Why does recent history become the darkest history? Why can Lausanne not be discussed?

Whenever the subject of Lausanne is opened, it is very clear that the chorus of "we won't let it be discussed," "we won't let it be touched," "we won't let it be questioned," which immediately springs into action, still has a strong and wide field of activity that it uses and maintains in Turkey. This activity has drawn its power for a century precisely from succeeding in not letting things be discussed and questioned. There are so many areas of our recent history that cannot be thought about, touched or questioned. Normally the easiest part of a history to write is the nearest. It should be so, because it is the one with the most witnesses, the most people affected, and the most documents. If someone comes before us with a narrative that distorts history, it can immediately be corrected with the many existing data that can prove the opposite. However, this history, by which everyone was affected first-hand, is much darker than our medium and distant history. Why? Because a monopoly has been established over the narrative regarding this period, and the voicing and circulation of any narrative outside this monopoly narrative has been officially and in practice prevented. Very strong, sanction-backed restrictions have been applied over the emergence of any document that would falsify the existing official narrative on this subject. This being so, our recent history has remained at the same time the darkest part of our history.

It has been deemed appropriate that our recent history be read and understood only as it is told in the Nutuk. The Nutuk constitutes the only narrative to be trusted on the history of the National Struggle. An alternative narrative against any claim there will not only be accused of treachery, lying and distorting history but will also be subjected to every kind of prosecution.

For instance, the way to understand what happened in Palestine, where we experienced the defeat that concluded the World War and brought down the vast Ottoman land, by any route other than the narrative in the Nutuk has been entirely cut off. In any case, what happened there is told in the Nutuk with all its details, and there is no need for another account, another piece of evidence. We had to be defeated there, our army was in tatters, was in no condition to fight and there was no recourse but to withdraw. In essence, that withdrawal was a strategic withdrawal, and it was the first strategic step of a planning that would later last 5-6 years. It was an extremely far-sighted withdrawal. 70 thousand of our soldiers became prisoners of the British and 35 thousand were martyred, so be it, but there was no other recourse. Those who say there was another recourse are after sedition and mischief, that is all.

Everyone must accept this account and write what happened here in the direction of this summary thesis. Here, God forbid, it should not even occur to anyone that a defeat was experienced on a front commanded by Mustafa Kemal. There our other armies were defeated, because of their incompetence, lack of merit and indiscipline of course, but the 7th Army withdrew in order not to be defeated. Let it never occur to anyone that the withdrawal of the 7th Army was the reason for the defeats of the 8th and 4th armies.

The famous British historian and philosopher of history Edward H. Carr, in his book What Is History? (İletişim Yayınları), makes an observation to the effect that the greatest difficulty regarding history stems from any historical datum that reaches us having come by blocking the way of alternative data. What he is speaking of is in fact this: Every historical narrative that reaches us is only one of the countless narratives that emerged among those who lived at the time when that historical event took place, but since it comes through the account of one or a few people, we have no possibility of resorting to alternative testimonies.

This is the general problem of the science of history. But the problem we are speaking of regarding our recent history is precisely that the real figures who lived that event were forbidden to give their own testimonies, and so the flow of documents from them to the future was deliberately cut off.

A TYPICAL EXAMPLE IS WHAT BEFELL KAZIM KARABEKIR

Nothing was left that did not befall the undisputedly most important figure of the history of the National Struggle when he wanted to respond to the statements in the Nutuk, in which there are one-sided narratives, even accusations and heavy charges, regarding events he had lived together with him. The answers he found the opportunity to give only 5 years after the Nutuk was published in the newspaper Milliyet were published on the same day, again with heavy accusations against him (by Mahmut Soydan, Deputy for Siirt and the newspaper's editor-in-chief), and even that could last only 6 days. His articles were not published on the 7th day, whereupon he decided to publish them as a book, but on the day the printing of the book was completed, trucks that arrived at the printing house escorted by police seized the book, took it away and burned it in lime kilns. Then, until it was certain that no other copies of the book remained, Kazım Karabekir's own house and the houses of his relatives were searched through again and again with police escort, and the sacks full of documents that formed the basis of the book and his book were also confiscated and destroyed. Even this was not enough: for years Kazım Karabekir was kept under house arrest under the control of spies, so that no word of his that did not conform to what was told in the Nutuk should come forth.

Yet whatever is told in the Nutuk, its first or second witness is generally directly Kazım Karabekir. Without him, what we call the National Struggle would truly not have happened; he has such a key role. But even what one person in this position would have to say was blocked so sharply. Could there ever have been a chance for other narratives to emerge under these circumstances and conditions?

THE SOURCE OF THE SANCTITY ATTRIBUTED TO LAUSANNE

The history of Lausanne also had to be written as a success story, and it was written so. It was inevitable that the questions of what concessions were made in that history, to whom, and how they were made would be branded as the literature of sedition and mischief. Yet the most vivid witness of the debates that took place during Lausanne is the First Assembly, and that Assembly objected to every article, and it is seen that the agreement as it stood would not pass easily. The members of that Assembly saw what we were forced to give up because of Lausanne. Moreover, even then, they were making no claim over the lands that were occupied with the Armistice and over which states such as Palestine, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Iraq and Saudi Arabia were later established.

That these lands, abandoned by a strategic withdrawal, were never voiced as a subject of debate or claim is in itself a scandal. Let whoever is curious look at how much place this took on the First Assembly's agenda, but at the least it is very clear that this Assembly saw the government's stance at the Lausanne talks as complete surrender and displayed heavy opposition. This opposition was of a weight that would have prevented Lausanne from passing the Grand National Assembly. That is why, yes, precisely that is why, elections were immediately held, and the first business put before the Second Assembly, formed with new members appointed from the center, was the ratification of Lausanne (for extensive information see Prof. Mustafa Aydın, "Lozan: Başarı mı Taviz mi?" (Lausanne: Success or Concession?), Beyan Yayınları "Tarihin Gerçek Yüzü" Series).

That is, Lausanne, which was thus kept away from debate and national opposition then, continues for years afterwards, even today, truly never to be allowed to be touched by the guardians of "we won't let it be touched," "we won't let it be thought about." By treating this document as a sacred text, it is ensured that a country never thinks about what it won and what it lost and where. Thus the losses, and those who made it lose, and therefore those who obtained unjust gain and power from this business, continue to be hidden. If this is not the function of the sacred, what is?