я не знаю, наскільки ця книга об'єктивно написана, але після неї я відчула, що все-таки у всесвіті ХХ століття Ататюрк — мій улюблений персонаж: максимально неоднозначна людина з манією величі і подальшим культом особистості, хоча навіть не мав конкретної ідеології, візіонер з маніпулятиивним декларуванням своїх прихильностей, яких не мав, лідер, що змінив не тільки географію своєї країни, а й одяг, мову і календар.

Як бонус: історії про заміряння черепів, критика Ісуса і якісь дуже смішні речі типу зміни власного імені з арабського Кемаль на тюркське Камал, щоправда громадяни перестали розуміти, а хто це.

Цікаво написано. Якщо мати хоч трошки базових знань про цей регіон і історичний період, читається зовсім легко. Я б, насправді, перечитала ще раз

[Magda · Rating 4 out of 5]

Like all the biographies I have read, so is this one: they manage to create an atmosphere of melancholy (they usually remind me Paul Nizan's futility in Antoine Bloye!).

Ataturk is one of the special individuals and great politicians of modern history, and, of course, many myths surround his figure. In this book, the author wants us to see this military and political man demystified, to follow his ideas, to see inside the books that he read, to note his marginal notes and create a new image, the intellectual background of Kemal's ideas, of his policies, of his decisions.

I think that this is the plan, and it is completed with success. The personal views of the author does not come in to the way of facts and valuation, at least in the most part of the book which is written in an easy and readable way.

[Marie-aimée · Rating 5 out of 5]

Une excellente surprise! J'ai pris cette biographie un peu au hasard en cherchant des infos sur Mustafa Kemal. L'objet de l'ouvrage n'est pas de casser le mythe d'Atatürk mais plutôt de remettre le personnage dans son contexte politique, social et intellectuel. L'auteur retrace par ordre chronologique les influences intellectuelles européennes ou non, ses expériences politiques, militaires (notamment sur le destin de la Salonnique, du Comité Union et Progrès). L'ensemble du personnage prend sens à la lumière de son temps. Et, de ce fait, on comprend beaucoup mieux l'optique de sa vision de l'Etat, sa relation à l'islam, au féminisme et à l'armée. C'est aussi un excellent exemple dans la réécriture de l'histoire au service de la nation, ici turque. Indispensable lecture pour comprendre la Turquie actuelle.

[myra · Rating 5 out of 5]

Outstanding. One of the most thought provoking biographies I've read. For a man of such grand stature, very little diversity is available in regards to his personal life. This absolutely shatters anything I've read about him before. Simply fantastic.

[Efrahim · Rating 4 out of 5]

Kitabın temel tezi oldukça ilginç ve bazı genel yargıları yıkıcı nitelikte. Genelde M.Kemal'in pragmatik bir önder olarak dönemin gerektirdiği şekilde eylediği ve konuştuğunu düşünmüşümdür. Özellikle 1960'larda zirveye çıkan Kemalizm'in sağı ve solu tartışmalarına da, M.Kemal'in her ikisine de cevaz veren tarafları olduğunu düşünerek yaklaşmışımdır. Dolayısıyl M.Kemal'e, gençliğinden ölümüne dek tutarlı bir ideolojik kimlik atfetmek anlamsız gelmişti. Ancak Hanioğlu'nun tezi aksi yönde. Ona göre M.Kemal, 2.Meşrutiyet'in hemen sonrasında vuku bulan ancak İTC içerisinde tam olarak hakim konuma gelemeyen Garpçı, Türkçü ve Bilimci çizginin tutarlı bir takipçisi ve toplumsal tahayüllü de bu temelde şekilleniyor. Siyasal mücadele ise, bu hedefe giden yolda sadece bir araç. 1919-1923 arasının M.Kemal'ini "kendi olamayan lider" olarak tanımlaması bu anlamda çarpıcı. Neredeyse bir tür takiyecilik atfediyor M.Kemal'e bu dönem için. Dolayısıyla 1925-1926'daki tasfiyelerden sonra ise tam olarak kendisi olabilen bir lidere dönüştürüyor M.Kemal'i.

Bunun yanında kitabın detaylarında birçok ilginç bölüm ve tez var ancak beni yine en çok şaşırtan bölüm de, M.Kemal'in 1930'larda Türk Tarih tezine ne kadar fazla kafa patlattığı ve zaman ayırdığı oldu. Günümüzde Post Kemalizm eleştirmenlerinin önemsiz birer parantez gibi göstermeye çalıştığı tezler, M.Kemal'in kafasındaki ulus tahayyülü için hayati önemdeymiş anlaşılan. Ancak önderin hedefi baştan belirlemesi ve bu hedef doğrultusunda seçmece metinlerin kesilip biçilip yerleştirilmesi gibi fiyasko bir yöntem, bu tezlerin önderin ölümüyle birlikte hızlıca tarihe karışmasına neden olmuş.

[Dolf van der Haven · Rating 5 out of 5]

Five years ago, I named two of my Turkey fowls Kemal and Atatürk, as a simple pun to their supposed origin (they both turned out to be female, by the way, and I never got round to finding a Turkey rooster that I could call Mustafa). Recently, both got eaten by foxes, so it was time to read up on the real Atatürk.
I have read plenty about Turkish history, and visited the country many times. This book was a great refresher on specifically the rise of Atatürk and the profound impact he made on Turkey as a country and its place in the world today. Interestingly, the state-led idolatry cultivated since his death has nothing much to do with Atatürk's original ideas.
This book doesn't deal so much with Atatürk as a person, but more with the historical context in which he lived and made Turkeha modern, westernised nation. Highly recommended.

[Güney Tombak · Rating 5 out of 5]

A must-read for the ones trying to understand Atatürk objectively.

[Oleksiy Kononov · Rating 4 out of 5]

It is a second Ataturk`s biography I have read. If the reader wants to know more about Ataturk`s personality, military career, private life (especially his family and the short-lived marriage) Hanioglu`s book is not for you. The author dwells on Mustafa Kemal`s intellectual legacy (after all, the book`s title is very suggestive). The book masterfully describes the roots and origins of the movement subsequently called "Kemalism" stressing on intellectual movements and intellectual legacy of thinkers in the former Ottoman Empire educated in the West and absorbing the ideas of European thinkers of the time long before Mustafa Kemal, foreign/Western ideas Kemal borrowed for his reforms. The latter, as the author points out, was a practitioner rather than a theorist, he acted, made it done no matter what. The book demonstrates (with a wonderful bibliography, excellent research) what Kemal used to substantiate his reforms, how successful and unsuccessful he was. But in general, the book is more boring to read compared to Mango`s "Ataturk".

[Niko Schmitz · Rating 3 out of 5]

Ich wollte eine möglichst kritische Atatürk-Biographie lesen und habe mich nach ein wenig Recherche für diese entschieden. Sie war auch nicht so lang wie andere Biographien. Leider fand ich sie nicht besonders lesenswert - und das sollte eine Biographie meiner Meinung nach schon sein. Einerseits ist sie ziemlich wissenschaftlich geschrieben, das finde ich okay, andererseits ist sie aber irgendwie zusammenhangslos und macht nicht gerade Lust aufs Lesen. Ich habe auch in die Biographie von Andrew Mango reingelesen und fand diese deutlich packender und eleganter.

Hanioğlu vertritt mit diesem Buch eine These, die in der hagiographischen türkischen Geschichtsschreibung schon als revolutionär angesehen werden kann: Mustafa Kemal Atatürk sei nicht ein inselbegabtes Genie mit nie dagewesenen Ideen, das als Retter und Gründer der Türkei vom Himmel herabgesandt wurde, sondern ein Produkt seiner Erziehung, Bildung, Erlebnisse, Umgebung und nicht zuletzt seiner Zeit. Hanioğlu geht deshalb ausführlich auf die Geschichte des osmanischen Reichs ein und versucht aufzuzeigen, in welchem intelektuellen Umfeld Mustafa Kemal aufwuchs und bis zu seiner Rolle als Anführer des türkischen Befreiungskampfs gespült wurde - die er dann auch mit einiger Tatenkraft und Stärke ergriffen und gespielt hat. Vor diesem Hintergrund bezeichnet Hanioğlu das Werk als "intellektuelle Biographie" und beschäftigt sich ausführlich (aber ein wenig verworren) mit der ideengeschichtlichen Bildung Atatürks, mit intelektuellen Strömungen im späten osmanischen Reich und in Europa sowie mit Notizen und gelesenen Büchern Atatürks.

Dabei geht er besonders auf die Tanzimat-Periode ein, die von 1839-76 dauerte. In diesem Modernisierungsprogramm nach europäischem Vorbild durchlief das osmanische Reich tiefgreifende Reformen. Hanioğlu sieht Atatürks Programm nach Gründung der Republik als radikale Fortsetzung der Tanzimat-Periode - zwar mit einigen Unterschieden, aber klarer ideeller Kontinuität. Während die Tanzimat-Reformen jedoch immer auf eine Koexistenz von Systemen setzte - zum Beispiel moderne Gerichte neben Shia-Gerichten oder moderne Schulen neben traditionellen - ging Atatürk einen Schritt weiter und zerstörte die alten Systeme, was nicht zuletzt in der Absetzung des Sultans gipfelte.

Das Buch widmet sich nur kurz Mustafa Kemals Kindheit in Saloniki, damals eine der modernsten und kosmopolitischsten Städte des osmanischen Reiches. Der junge MK habe das Alte und das Neue nebeneinander erleben können und habe die Modernität "von ganzem Herzen übernommen". Ich habe auch gelernt, dass für das Osm.R. Rumelien und Anatolien von gleichsam großer Bedeutung waren und es einen klaren Prestige-Unterschied zwischen den beiden gab: Bürger:innen Rumeliens wurde "wisdom, charm, and gentlemanly behavior" zugeschrieben, während jene Anatoliens als "courageous, honest, and straightforward" charakterisiert wurden. Rumelier:innen hätten gewissermaßen anstelle einer fehlenden Aristokratie die Elite gestellt.

Weiterhin wird beschrieben, welch bedeutende Stellung das Militär im Osm.R. hatte. Dabei spielten auch gewisse deutsche Generäle eine wichtige Rolle, die für eine Neustrukturierung des Militärs zuständig waren. Dabei sei insbs. die Idee einer "nation in arms" einflussreich gewesen, das eine hervorgehobene Rolle des Militärs in der Gesellschaft propagierte, nämlich als politische Entscheidungsträger und Antrieb der gesellschaftlichen Entwicklung.
Außerdem geht es viel um die CUP, das Kommitee für Eineit und Fortschritt (İTC), die politische Partei der Jungtürken-Bewegung, der Att zwar Verbindungen hatte, mit der er aber vor allem in Konkurrenz stand. Aus der CUP stammt unter anderem das "jungtürkische Triumvirat" aus Enver, Talât und Cemal Pasha, die auch für den Genozid an den Armeniern verantwortlich sind. Die CUP war auch gegen den Personenkult um den Sultan. Einige junge Offiziere, wie auch MustKemal haben angeblich beim Appell anstatt „Padişahım çok yaşa!“ „Padişahım baş aşağı!“ gerufen (der Sultan ist kopfüber).

Weiter geht Hanioğlu auf Att. Verhältnis zu Religion und Wissenschaft ein. Er habe die Geschichte als einen Wettstreit zwischen den beiden gesehen, den Wissenschaft am Ende gewinnen werde. Att wird als überzeugter scientivist beschrieben, als Viel-Leser, wenn auch eher als practitioner denn als theoretician. Zeitweise habe Att einen "türkisierten Islam" als möglicherweise nützliches Werkzeug für die gesellschaftliche Modernisierung gesehen, analog zum Christentum in Europa, mit der Vorstellung, dass Religion in der Folge immer weniger wichtig und am Ende ganz verschwinden würde - zugunsten der "Weltreligion" Wissenschaft. Anders als die Soviet-Führer wollte Att Religion in den Augen der Massen nicht abwerten (ridicule), sondern zähmen und in sein eigenes Programm integrieren und nutzen, um die Moral der Massen zu stärken. Deshalb "verschwieg er seine eigenen abwertenden Ansichten, als er ein Schulbuch zu Gemeinschaftskunde schrieb. Er verstand, das Kritik an Religion der Elite vorbehalten sein sollte, deren einzige Führerin die Wissenschaft sein sollte." So ließ er eine neue, offizielle türkische Übersetzung des Koran anfertigen, einen mehrbändigen türkischen Kommentar und eine Sammlung ins Türkische übersetzter solider Hadithe. Diese sollten, so Atts Hoffnung, einen "ähnlichen Einfluss haben wei die Luther-Bibel von 1534". Er ordnete außerdem 1927 an, dass Freitagspredigten fortan auf türksich gehalten werden sollten, wie auch auf türkisch aus dem Koran oder Hadithen zitiert werden sollte. Eine komplette Verlagerung ins Türkische war aber nicht erfolgreich und er musste diese nach 1928 aufgeben. Daneben wollte Atatürk, wie bekannt, auch auf Verfassungsebene einen säkularen Staat schaffen. Während 1924 noch pro forma der Islam als Staatsreigion eingeschrieben war, war ab 1930 das gesamte Rechtssystem von allen religiösen Referenzen befreit und ähnelte vollständig dem säkularer europäischer Länder. 1925 nahm die Türkei den gregorianischen Kalender samt BC und AD an, 1926 wurde der Fez durch den europäischen Hut ersetzt, 1928 das arabo-persische Alphabet durch das lateinische ersetzt und 1935 wurde Sonntag statt Freitag zum offiziellen freien Tag. All diese Änderungen "further sidelined islam in Turkish society and strengthened a secular way of ife".

Die zweite wichtige ideologische Grundlage Atts war der Türkismus, ein Nationalismus. Außerdem bezog er sich wohl viel auf die deutsche Philosophie des "Vulgärmaterialismus", den ich aber nicht verstanden habe. Der hat etwas damit zu tun, dass Wissenschaft über Religion siegen soll.

Hanioğlu zeigt auf, wie sich Att opportunistisch an verschiedenen Diskursen bediente, diese aber, wenn ihre Zeit gekommen war, wieder aufgab. So habe er, bevor er uneingeschränkte Macht hatte, zeitweise islamistische oder bolschewistische, linke Rhetorik benutzt, obwohl er beide Ideologien strikt abgelehnt habe. Zeitweise sei Att in der ganzen muslimischen Welt verehrt und als Hoffnungsträger gesehen worden, as Modell für eine islamische Unabhängigkeit und Befreiung. Gleichzeitig hätten Sozialisten in Asien und Afrika den türkischen populären Befreiungskampf bewundert: "If popular expectations were any guide, two paths to global leadership lay wide open to Mustafa Kemal in 1922: he could either capitalize on Ottoman possession of the caliphate in order to seize the mantle of pan-Islamic leadership, or he could set himself up as an anti-imperialist model for Asian and African socialists. But it was at this juncture that Mustafa Kemal’s Turkist, scientistic, and pro-Western leanings became manifest, leading him and the Turkish nation down an uncharted path that combined intense nationalism with an extreme commitment to Western secularism."

1921 habe Att mehr Macht gehabt als jeder Sultan oder osmanische statesman seit 1839. Doch erst nachdem das nationalistische Projekt 1922 vollkommen siegreich war, habe Att sich getraut, offiziell eine Republik auszurufen. Dabei habe Att, ähnlich wie Rousseau, unter Republik nicht hauptsächlich individuelle Freiheiten verstanden, sondern den Ausdruck eines allgemeinen (Volks-)Willens. Wie Machiavelli habe er gedacht, dass eine wahre Republik nationale Stärke auch um den Preis individueller Freiheit priorisieren sollte. Die türkische Republik habe er dabei größtenteils am Modell der (kontemporären) französischen dritten Republik konstruieren wollen. Das größte Hindernis bei der Implantation der französischen Republik in die Türkei sei die sechs Jahrhunderte alte Institution des Sultanats gewesen. Der Sultan war dabei nicht nur Staatsoberhaupt sondern auch Kaliph des sunnitischen Islam, was es weitaus schwerer machte, diesen abzusetzen. Deshalb trennte Att erst die beiden Ämter, Kaliphat und Sultanat, bevor er zweiteres im November 1922 abschaffte. Erst ein Jahr später rief er die Republik aus, 16 Monate später schaffte er das Kaliphat ab. Das Kaliphat war in der Bevölkerung in der Türkei und außerhalb weiterhin populär, dessen Abschaffung war also riskant. Trotz der heftigen Kritik begann Atatürk 1924 den Abschaffungsprozess, nachdem er sich des Rückhalts des Militärs versichert hatte. Dabei verteidigte er diesen Schritt, anders als die Abschaffung des Sultanats nicht selber im Parlament. Stattdessen ließ er es von Mehmet Seyyid unternehmen, was zu dieser lustigen Anekdote führte:
"He also underscored the importance of issuing laws that were “in conformity with the traditions and customs of Turkishness.” Here he made one fatal mistake in an otherwise brilliant defense of Mustafa Kemal’s position. Underestimating the president’s commitment to Westernization, he mentioned the Swiss Civil Code as a clear example of something that could not possibly be adopted by a truly Turkish legislature.69 As a result, he lost his cabinet portfolio three days later. In an ironic twist of fate, he died shortly before the Turkish assembly adopted a slightly modified version of the Swiss Civil Code in 1926. Keeping abreast of Mustafa Kemal’s avant-garde program was not easy."


Im Dezember 1922 gab Att die Gründung einer neuen Partei bekannt, die alle sozialen Klassen umfassen (und somit die Existenz anderer Parteien nutzlos machen) sollte. Diese Partei sollte der größte Treiber der gesellschaftlichen Transformation werden. Die Partei wurde im September 1923 gegründet, und Atatürk blieb bis zu seinem Tod ihr Vorsitzender und hatte damit "total domination of politics". Hanioğlu beschreibt, wie Att anfangs tatsächlich Oppositionsparteien duldete, diese aber immer nach einer Weile verbot - Hanioğlu ist der Ansicht, dass Att tatsächlich eigentlich Oppositionsparteien wollte, ihre Kritik und die damit einhergehende Verlangsamung seiner Reformen aber doch nicht aushalten konnte: Att "seems to have genuinely desired a multiparty democracy, but could not tolerate any criticism of his policies." 1930 habe er selbst eine Oppositionspartei aus seinen engsten Vertrauten bilden wollen, doch der außergewöhnliche Rückhalt dieser Partei in der Bevölkerung habe ihnen so Angst gemacht, dass die Partei nach drei Monaten wieder geschlossen wurde.

Im August 1927 hielt Att seine 36,5-Stunden-Rede, die später als sein Magnum Opus angesehen wurde: Nutuk. In dieser habe er alleinige credits für den gesamten Unabhängigkeitskamp und alle politischen Reformen beansprucht und Kritiker aufs schärfste angegangen.


Hanioğlu argumentiert, dass Atatürks Vorstellungen und Ideen bezüglich Religion, Wissenschaft und Staat nicht neu waren, sondern in der späten Phase des osm. Reichs, seit der Tanzimat-Periode, in einer kleinen Elite durchaus en vogue waren. Doch erst die revolutionäre Situation des Befreiungskriegs und Atatürks herausgehobenen Rolle und Machtkonzentration hätten eine so radikale Durchsetzung dieser Ideen ermöglicht - geschichtlich durchaus unwahrscheinlich, doch nicht abwegig - die schließlich in der ersten muslimischen Republik mündeten.

Ein sehr spannenes Kapitel handelt von der Turkish History Thesis, nach der die Wiege der Zivilisation in Zentralasien gelegen habe, dem türkischen Heimatland. Von dort wären die Türken in alle Kontinente der alten Welt gewandert und hätten dort wichtige Zivilisationen errichtet wie die Reiche der Hittiter und der Sumerer. Auch die Griechisch-römische Zivilisation gehe darauf zurück. Dieses Konzept ähnele der "Kulturkreise-Hypothese" der deutschen diffunsionistischen Schule der Anthropologie. Die türkische Geschichtsthese überspielte auch die osmanische Vergangenheit: Um das neue Regime zu stärken, wollte Att jede Referenz und Erinnerung an die osmanische Vergangenheit tilgen. In der großen türkischen Geschichte erschien sie natürlich nur als Fußnote. Der Islam wurde dadurch vom Quell osmanischer Macht zum Hauptgrund für den Niedergang der Türken umgedeutet. Die wichtigste Institution für diese Neuerfindung der türkischen Geschichte war die Turkish History Association (Türk Tarih Kurumu), die 1931 gegründet wurde. Diese pseudowissenschaftliche Organisation wurde vom Staat mit großzügigen finanziellen Mitteln ausgestattet, um 'Forschung' zu betreiben, welche die türkische Geschichtsthese stützt. So wurden Belohnungen für Forschungsergebnisse ausgeschrieben, die die These unterstützten und etwa die Abstamung wichtiger Zivilisationen von der türkischen Rasse sowie die Überlegenheit der türkischen Rasse zeigten.

Ab Seite 163 geht das Buch ausführlich auf die Rolle von Anthropologie und Liguistik ein. Insbesondere physische Anthropologie und "Rassenanthropology" spielten eine große Rolle - das erklärt wohl auch, warum Ethnologie in der Türkei heute noch diese starke physische, archäologische Prägung und generell eine gewisse Bedeutung hat. Att war sehr interessiert an Athr und las viel dazu, bspw. Comte de Gobbineau, Alfred Cort Haddon, George Montandon und Eugène Pittard. Unter anderem verstand Att die Türkische "Rasse" als "brachycephalisch" (flachköpfig). Eine wichtige Rolle spielte auch Atts Adoptivtochter Âfet İnan, die für ihre staatlich finanzierte Dissertation eine anthropometrische Kartographierung der Türkei vornahm, bei der sie an 64.000 Menschen Messungen vornehmen ließ (1939). Mit solcher kraniologischen, morphologischen und anthropometrischen physisch-anthropologischen Forschung wollten türksiche Forscher:innen beweisen, dass Zivilisartionen wie die der Sumerer und Hititer von Türken abstammen würden. Außerdem wollten sie, natürlich, die Überlegenheit der türkischen Rasse beweisen. Att las auch Essays, die ihn überzeugten, dass Türkisch die Kulmination der Ursprache der zivilisierten Menschen sei, von der alle anderen Sprachen abstammten.

1932 wurde auf Atts Betreiben hin die Turkish Language Association / Türk Dil Kurumu gegründet, die mittels linguistischer Forschung die history thesis stützen sollte. Der erste Kongress dieser Vereinigung wurde live im Radio übertragen und in Veranstaltungshallen und Stadtzentren ausgespielt. Eine Priorität der Vereinigung war es, authentisches Türkisches Vokabular zu sammeln. Die Regierung forderte die gesamte Bürokratie auf, "reine türkische Worte" zu sammeln und den Autoritäten zu melden. Diese sollten aus den lokalen Dialekten sowie aus Märchen und alten Texten gesammelt werden und die vielen fremdsprachigen Worte ersetzen, die das osmanische Türksich "verunreinigten", insbesondere arabsiche und persische. Wenn kein authentisches Wort gefunden werden konnte, sollte die TDK auf Basis einer türkischen Wurzel neue Worte definieren. Diese neuen Worte - gesammelte wie kreirte - wurden ab 1934 in einer Zeitschrift veröffentlicht. Meistens wurde mehr als ein Wort vorgeschlagen und Bürger:innen konnten den Autoritäten mitteilen, welches sie bevorzugen. Auch Radiostationen und Zeitungen sollten ihre Hörer:innen/leser:innenschaft um reine türkische Wörter bitten. So wurden schlussendlich 125.000 angeblich authentische Wörter gefunden, um ca. 7.000 fremdsprachige zu ersetzen.
Das ging so weit, dass 1934 ein regelrechtes Chaos herschte. Offizielle Veröffentlichungen waren kaum mehr zu verstehen, selbst gebildete Bürger konnten viele Zeitungsartikel nicht mehr entziffern. 1935 wurden Wörterbücher für Osmanisch-Türksich veröffentlicht. 1934 entschied Att auch, seinen Namen Mustafa nicht mehr zu verwenden, da er nicht türkisch sei. Der Name Kemal, der genau so angreifbar erschien, wurde in einem offiziellen Kommuniqué damit verteidigt, dass er nicht das arabische "Perfektion" bedeute sondern "Kamâl", ein angebliches authentisches türkisches Wort mit der Bedeutung "Befestigung". Eine Zeit lang unterschrieb er Dokumente daher mit Kamâl. Wegen des Chaos entschleunigte Att den purge-Prozess nun, aber er ging weiter und weiter.

Ab S. 173 geht es um die "sun-language theory", von der ich auch nicht so superviel verstanden habe. Das ist wohl eine pseudowissenschaftliche Theorie, nach der Proto-Türkisch den Ursprung aller Sprachen darstellen soll (weswegen auch nicht mehr alle Wörter ersetzt werden müssen). Diese Ursprache habe sich aus einer Verehrung der Sonne entwickelt, die mit der Silbe Aa bezeichnet wurde. Auch diese Theorie wurde wohl vor allem von Att unterstützt und gefördert und verlor, wie so viele seiner Theorien, kurz nach seinem Tod an Bedeutung und wurde auf dem folgenden Sprachkongress nicht einmal mehr erwähnt.

Dabei bezogen die TTK und TDK sich auch auf europäische Wissenschaftler und förderten diese finanziell und ideel. So wurde der schweizer Ethnologe Eugène Pittard zum Vorsitzenden des zweiten türkischen Geschichtskongresses. Die sun-language theory stammte vom Wiener Linguisten Hermann F. Kvergić, der durch die Popularisierung seiner Theorie in der ganzen Türkei bekannt wurde (man findet aber keine Bilder von ihm - wieso?). Hanioğlu schreibt dazu: "Once again we see how a scholar who was marginal to the intellectual history of Europe could play a central role in that of the Late Ott Emp and modern Turkey." Sowas sehen wir ja auch heute, wo die Türkei amerikanische Wissenschaftler:innen mit einer Minderheitenmeinung heranzieht, um bestimmte historische Tatsachen zu leugnen, wie zum Beispiel Justin McCarthy für die Leugnung des Genozids an den Armenier:innen.

Es geht auch um den Personenkult, den Att um sich herum aufbaute; in frappierendem Gegensatz zur islamisch geprägten Ablehnung von bildlicher Darstellung (Hanioglu schreibt, islamische Herrscher hätten höchstens ihre Monogramme dargestellt) waren Bilder, Büsten und Statuen des Vaters der Türken überall zu finden.

Länger kann ich die Review hier nicht schreiben - die vollständige Review ist im Buchrezensionen-Ordner auf meinem Laptop.

[Cybermilitia · Rating 4 out of 5]

Alaninda benim gorebildigim ilk. Cok acigi var kitabin. Ama dedim ya, bir ilk, baska yok. 3.5'tan 4. Okuyun. Yazacagim bir kac notu.

Edit:
Kitapla ayni yil ortaya cikan pinkwashing teriminin Mustafa Kemal reformlarina/devrimlerine uyarlanabilecegini gorememis Hanioglu. Reformlarin nedeninin Bati'ya kendini yarandirma oldugunu goruyor ama bunu fazlasiyla "icten" goruyor. Ictenlikten daha fazlasi var oysa...

Bir taraftan "icten" bir Bati'da olma istegini ortaya koyarken, bir taraftan da ulkeyi milliyetci bir batakliga ceviren biz eskiden eskiden ne fetihler yaptik, onu yendik bunu yendik, hadi bayram gunune cevirelim, ordumuz milyon yillik vs. mantiginin celiskisini gozden kaybediyor. Kurgusu bugunu reform/devrim vs muhafazakarlar celiskisine indirgiyor. Boyle olunca olaylari anlamak icin anahtar bir celiskiyi unutmus oluyor.

Rus-Japon savasinin etkisinin aciklanmasi cok guzel olmus.

Mustafa Kemal'in otoriterlesme kaynaklari fazla islenmemis. Bu otomatik olarak boyle zaten gibi dusunulmus. Goltz'un etkisi liderligin asker tarafindan yurutulmesi, ok. Peki siddetin kaynagi? Menemen-Dersim farki neden? Milliyetcilik barbarligi tek basina aciklamaz.

Mustafa Kemal toplumu yonetmiyor. Kafasinda bir plan var, o plani uyguluyor. O plan icin onu ona kirdiriyor, orada etkin oluyor, burada sessiz kaliyor vs. Burasi guzel aciklanmis kitapta.

Son bir nokta, Mustafa Kemal'in utopyasi kavrami agir abarti.

Edit 2:
https://www.k24kitap.org/hanioglunun-...

https://www.k24kitap.org/hanioglunun-...

[Nur Banu Simsek · Rating 5 out of 5]

I wish this book was mandatory reading in Turkish schools rather than all the change and transformation classes that they have to take talking about Ataturk’s vision and ideology. As the author brilliantly demonstrates, Atatürk had no novel or original ideas or political theories of his own. He was a product of his time, and of course, we should admit that he seized the opportunity to become an authoritarian leader of the new Republic of Turkey, which he founded with the hope to remove Islam from its DNA entirely, even if gradually. He was obviously a man who read a lot and an astute politician by the end of his career, who knew how to manipulate all the different groups he had to work with and use religion for propaganda when he needed while deep down, detesting it and hoping for its downfall in Turkish society. It’s truly amazing that has followers and fans claim to champion Western values like freedom of speech and the separation of church and state while he himself never took any criticism while in power and created a presidency of religious affairs to control religion and clergy in the country. The irony is lost on them so I think especially his followers and fans should read this book. Of course it’s also required reading for any Muslim living in Turkey and still under the illusion that Ataturk was a Muslim or a friend of Muslims or even tolerant of Islam.

[Diane · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is part biography of Ataturk, and part analysis of his thought, the influences of early 20th century culture upon him, and part on his influence on modern Turkey. Although clearly a scholarly work, the book is readable for a general audience. He does a good job of systematically and dispassionately describing Ataturk's place in history. He also describes how Ataturk's thought fits in to nationalist thought of the 19th and early 20th centuries, and how scientific and pseudo-scientific ideas influenced Ataturk. The author's conclusion is that Ataturk developed a European consciousness within the Turkish people, but that he failed to convince the Europeans to accept the Turks as Europeans. I think this is generally accurate. I would recommend this book to anyone interested in modern Turkey, but also to anyone interested in the modern Balkans or Middle East.

[Mike · Rating 4 out of 5]

A Solid Academic Biography

This is a short, well-written and researched intellectual biography of Mustafa Kemal, better known as Ataturk (literally "Father Turk"). He was a well-educated, probably but privately atheist, military leader who repelled a foolhardy British Invasion and created Turkey from the ashes of the Ottoman Empire in 1923. He then transformed Turkey from an Near Eastern Islamic backwater into a modern, almost-but-not-quite European, secular state. Sadly, Erdoğan and his Islamist supporters appear to be bent on undoing many of Ataturk's reforms.

[Christopher · Rating 4 out of 5]

I have long been a fan of Mango's biography but recently I wanted something more focused on the intellectual roots rather than the life story of Ataturks political theory and practice. This book fit the bill. Well balanced, even keel, and neither fawning nor overtly critical-it helped me flesh out the background of one of my favorite 20th century figures.

[Carlos Wang · Rating 4 out of 5]

我對現代土耳其的國父阿塔圖克‧凱末爾的最初印象，是來自於一本在台灣已經收刊的戰史雜誌關於他的介紹。那篇文章將他的一生做了個精彩的陳述，包括加里波底的抗戰、建國戰爭等，讀完之後，肯定是會覺得此公“真乃神人也！”不過，歷史讀多了的人也自然也懂，這之中有多少神話。於是，我想找些有關的書來進一步閱讀，但無奈此人在華文圈實在太冷門，雖說這些年陸續出了一些土耳其的著作，但凱末爾本人的傳記，卻仍無下文。後來，偶然在一本期刊中看到關於本書的英文版介紹，忍不住去訂了一本，卻也礙於語言能力遲遲沒有閱讀，直到中文版問世….

本書作者M.許克呂‧哈尼奧盧(M. Şükrü Hanioğlu) 是土耳其學者，專研晚期鄂圖曼帝國，《凱末爾傳》是他頗受好評的一本著作。哈尼奧盧開宗明義即表示，在這篇幅不長的著作中，並不打算全面的介紹凱末爾的一生，而是關注其政治事業上的討論，即，重視公領域遠勝於私領域。恰好，這也正是我更想了解的部分。

其實，我們對於凱末爾本不該陌生，他跟大家所熟悉的袁世凱、蔣介石、毛澤東等都是一路人，是時代的產物。凱末爾生於鄂圖曼帝國晚期的那個風雲際會的年代，那時，列強對於這個“歐洲病夫”的瓜分之心人盡皆知，有志之士早就常思改革振作之計，他也是其中之一。過去土耳其史家總不免將凱末爾刻劃成“孤高的天才”，“遠見的領航者”，殊不知，其實他也只是把這一兩百年來，鄂圖曼土耳其的那些知識份子從歐洲吸收，或從伊斯蘭教義中找出的各種救國策略，從中取其所需的為己用而已。更有甚者，凱末爾是個不折不扣的馬基維利式實用主義者，觀乎其行動，常見“髮夾彎”。例如，當他在打建國戰爭時，為了爭取蘇聯布爾什維克黨人的支持，不惜把自己包裝成左派共產份子，甚至吸收了其某些精神；做為一個無信仰者，凱末爾也可以跟穆斯林暫時妥協，等待時機再出手，其“能屈能伸”的柔軟身段，令人敬佩。

這一切說穿了都是為了他的最高目標：打造一個現代化(脫亞入歐)的富強土耳其民族國家。確實，從歷史結果看來，凱末爾真的做到了。若非有他，列強早就讓土耳其變成一個不起眼的亞洲小國，而希臘人說不定還真能復興古老的拜占庭帝國(這可是很熱門的 if 主題)。凱末爾雖然並非如傳統政治宣傳那樣憑一己之力扭轉乾坤，但卻實是領導了土耳其建立民族國家，並在其之後執政數年間踏上了過去始終做不到的西化之路。但吾人莫忘，這種被稱之為“凱末爾主義”的救國方略，本質上是依賴強人的鋼鐵意志及手腕去推行的政策，是獨裁，壓制異議的反民主統治。執政者本人則是信仰精英主義，而且其精英是指軍人。我們在現代土耳其政治史中，無法忽略，時常出現的武裝政變，其根源即來自於這位國父的主張：精英的軍人有權力問政，不能使其偏離其畫出的航線，也就是凱末爾主義。這是一種包裝在共和制度下的強人獨裁加上軍國主義基調的政治體制，也是這位偉大國父留給土耳其的遺產。他一生致力於歐化，但看來他本身對於西方人的政治制度還是有疑慮，而這恰好或許也是歐洲人同時對於土耳其人加入他們的反對理由吧。

今天的土耳其總統艾爾多安看來是拋棄了“凱末爾主義”的那種世俗化、歐化的路線，但我們不難看出，他仍然有意效法其前輩，打造出屬於他的“艾爾多安主義”(強權加上神權？)來“救國”。而從這段經驗上看來，可以得到一個簡單的結論。依賴強人統治固然是一帖特效藥，但它絕非根治痼疾的良方。或許我們寄期望於有能力人的領導，但更務必讓他在制度的監督之下。今天要討論凱末爾事業的成敗並不容易，就連本書作者也只能中立的說：他確實改變了土耳其國家與社會的面貌，並影響了其他穆斯林國家，給予了他們其它的可能性。但也正如另外一本《顎圖曼帝國三部曲》的作者Caroline Finkel 在其著作中最後下的註腳：不管是奧斯曼之夢，還是凱末爾主義，土耳其人都該考慮將之拋棄，丟入歷史的長河之中隨之而去了。

本書的譯者是外語學院出身，有邀請相關學者協助審訂，整體來說，才疏學淺的我是沒抓到什麼錯誤，文句上雖然說不上流暢優美，除了少數句子很是彆扭外，至少還是可以閱讀。對於一個想了解土耳其這個國家的人，凱末爾是無法忽略的人物，而本書是目前的唯一選擇吧。

[Laura · Rating 4 out of 5]

This ~200 page biography focuses on Ataturk as a product of the times and circumstances of the late 1800's-early 1900's. He is presented as a "doer", ambitious and focused on results; an executor of a plan to save and modernize a nation that almost wasn't; winning back land, and relevance in the "civilized" world. Ch 1 starts strong, putting us in the greater context of the late 1800's in cosmopolitan Salonica, place of his birth and an important port on the Western (Rumelian) half of the Ottoman empire. From here, it progresses through the volatile times and schools of thought that influenced Mustafa Kemal's intellectual development and consequently the developments that gave rise to the Turkish Republic
Ch 8: Nationalism and Kemalism was the slowest segment of an otherwise enlightening book, less imposing than the 600 page Mango authored biography and perhaps a good way to ease into the longer biography which offers what this one doesn't: deeper insights into Ataturk's life, maps, biographical reference / sketches of key personalities of the time and (perhaps most importantly) a Chronology (timeline).
4/5 as a historical reference, but clearly not in the sense of the enjoyment found in novels.

[Ibrahim · Rating 5 out of 5]

TLDR; Turk man is born in Salonica to a middle-class family. Turk man loses father and joins military school. Turk man gains fame for countering Allied forces in the Battle of Dardanelles. Turk man exploits military promotion to climb the echelons of power. Turk man convinces the Muslim world he will save the caliphate from Allied forces. Turk man abolishes the caliphate and establishes a state based on a cult-like adherence to pseudo-science, crass materialism, secularity, racism, and elitism. Turk man eventually dies after spending over a decade parading as a republican leader whilst actually functioning as a dictator. Turk man is mythologised by his cult followers and is remembered as a great man of history.

[Julian Daniel · Rating 4 out of 5]

A brief exploration of the various ideological influences on Mustafa Kemal Ataturk that shaped Kemalism, particularly the ideological milieu in which Ataturk was raised. Hanioglu successfully argues that Ataturk's ideology was pragmatic and heterodox, drawing upon numerous thinkers who are relatively obscure today, from proponents of scientism to now-discredited race pseudoscientists. He also discusses how Ataturk strategically used the rhetoric of Islamism and Marxism during the Turkish War of Independence. Interesting for intellectual history, although with my limited knowledge of the other authors referenced I feel that I didn't get as much from it as I could have.

[Karolos Maganos · Rating 5 out of 5]

Atatürk’ün zihni yapısını her meşrebin kendine göre tahayyül ve tasavvurlarına göre değil de gerçekten görmek ve anlamak isteyen bir okurun kesinlikle müracaat etmesi gerektiğine kâni olduğum bir şaheser. Böyle kaliteli bir metni Türkçeye hem de mufassal bir tarzda kazandırdığı için Hanioğlu’na ben şahsen müteşekkirim. İfrat-tefrit ikilemini aşarak yazdığı bu eser, hiçbir zaman kıytırık bir Yılmaz Özdil yahut Sinan Meydan denen eyyamcılar kadar okunmayacak ama elde böyle kıymetli bir işin olduğunu ve bunun bir Türkün elinden çıktığını bilmek beni memnun ediyor.

[Reza Eskandary · Rating 3 out of 5]

ترجمه و ویراستاری کتاب قطعا نیازمند بازنگری بود؛ اما به میانجی مرور زندگی و ایده‌های آتاتورک، خطوط تحلیلی جالب توجهی از تاریخ دوره‌ی پایانی عثمانی و آغاز جمهوری ترکیه رو به تصویر می‌کشید