In October 2023, a Turkish-made television series entitled ‘Atatürk’ will be released on Disney+, appraising Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, the founder of modern Turkey. The future release of ‘Atatürk’ has garnered mixed reception. Mainly owing to the scepticism that the series will present a glorified depiction of the life and politics of Atatürk. While it should be noted that the extent of Atatürk’s involvement in the events surrounding the collapse of the Ottoman Empire remains subject to historical debate, it is concerning that the series may overlook such discussion in favour of presenting a wholly glorified account of Atatürk. Indeed, following the fall of the Ottoman Empire, various ethnic and religious groups, including Greeks, Armenians, Assyrians, Chaldeans, Syriac Arameans, and Maronites, were subject to mass killings, forced deportations, and other forms of protracted violence on the back of establishing modern Turkey.
Before Disney+ provides the platform for ‘Atatürk,’ careful examination should be had to the historical records and expert analysis preceding the events surrounding the construction of modern Turkey. Importantly, multiple perspectives should be utilised to provide a fully informed and nuanced perspective of the mass killings of non-Turkic minorities and Atatürk’s role in such killings, starting from 1914 and onwards.
Introduction
The intersection of ideologies and their subsequent influence on historical figures can often yield surprising connections. One such example is the growing parallelism between Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, the founder of modern Turkey, and Adolf Hitler, the notorious dictator of Nazi Germany. This article delves into the striking similarities between Atatürk’s Kemalism and Hitler’s National Socialism, shedding light on their shared principles and the observations made by Johann von Leers, an influential figure in the Nazi Party. Acknowledging differences between the two leaders and their contexts and understanding the ideological underpinnings and the complex historical connections that can emerge between seemingly disparate figures can offer Disney+ valuable insights.
The Third Reich had a special relationship with Turkey during the Nazi era. This relationship was based on several factors, including but not limited to; the shared ideological goals of the two countries, the perceived racial similarities between Turks and Germans, and the strategic importance of Turkey to the Third Reich.
One of the most striking aspects of the Third Reich’s relationship with Turkey was the special attention and respect that the Nazis paid to the Turkish ambassador. The Turkish ambassador was often seated in the front row of the diplomatic corps at important events, such as the opening of the Reichstag and New Year’s reception at Hitler’s Reich Chancellery. This gave the impression that Turkey was considered a close friend or ally of the Third Reich.
The Nazis also showed their admiration for Atatürk and the New Turkey through various means, one such being the construction of certain sculptures. Indeed, Hitler possessed a bust of Atatürk and considered it one of his cherished possessions. The famous Nazi sculptor Josef Thorak produced multiple sculptures of Atatürk, and his works were featured in exhibitions and publications. Thorak’s busks connected and affirmed the perceived similarities between the two movements.
The level of support for Atatürk and his New Turkey movement may best be described as cult-like following the Nazis’ rise to power in Germany in 1933. In an interview with the Turkish Daily Milliyet during the first year of the Third Reich, Hitler stated the official position on Atatürk, referring to Atatürk as his ‘shining star’ in the darkness of the Great Depression of the 1920s.
Further, in expressing such admiration for Atatürk, one biographer wrote: ‘With such eyes, one is born for something greater. . . . He was a born master.’ Others claimed that even at a young age, Atatürk could feel the spirit of the ‘grey wolf’ (the national/mystical animal of the Turks), of eternal Turkendom, of his blood awakening within himself. He was ‘inspired’ by the ‘difference in blood,’ which he could feel vis-à- vis the ‘lesser races’ (referring to the Greeks, Armenians, and Levantines) controlling the Ottoman Empire.
The Nazis attributed the primary success of Atatürk to ‘the destruction of the Armenians.’ In his Atatürk biography, Fritz Rössler (January 1912 – October 1987), a leading figure in German neo-Nazi politics, found that the policies of New Turkey under Atatürk consisted not of the persecutions of Christians but rather the ‘neutralisation of life-threatening foreign bodies.’ His book also included a chapter titled ‘the Liquidation of Annoying Armenia.’ Various authors stressed that as long as the Armenian people existed, they would constantly threaten the Turks. Indeed, one such author noted that ‘every time the hearts and weapons of the Armenians found themselves on the side of the enemy.’
Ankara was already well-known in Germany at the time of the Turkish War of Ankara – the capital of the Kemalist movement (the followers and proponents of Kemalism, which is the political ideology and philosophy associated with Atatürk.) Notably, the Kemalists were also known as Ankara-Turks, and every reader understood the meaning and symbolism of the name ‘Ankara.’ Unsurprisingly, Ankara was heavily discussed by both the right and far-right political spheres in Germany.
Significantly, the theme of ‘triumphant Ankara,’ promoted during the Turkish War of Independence in the early 1920s, inspired the Führer and revived ‘völkisch’. Kemalist Turkey was now a völkisch model state both domestically and by virtue of its foreign policy.
Kemalist Turkey’s depiction of ‘völkisch’ garnered a disturbing level of support and inspiration, regarding the treatment of a nation-state’s minorities, to the far right in Germany. Such influence is clearly expressed by Hitler’s infamous quote, “Who, after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians?” Thus, the Armenian Genocide and the deportation of the Greeks under New Turkey became crucial for the Third Reich’s construction of the perquisites for Germany’s völkisch success story. Indeed, the völkisch revolution of state, society, economy, ‘ethnic cleansing,’ and the preparation for the coming ‘ultimate war’ fueled Nazi policies and ideologies.
In 1936, the Nazis issued a circular announcing that the Turks were considered Aryans. The 1936 circular demonstrates Turkey’s aspirations to be perceived as European and Germany’s support for promoting such a perception. The Nazis perceived Turkey as European and racially related, unlike other ‘lesser races’ such as Indians or Egyptians. Turkey’s participation in the ‘New Turkey’ project, including the Turkish War of Independence and the construction of the modern Turkish state, was considered evidence of Turkey’s racial worth by virtue of its European identity.
The positive portrayal of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk and New Turkey in the Nazi press and publications from 1933 to 1938 is further evidence of the special relationship between the two countries. Atatürk was often portrayed alongside Hitler and Mussolini, and Turkey was seen as a model of völkisch rebirth and modernity.
Nationalism and Ethnic Identity
Nationalism and the preservation of ethnic identity played a central role in both Kemalism and National Socialism. Atatürk emphasised Turkish mono-nationalism and sought to forge a unified Turkish identity, encompassing diverse ethnic groups within the boundaries of the new Turkish Republic. Hitler, on the other hand, propagated an extreme form of nationalism based on the notion of Aryan supremacy and the preservation of a racially pure Germany.
Atatürk’s ideology (Kemalism), strongly emphasised nationalism as a driving force for the transformation of Turkey into what it is today. Ataturk believed that a unified national identity was crucial for the stability, progress, and sovereignty of the Turkish Republic. However, to achieve such Turkish nationalism, cultural diversity among existing marginalised minority groups would inevitably have to be subjugated in favour of a singular ‘Turkish’ identity. Under Atatürk’s leadership, Turkey underwent a series of reforms that aimed to forge a sense of Turkish nationalism, purging diverse ethnic and cultural groups under a common identity.
Authoritarian Rule and Propaganda Machinery
Both Hitler and Atatürk relied on authoritarian rule and extensive propaganda machinery to consolidate power and shape public opinion. Atatürk’s leadership style emphasised a centralised government structure, curbing opposition and controlling media outlets. Similarly, Hitler’s Nazi regime employed totalitarian measures to suppress dissent, control information dissemination, and promote Nazi ideology through propaganda.
Goebbels and the Parallelism
Johann von Leers, a close collaborator of Joseph Goebbels and a prominent figure in the Nazi Party, acknowledged the ideological similarities between Atatürk and Hitler. Leers praised Atatürk’s accomplishments and viewed Kemalism as a model for the National Socialist vision. He drew parallels between Atatürk’s transformation of Turkey and Hitler’s ambitions for Germany, highlighting their shared nationalist agendas and approaches to nation-building.
The intertwined relationship between National Socialism and the Third Reich with various alternative movements and projects during the 1920s and 1930s reveals a complex web of historical entanglements. By delving deeper into these connections, a more transnational approach emerges, shedding new light on the national histories of the early twentieth century. This article aims to explore the entanglement of Nazism with the figure of Atatürk and the New Turkey, while also challenging established views on German perceptions of Turks and Turkey.
The Changing Image of Atatürk and Turkey
The idolised image of Atatürk and the New Turkey in the Nazi imagination remained unshakable until the onset of World War II. However, the aggressive expansionist war waged by Hitler put the Turkish analogy to the test, ultimately shattering it with Germany’s defeat. Similarly, the failed Hitler Putsch in 1923 marked the end of the German nationalist fervour surrounding Atatürk. When Turkish “guest workers” arrived in Germany in the early 1960s, the hysteria surrounding Turkey had already been forgotten. This swift erosion of the Nazi role-model status attributed to Atatürk demonstrates the ephemeral nature of such idolisation.
The growing parallelism between Atatürk’s Kemalism and Adolf Hitler’s National Socialism reveals intriguing connections between these two figures. The strong leadership cults, emphasis on nationalism and ethnic identity, and employment of authoritarian rule and propaganda machinery demonstrate the convergence of their ideologies.
Disney+ should take the parallelism between Atatürk and Hitler into account in order to provide an in-depth and thought-provoking exploration of Atatürk and his ideologies. By delving into this topic, Disney+ can contribute to a better understanding of the complexities of history and foster meaningful discussions around extreme-nationalism, leadership cults, and the impact of political ideologies on society. Through a comprehensive and balanced portrayal, Disney+ can promote historical accuracy, critical thinking, and a nuanced understanding of the legacies of both Atatürk and Hitler. This examination can shed light on the historical connections and influences that shaped the 20th century, offering valuable insights into the complexities of power, ideology, and their lasting effects.
Conclusion
As a global streaming service with a large audience, Disney+ has a responsibility to use its platform to educate viewers about the dangers of nationalism and authoritarianism. By examining the parallelism between Atatürk and Hitler, Disney+ could help raise awareness of these dangers and prevent history from repeating itself.
So why should Disney+ halt or cancel the series? Here are the reasons:
Firstly, the parallels between Atatürk and Hitler are not exact. There are some important differences between the two men and their ideologies. However, the similarities are striking enough to warrant halting the series from streaming on Disney+ until an objective portrayal of Atatürk is presented, showcasing both his political strengths and weaknesses.
Secondly, the parallelism between Atatürk and Hitler is relevant to the current political climate. In recent years, there has been a rise in populism and nationalism around the world. These ideologies can lead to authoritarianism and the suppression of minority rights. By exploring the similarities and consequences of such doctrines, Disney+ can contribute to a deeper understanding of the potential risks associated with nationalist movements.
Lastly, Disney+ should have a responsibility to use its platform to warn viewers about the dangers of nationalism and authoritarianism. Examining the parallelism between Atatürk and Hitler can be a valuable educational tool, helping to raise awareness and foster critical thinking among the audience. By presenting a nuanced and objective perspective, Disney+ can promote historical understanding and encourage viewers to reflect on the implications of nationalist and authoritarian tendencies.
In conclusion, considering the potential impact and the need to provide an objective portrayal, halting or cancelling the series on Disney+ until a comprehensive and balanced depiction of Atatürk is achieved would be a responsible course of action.