A Breath of Philosophy 32: Understanding the Philosophy of the Founding of the Republic of Turkey: Anatolia and GeoPolitical Sensitivity

In order to understand the founding philosophy of the Republic of Turkey, it is essential to talk about why the new state was established by retreating to Anatolia and its geo-political location. We have previously dwelled on the homelandization of the land and geo-cultural sensitivity; in this article, let's have a conversation about the location of Anatolia. 

- 1789 French Revolution; Changing World Political Paradigm

As is known, with the French Revolution of 1789, the socio-political structure of the world changed; the transition from monarchy to republican rule, from religiosity to secularism and secularism began. The Ottoman Empire tried to make reforms and regulations (Tanzimat) in accordance with these changes; it endeavored to adapt to the new situation with the Three Styles of Politics, that is, the three different styles of loyalty to the state, namely Ottomanism, Islamism and Turkishism. 

All ideas and movements that emerged with fundamentally different contents were aimed at solving the problems in the relationship between essence and identity at the foundation stage. The Republic of Turkey was founded centered on Anatolia with the last of the policies of Ottomanism, Islamism and Turkism. Within this framework, the Official/Kemalist, Turkist, Blue and Conservative Anatolianism movements emerged in order to create a new nation state within the borders of the Misak-ı milli and to construct the concept of Turkishness as a new identity. Anatolian nationalism and official identity politics united in a common sense of homeland centered on Anatolia.

- Anatolia and Different Geo-Cultural Sensibilities

Anatolian-centered nationalism evolved over time into currents of thought, each of which revealed the inconsistencies they saw in the discourse of the other. Blue Anatolianism, in particular, gained strength in the 1940s with the influence of the institutional and personal ties it established with official policies through Hasan Ali Yücel. 

Against the Blue Anatolian movement's discourse of secularism, westernization and modernization centered on Ionian culture, a counter discourse was developed, which we can call Conservative Anatolianism, which turned into a "culture-based nationalism and traditionalism".  Here, the determination of "Anatolian Turk" as a collective name, the belief that Turks migrated from Central Asia to Anatolia and Islamized this geography as a common genealogical myth, 1071 Malazgirt as a common victory, and the oppressed and victimized Anatolia as a common pain and shared historical moments are prioritized. At this point, it is important to note the difference between the Conservative Anatolianism of scholars such as Ali Fuad Başgil, Mümtaz Turhan and Nureddin Topçu and the first Anatolianism movement.

According to the so-called Turkic or Ethnic Anatolianism, which was formed around the Anatolia magazine published by Mükrimin Halil Yinanç and his team between 1923-1925, "the hypothesis that the Turks arrived in Anatolia in 1071 is a Western-centered historical project." 

Mustafa Kemal Atatürk's opposition to Western-centered readings by saying "Anatolia is at least seven thousand years old Turkish cradle" is important in this respect. Ziya Gökalp's doctrine of "Great Oghuz Unity" and the renewal of historical consciousness as a distant goal with the idea of the Turkmen unity of Syria, Iraq and Azerbaijan after the recovery of the Anatolia-centered state and then Turan / Red Apple should also be considered in this respect.  

At this point, it is essential to dwell a little on the terms Anatolia and Turkey, which mean "the place where the sun rises" in Eastern and Oriental meanings, in order to understand the founding philosophy. 

- Starting from the choice of the name Turkey (leaving aside the debate that the Celts were the first people to use the name Turkey in Anatolia),  

- The adoption of the Republic in terms of its functionality in Turkish-Islamic thought and its place in the modern world paradigm, 

- Transition from a monarchy that values religious values to a secular system that shows the same care and sensitivity by establishing the Presidency of Religious Affairs; 

- In fact, this is a summary of the options put forward since the 2nd Constitutional Monarchy.  

This shows that when we think in the context of the nature-identity relationship, the establishment of the new state by retreating to Anatolia, which is geopolitically the lock/pivot of the ancient world, is a product of their elite intelligence. 

- Anatolia: Geo-Political Axis of the Ancient World

The civilian and military bureaucrats who re-read Turkism with "a reflex of consciousness" from the Three Styles of Politics announced the establishment of the Republic of Turkey to the whole world by retreating to Anatolia, one of the most geopolitically strategic places in the world and the founding place of the Ottoman Empire.  

In our opinion, this choice, which was highly appropriate to the realpolitik of the period, is actually one of the three-option solution proposals presented in 1822 to avoid the dangers threatening the Ottoman Empire in 1822. In other words, retreating to Anatolia, one of the options mentioned in the "A Breath of Philosophy" articles, was already presented as the most rational choice. Otherwise, while trying to defend the provinces, we would lose our milk/mülk, that is, our state and life, and we would become slaves like the peoples of Crimea, India and Kazan, or we would enter into a new Anatolia-centered resurgence.  

In the Constitutional Monarchy II period, nationalist thinking had reached a crossroads. The first path was 'Nationalism', which advocated the idea of "reviving the national awakening by penetrating the roots of the motherland, which had been neglected during the imperial period"; the other was 'Turanism', which was "to awaken a new idea of a national empire derived from the spirit of the empire".  The first one's immediate goal is to see the Anatolian-centered revival and the declaration of a new state as appropriate to real politics, followed by regional unity in Syria, Iraq and Azerbaijan, i.e. Turkmen unity, and finally the cultural and economic unity of the entire Turkic world as a distant goal. In short, in the words of Gaspıralı İsmail Bey, it is to keep the possibilities of "unity in language, work and ideas" constantly updated.

These two doctrines were basically driven by the same concerns and developed in competition with each other. As a matter of fact, the fact that serious debates were held within the Turkic Quarry in 1917/8 on "Great Turkism" versus "Small Turkism" or "Turkism" shows this. Therefore, in my opinion, these two discourses have different priorities to realize the same and/or similar goals and different methods to achieve the goal. In fact, this doctrine is to pay attention to the three proposals dated 1822 and to see the Anatolian-centered resurrection as the near goal, without giving up any of them, as appropriate to real politics, and then to see Syria, Iraq, Azerbaijan, i.e. regional unity, and finally the cultural and economic joint action of the whole Turkish world as the distant goal. In short, in the words of Gaspıralı Ismail Bey, "Unity in language, work and ideas" is to keep the possibilities constantly updated.

Our readers may remember that we have discussed Ziya Gökalp's "Great Oghuz Unity" doctrine, which we know had a strong influence on Mustafa Kemal, the leader of the founding team, in detail on other occasions. Because we saw the Ergenekon of Ötüken as our historical resurrection and the National Struggle as the Ergenekon of Anatolia and we had discussed the birth of a nation with a new identity. 

The limitation of the Turan doctrine to Anatolianism must have been a necessary consequence of the realpolitik of the period. In Ziya Gökalp's "Great Oghuz Unity" doctrine, the stages of Anatolianism, Homelandism and Turkism, Turkmen and Oghuz unity show this, and we see that thinkers such as Nüzhet Sabit and Raşit Hatipoğlu, who were prominent socialists of the period, were of the same opinion. This shows that Anatolianism was a discourse produced in accordance with the real political realities of the time. 

- Differences in the Strategies of Global Powers 

Indeed, when we look at the differences in the strategies of the global powers of the period, Britain emphasized that the Anatolian Turks would continue their existence with an introverted Turkic homogeneous structure by preventing the establishment of contact with other parts of the Turkic world. 

Britain's greatest concern was the political survival of an independent branch of a race that had significantly influenced the fate of Asia and Europe for centuries. If the Turks, with Germany's encouragement, were to integrate their national elements into a single homogeneous state, they could preserve their existence. In such a case, they may be able to join the circle of civilized nations on a peaceful basis. On the other hand, if they go for a Prussian-style organization, they will be more dangerous for the world than they were in the past. In this case, they think that they are trying to create a Prussian-style force that will block Russia and Britain with a Turkic discourse. Germany, on the other hand, is understood to think of Turkism and Turanism as a pioneer in standing against Pan Turkism and Pan Slavism of Britain and Russia. 

These evaluations show that the founding years of the Republic of Turkey should be re-read in the context of these two global powers and their relations. Because similar assessments are being made today. As a matter of fact, Aleksandr Dugin, Russian Geopolitics, Eurasian Approach (Trans; Vügar İmanov, Küre Yayını, İstanbul, 2003), Aleksandr Dugin writes: "Blocking any attempt by Turkey to gain influence in this region (i.e. Azerbaijan and central Asia)", "Blocking any 'Turanian' integration projects", "Declaring a fierce positional geopolitical war on Turkey against the carriers of 'Panturanism'", "Segregating local autonomous cultural tendencies in the entire Turkish space and exacerbating discord between clans, tribes, 'nations', etc.". clans, tribes, 'nations', etc.", "The Turkic basin should be encircled from all sides".

- Balance Game and Active Neutrality

In this context, it would be appropriate to update Turkey's balancing act in an extraordinary geopolitical position. As Selim Deringil puts it, Turkey is a small state at an important crossroads, and as such, it must always keep its mobility at the highest level. It has to be wary of polarization and polarization in international relations.  It should avoid participating in "blocs" as much as possible and try to keep the international balance of power as "polycentric" as possible. As a matter of fact, we observe that after World War II, Turkey's foreign minister Rüştü Saraçoğlu, who paid attention to the balances in the triangle of Britain, Russia and Germany during its founding period, demonstrated Turkey's success in staying out of the war on the anniversary of the Turkish-German Friendship Treaty, and Britain was very disturbed. 

G.L Clutton, Britain's eastern desk officer, said, "But the day is coming when the Turks will remember the words written in the Bible and, no doubt, in the Koran: You cannot serve two masters", dismissing Turkey's attitude as empty words. But what Clutton fails to understand is: "Turkey did not intend to serve any of these 'masters'." Not only did it serve none of them, but it also increased its income from the sale of chromium to both countries. With Germany's attack on the USSR, the autonomous Turkic states came to the fore again in the context of the Turanian doctrine, much to the annoyance of both sides. Stalin offered some parts of Western Thrace, which belonged to Greece, to Turkey, but this was rejected. In fact, this proved to be beneficial as the USSR strengthened its resistance against Germany. Turkey's desire was not for either of them to win, it was more tempting for the last German soldier to fall on the corpse of the last Russian soldier. 

To summarize, although Turkey received arms aid from both Germany and Britain during the war, it maintained its active neutrality. It presented its neutrality against Britain as an argument to prevent a war that might spread to the Middle East, while Turkey's neutrality contributed to securing Germany's right flank against a Soviet attack.  

- Committee of Union and Progress; Anatolia-Turan

Saying this does not prevent Gökalp's realpolitik realization that the new state gathering in Anatolia should first unite with the Turks in its immediate region and then with the Turkish-speaking states in relatively distant regions in ideas and work.  As a matter of fact, the continuation of the unions initiated with the brotherly states in the Atayurt in the cultural and economic fields under a framework organization was set as a distant goal. What is at stake here is the functionality of ideals as dynamics that inspire nations. The immediate goal is for the newly established state to exceed the level of contemporary civilization while preserving its Turkish and Muslim identity. This is the primary goal to be realized for unity in language, work and ideas. 

The history of the Committee of Union and Progress, the society where the founding bureaucrats of the Republic of Turkey were trained, is in fact a history of evaluating the Turan-Anadolu struggle in the realpolitik of the period. Because the military and civilian bureaucrats, as a result of more than two centuries of retreat/contraction/contraction and eventual disintegration, acted in a realpolitik manner by establishing the new state by centering on Anatolia, which was also the foundation of the old state. Since the New State chose Anatolia as the place of its establishment, it tried to create a unique "Republican culture" by making use of the Central Asian Culture, our ancestral homeland, and the Seljuk and Ottoman cultures, which are the combination of the Roman and Byzantine Cultures that we made use of while settling here.

In short, this is the name of our effort to understand the formation of this culture and to update and thematize it.