Prospectus

In 1934, twenty years after the beginning of World War One, the former President of Turkey, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk presented a memorandum in respect of the ANZAC (Australian and New Zealand Army Corps) soldiers who lost their lives during the Gallipoli Campaign. This message contained comforting words to the mothers of the soldiers that served during the war, which was spread all over Australia and New Zealand as a sign of reconciliation between the former enemies. Mustafa Kemal was a Turkish Officer during the first world war, following the defeat of the Ottomans, Kemal was granted the surname Ataturk by Turkish Government, which means “Father of the Turks”. Ataturk was renowned to be a great military leader as well as an excellent political master. The “message” that was presented to the Australians was not directly given by Ataturk, but by the Minister of the Interior of Turkey at the time, Şükrü Kaya. This message was presented on the 18th of May, 1934, on the anniversary of the Çanakkale Victory on Ataturk’s behalf. This “Artifact” is most purely given as a speech, but the famous words have cemented their way into memorials in Turkey, Australia, and New Zealand. In order to fully analyze this artifact, I plan on looking at the location and event that it was first given, a day usually celebrating Turkish Victory, as well as the ways in which each respective country has paid tribute to Ataturk and his message, and finally look at what meanings are allocated to the message by each country. Now, before I state my thesis, I need to elaborate a little. Recently, there has been a shroud of doubt surrounding the Authenticity of the message given by Ataturk. Historians are looking back to this monumental stride of reconciliation with hesitant eyes, for there are no hard facts to back up the words that are now engraved on memorials in the respective countries, although there is hard evidence to show that Ataturk did make write a speech, it does not include any reference to Anzac Soldiers. My thesis is trying to work around the idea that for all three countries involved, Turkey, Australia, and New Zealand, the validity of Ataturk’s message is inconsequential to the mending of broken bridges between the countries, for the words mean nothing themselves, but the meaning derived from those words means everything to the citizens of the respected Countries. In Turkey, Ataturk’s words solidify his image as a great man and leader who was strong enough to overcome national pride on a celebratory day in order to reflect on the weight of the Past. In Australia and New Zealand, Ataturk’s words serve as a societal glue between the former enemies and allow for people to reflect and commemorate without distaste. If it turns out that Ataturk’s message did not come directly from him, it would make almost no difference to the meaning that the message conveys over thousands of miles of land and water, for the message contains very consequential meaning that helps those forgive. By looking at how the meaning wouldn’t change if the words were not legitimate, I am forcing myself to ask why the meanings are significant in the first place. All of this will boil down into something in between the two, why people feel this message is so significant, and would their feelings or attitudes change about it if the message was delegitimized.

Contextualization of this project is not necessarily tricky, but is also not necessarily easy either, for in order to outline the major significances, one must look at all sorts of background history that made the existence of this message necessary, as well as why people derived meaning from it. The Gallipoli Campaign was one of many minor wars fought during the overall event of World War One. The Russians needed supplies desperately, but the only route from the west involved going through the Ottoman controlled Dardanelles Strait, which led to the Black Sea. The British Empire and France fought against the German-Austrian backed Ottomans, with a very unsuccessful outcome for the Allied forces. The fighting was very dangerous and bloody for both sides, something that Ataturk later mentions in his message to the Anzacs. For Australians, 50,000 of whom served during the campaign, the war brought with it the birth of a national consciousness, one that instilled national pride in citizens and military members alike. (I could also talk a little about that in my thesis maybe? Its pretty interesting) The Anzac forces suffered major losses in Suvla Bay, which was a part of a final offensive to drive off the Turkish. One of the Army Officers in this mini-theatre of WW1 was of course Mustafa Kemal, fighting for the Turkish. His major victory over the British Empiric forces slingshotted his career upward onto larger things, especially once the Gallipoli Campaign ended. So of course, we as humanistic historians must ask, What is it like to kill many hordes of men who are trying to overtake your land, and then receive high amounts of credit for doing so? One must be able to deal with the acts committed in one form, and how does one become successful while carrying around those traumatic experiences of war? How do his experiences build his ethos up to a point where he can then enter politics? Is the message he sends himself that important, or is it actually important because he himself said it? For what reasons did Ataturk give this message, especially on a day which celebrates the defeat of the invading forces? How has his message shaped meaning for the mothers of the ANZAC soldiers? Did his message have an intended purpose or was this possibly a way to clear his conscious? To move away from something that has been inside him all this time? Would Ataturk's message have been memorialized if it weren't for the agreement between Turkey and Australia and New Zealand that renamed the Arıburnu coast as ANZAC Cove, in trade for Australia and New Zealand to build memorials celebrating Ataturk? What meanings have been generated in Turkey? All these questions are something I am going to have to get familiar with talking about, and get interested in wanting to answer them, which I am. There are many ways I could go about this from a disciplinary standpoint, I could focus a lot on the societal interactions that occur during war using a social science approach, or I could look deeply at a few experiences to really get an in depth feel of the humanistic approach. I think by using both of these I will be able to get the info that I want.

I am grouping my sources into three sort of categories, not necessarily on the content they have, but on the medium in which they exist, for I want to be able to clearly show which ones engage in a purely scholarly article, and which ones may take on a few unwanted characteristics. First up, My two sources that came from Newspapers, which both point in the same direction content wise “Ataturk's 'letter' expresses admirable sentiment but is not necessarily good history” and “Ataturk's 'Johnnies and Mehmets' words about the Anzacs are shrouded in doubt”. Both sources come from quite reputable newspapers, but as always are subjected to some tendency to not be completely accurate, although there is a lot of sources attached within the articles, and a lot of the sources cross paths with one another, I should take these as more opinion than fact or accepted truth. They both point to the notion that Ataturk’s message is not necessarily his, or at least that those words are not the exact words that he spoke. The next two sources are slightly “better”, but again are not peer reviewed scholarly articles either, for they are both from Government agencies, simply giving facts about certain memorials. “Ataturk Memorial” From the New Zealand Ministry of Culture and Heritage, and “ATATURK’S WORDS TO THE ANZAC MOTHERS” by Ahmet Vakur Gökdenizler, a Turkish Ambassador in Canberra both have useful information regarding particular monuments, and do not really push into the political boundary of “why” which is why i regard them as useful sources, for their agendas are simply to educate people about the history behind the monuments. The Third and final grouping of sources are either from books or actual peer reviewed scholarly articles, “Johnnies and Mehmets. Take two” , “The Anzac cemetery”, “Ataturk and the Anzacs” and “Bigger than Gallipoli” are all sources that I can use without any doubts in their validity. These last four sources vary with what they have to talk about, of course all to do with Gallipoli or Ataturk directly, but they bring multiple perspectives for me to talk about. The only “Gap” I see between sources is that there are the newpaper articles saying that Ataturk's words are not legitimate, which sort of brought about my thesis questions.

My research aims to build of of the scholarly conversations that I have found and rather than try to prove or disprove the words of Ataturk, I want to show the larger significance that is generated from his words to see if it really matter if they weren't his words, or if it could have been anyone saying it, and that it just needed to be said by someone. I truly think that it would matter (sort of going against my thesis now, but this isn’t even rough draft stage yet) because the man that Ataturk was is important to the mothers of the Anzac soldiers who died. This is the man who caused them to be dead in the first place! Extending out his gratitude for their sacrifice, and trying to mend hearts that were ultimately broken by him. What can we learn from this great message of Ataturk? It is not simply a war story, but a human story, for we all do things we regret, and try to mend those broken bridges in whatever way possible. This is really the model way for how one should come to terms with what they have done, and how to at least try to

.