
Historical analysis of the August victories, the National Liberation Struggle led by Ataturk and the stance against Western imperialism.
The month of August, full of victories in Turkish history, and the stance of the National Liberation War against imperialism are discussed in the context of Maurice Duverger's theory of class and national liberation struggles.
AI-generated summary
August is a period in Turkish history when important military victories such as the Battle of Sakarya and the Great Offensive were won.
The month of August symbolizes victories in Turkish history. The Battle of Sakarya, 23 August - 13 September 1921, represents a historical turning point where the decline that had been going on for centuries in the context of loss of territory ended and the path to the Great Offensive was opened. Mustafa Kemal Pasha registered a brilliant victory in the history of world wars by introducing area defense instead of line defense, and the withdrawal of the Greek army to the west of the Sakarya River. On September 19, he was given the title of Gazi and field marshal by the Turkish Grand National Assembly. The extraordinary success of the Turkish army has cost the world. August 26, 1071 marks the last arrival of the Turks in Anatolia. Sultan Alparslan declared Anatolia as the Turkish homeland forever. August 26, 1922 is the Great Offensive. With the genius of Ataturk, the Turkish army hit the Greek army at its strongest point and divided it into 3 fronts, and with the liberation of Izmir on September 9, the road to the modern state was opened.
Maurice Duverger, one of the important names of world political science, divides the history of social struggles in the world into two. The first is the social class struggles that intensified in the 19th century, and the other is the National Liberation Struggles led by Ataturk. This symbolizes the rebellion of not only the Turks but also the oppressed nations against imperialism. From Gandhi in India to Castro in Cuba, it is not in vain to take Atatürk and the Turkish National Liberation War as models. It is understandable that groups in the West are disturbed by this. However, it is significant that some politicians from within are voicing their dissatisfaction with this model more loudly.
National Liberation, which is also underlined in Hasan Izzettin Dinamo's book Holy Rebellion, is liberation from imperialism, but also a rebellion and challenge against collaborator elements, reactionary, ethnicist and separatist understandings. So, of course, it is more than a coincidence that it still causes discomfort inside and outside.
The two main stages of the Kemalist revolution are, firstly, the National Liberation War, and the next stage is the establishment of the secular republic and the establishment of revolutions. At the end of World War I, classical empires were liquidated. With the dissolution of the Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman empires, many states were established in the Balkans and the Middle East. While the Balkans were returning to the old states, Southwest Asia was named first as the Near East and then as the Middle East by the Great Powers from the last quarter of the 19th century. As an extension of this policy, during and after the First World War, with the Sykes Picot of 1916 and the San Remo Conference of 1920, mandate governments were established with maps and tables on the sand. San Remo is the meeting of the Trusteeship Commission of the League of Nations, which was established after the war at Versailles in 1919. At this conference held in April 1920, Anatolia and Eastern Thrace were postponed to August. The name of this postponement is Sevres.
The Ottoman Empire, which surrendered with Mudros on October 30, 1918, opened its lands to occupation with Article 7 of the armistice. The great leader Atatürk celebrated the establishment of the Republic on October 29, 1923. This is an unforgivable rebellion for the West, and it is predictable that they still cannot digest it. The efforts of an axis extending from the second republicans to religious groups and ethnicist structures to reduce the Turkish National War of Independence to a Turkish-Greek war also reveal an interesting distortion. Thus, efforts are being made to create a natural protected area for British imperialism. Greece's occupation of Izmir on May 15, 1919 was a proxy war by England. Armenia in Sèvres was to be a tutelary apparatus whose borders would be designed by US President Wilson. On the other hand, England, which did not want to give Izmir to the Italians, brought Greece into play within the framework of its own ambitions. Because the Straits region was a critical area extending from Edremit Gulf to Kandıra and from there to Saros Gulf. England, which held Anatolia's largest import port, Istanbul, did not want to give Anatolia's largest export port, Izmir, to the Italians and share in the occupation, and the Aydın-Antalya line, together with the Dodecanese Islands under its control, was offered as a consolation as a whole. In this regard, the French would expand their colonialism in southeastern Anatolia with the Syrian mandate. The autonomy granted to the Kurds in Sevres would include the potential for independence, on the condition of harmony with the West.
Those who turn their backs on the reality of the National War of Liberation, those who are disturbed by this name and model, those who are afraid of the exposure of imperialism, those who stand on the wrong side of history with different interests. It is necessary to understand this well.
Atatürk was both a courageous hero and commander-in-chief on the battlefields, as well as a political mind and a political mind who organized the national will with national congresses at the very beginning of the struggle, integrated the local Defense of Law organizations with the Sivas Congress in September 1919 as the Anatolian and Rumelian Defense of Law Society, and led the establishment of the Turkish Grand National Assembly after the Parliament was closed by the British on March 16, 1920. it is genius. With this understanding, after the Great Offensive, he put these ideas into practice with the abolition of the sultanate, Lausanne, the establishment of the Republic and the revolutions. In other words, Atatürk, who has both a heart and a tailcoat, is not a contradiction, but a whole that is the continuation of each other. Those who partially adopted Atatürk for political reasons displayed a more opportunist approach.
Ataturk fought with the West, but he did not act in an anti-Western or reactionary manner. It is Western but not Western. Internalizing the values of the West and fighting against imperialism embody this ground. The former mandates, the Gulf countries, are not Western, but pro-Western. It is necessary to understand this distinction very well. Westernists are against Western values, but they serve the West, offering their own energy resources to the service of Western monopolies, with their mandate past.
National Liberationism may seem like a ghost to some. Why is the Republic of Turkey not in an area of controllable instability divided into clans, tribes, tribes and terrorist organizations, on the axes of the 1991-2003 Gulf Wars or the 2011 so-called Arab Spring? Because equality of citizenship, political nation, common law, secular republic are the antidote to this plot. As Atatürk stated, the existence of the Republic of Türkiye, which will live forever, is a reality that disturbs some Western groups and Western collaborators internally and externally. Therefore, protecting the republic and Ataturk's legacy to the end is also a struggle for existence for the oppressed nations.
BOP, second republic, moderate models; Keywords, ethnic approaches, communitarian, communitarian citizenship schemes, models such as Lebanon and Iraq manufactured across the ocean are the counterfeit of imperialism.
The solution is the Turkish model that Ataturk introduced to the world. As long as we first understand it, take care of it, and express the brotherhood of oppressed nations without being big brothers to anyone. You cannot get anywhere with temporary memory losses.
Falih Rıfkı Atay describes these memory losses in the window of history as follows from Atatürk's mouth: do not forget, do not let others forget...
"I have never felt the pleasure in any literary work in my life that I felt when reading the daily order informing the armies that their first target was the Mediterranean. This was a poem that gave an excitement above all excitements, above all poems. Do you know what we had become? WE WERE SAVED!"
Let those who cannot escape mentally and are in the net of imperialism be an example in our history.

The article deals with the historical and symbolic transformation of the Second World War, which started on September 1, 1939, into World Peace Day. He emphasizes that wars enrich only a small minority, and the majority are victims. Mustafa Kemal Atatürk's 'War is a murder unless the life of the nation is in danger!' It starts with the words "and explains the damage done to humanity by imperialism, arms trade and dirty politics with historical examples (Iran-Iraq War, Gulf Wars, Syria and Gaza conflicts). In the end, he argues that peace can only be achieved through education, science, technology and economic power and that internal peace is a priority for Türkiye.

Arguing that the discourse of 'destiny' is used to cover up control deficiencies after major disasters in Türkiye, this analysis questions the control system through Soma, Çorlu, İliç, Kartalkaya and finally the Fleet Jet ship accident off the coast of Kyrenia.

A letter about the death of Cumhuriyet newspaper writer Şükran Soner, her life, labor, democratic struggle, women's solidarity and her role in journalism is explained. The common experiences from 1968 to 2001, the journey to Diyarbakır and Batman in response to Pınar Selek's call, and the self-criticism in her writing are emphasized.

The text deals with the difficulties of daily life, where 45.8% cannot participate in cultural and artistic events due to the cost of living in Istanbul, the judiciary has been turned into a tool of oppression, discourses about ideas and being poor, tensions within the party, artists and comedians face legal problems, and various satirical notes on social sensitivity.

The victory won in Dumlupınar on August 30, 1922 is the historical account of the territorial losses that have continued since Karlowitz and the Turkish nation's struggle for existence.

While the August 30 Victory is remembered as the turning point of the Turkish nation's struggle for independence, some groups do not celebrate this victory. These groups include FETO members, supporters of the Kurdish political movement, anti-military tutelage liberals, politicians without ideology, those who pose as religious abusers and historians and make imperialist propaganda. The article explains the reasons why these groups rejected the victory in a historical and ideological context.