Sanli, Aysem Sezer; Koca, Bayram

Türkiye’nin 1970’li yılları, ekonomik ve siyasi istikrarsızlığın olduğu, sağ- sol çatışmasının yaşandığı bir dönem olmuştur. Ordu, devletin bekasının tehdit altında olduğunu öne sürerek 12 Eylül 1980 Askeri Darbesi’ni gerçekleştirmiştir. 12 Eylül Rejimi, ülkenin tekrar “beka” kaygısına düşmemesi için 1980-1983 yılları arasında siyasi ve ekonomik yapısal reformlar gerçekleştirerek yeni bir hegemonya inşa etmek istemiştir. Bu bağlamda, 24 Ocak Kararları ile neoliberal ekonomik reformlar gerçekleştirilmiş, Türk-İslam Sentezi ile de siyasi-kültürel bir dönüşüm hedeflenmiştir. Rejimin bu hegemonya inşasına Aydınlar Ocağı özelinde kimi sağcı entelektüeller destek verirken, Aydınlar Dilekçesi hareketi özelinde de kimi solcu aydınlar karşı çıkmıştır. Dolayısıyla 1980’ler boyunca Aydınlar Ocağı “devletin bekasına” vurgu yaparken Aydınlar Dilekçesi’ne destek veren solcu aydınlar ise “demokrasinin bekasına” vurgu yapmışlardır. Bu çalışma, 12 Eylül rejiminin sivil toplumda hedeflediği bu hegemonik dönüşüm sürecine aydınların verdikleri tepkileri ve toplumsal konumlanmalarını konu edinmektedir. Bu açıdan çalışma, 12 Eylül rejimine uyum gösteren ve muhalefet eden entelektüelleri, Aydınlar Ocağı ve Aydınlar Dilekçesi hareketi örnekleri üzerinden ele almayı amaçlamaktadır. İlk olarak, çalışmanın teorik zemini bağlamında entelektüel tartışması yürütülecek, sonrasında 12 Eylül Dönemi’nin hegemonya inşası ele alınacaktır. Son olarak, Aydınlar Ocağı ve Aydınlar Dilekçesi örnekleri üzerinden hegemonya- karşı hegemonya inşası süreçleri ve aydınların bu sürece etkileri tartışılacaktır.

Sanli, Aysem Sezer; Koca, Bayram

Turkey's 1970s was a period of economic and political instability and a conflict between right and left wings. The army carried out the 12 September 1980 Military Coup, claiming that the survival of the state was under threat. The 12 September Regime wanted to build a new hegemony by implementing political and economic structural reforms between 1980-1983 so that the country would not worry about survival again. In this context, neoliberal economic reforms were carried out with the 24 January Decisions, and a political-cultural transformation was aimed with the Turkish-Islamic Synthesis. While some right-wing intellectuals supported this hegemony of the regime in the Intellectuals Hearth, some left-wing intellectuals opposed in the Intellectuals Petition movement. Therefore, during the 1980s, while the Intellectuals Hearth emphasized the survival of the state, the left-wing intellectuals, who supported the Intellectuals Petition, emphasized the survival of democracy. This study deals with the reactions of the intellectuals and their social positioning to this hegemonic transformation process targeted by the 12 September regime in civil society. In this respect, the study aims to examine the intellectuals who comply with and oppose the 12 September regime, through the examples of the Intellectuals Hearth and the Intellectuals Petition movement. First, the intellectual discussion will be carried out in the context of the theoretical basis of the study, and then the hegemony construction of the 12 September period will be discussed. Finally, the processes of hegemony-counter hegemony construction and the effects of intellectuals on this process will be discussed through the examples of the Intellectuals Hearth and Intellectuals Petition movement.

Gökcen, Salim

During and after World War I, the activities of the Entente Powers against the Turkish presence caused a major indignation in Anatolia. With the commencement of the occupations, the consciousness of the Turkish nation to act together in the defence of the motherland emerged. This situation led to the emergence of National Forces in Anatolia against occupations. The Bozdag sequence, which is one of the places where the strut e for independence was given, is of great importance in terms of history as well as politically and strategically. The attack of Greek forces from Odemis-Alasehir region by passing this line meant the loss of Western Anatolia completely. For this reason, a front to be established in the region and the retention of this front was very important for the Turkish Independence Strut: e. The region called the Bozdag Front covered the area between Birgi and Salihli. Here were the forces of Mursalli Ismail Efe and Keles Efe who acted together with Postlu Mestan Efe, and Sari Efe who joined the front later. In Western Anatolia, Efes and Zeibeks had a great role in the National Forces, which was not a regular army. The question of who would be the commander of the National Forces, which was formed in the Bozdag Front formed by Efes and Zeibeks, was as important as the establishment of the front. This study will focus on the Bozdag Front, which is of great importance for the National Strutt e in Western Anatolia, and the issue of the command that emerged in the region.

Gökçen, Salim

Greece took action to apply its plans on the lands of the Ottoman Empire upon signing of the Treaty of Mudros. In order to realise its aim for the irredentist policy towards Turkish lands, Greece collaborated with the Phanar Greek Patriarchate. The aim of Greece was to found a great Greece whose capital was to be Istanbul. Greece, which carried out the occupation politics within a certain plan, wished to take the support of the European States with the allegations that it put forward, while following a serious settlement politics in Anatolia by organizing Greeks within the Ottoman State. The Greeks spreaded fear and horror to the Turkish people in order to strengthen their claims and to ensure Greek settlement, thus forced them to migrate from where they resided. Greece carried out all these activities by availing itself, to a great extent, of the Phanar Greek Patriarchate and the organizations that it caused to be established through the Patriarchate. The weapons and ammunition brought by Greek ships coming to Anatolia seemingly for humanitarian purposes were hidden in the churches and these weapons were shipped to the gangs created in Anatolia. This study will focus on the scope of the organizational activities that Greece has shown with the help of the Phanar Greek Patriarchate in Istanbul for the purpose of facilitating occupations in Turkey during the Armistice and National Struggle period.

Gökçen, Salim

Greeks who invaded Anatolia following the World War I, did unbelievably inhuman actions in order to terminate Turks in Western Anatolia and Thrace. Many Turks had either died, tortured, injured or had been raped, and many losses the value of which could not be calculated had taken place as a result of these actions in the various Regions of Anatolia for the realisation of the Greek dream called Megali Idea. This study focused on the results caused by the Greek occupation. When Greece invaded Izmir in 15 May 1919, Anatolia killed Turks, pilaged their properties and forced them to migrate by gathering band of rebels. Greece sent Greek immigrants from Greece and Aegean Islands to gather Greek majority in Western Anatolia. The general character of occupation movement of Greeks has shown itself in the following way: Rum and Greek Guerillas burnt Turkish villages, took money, ornaments and household goods of Turks. The basic duties of the Roum and Greek guerillas were usurpation, theft, robbery, trashing, wounding and killing regardless of any exclution.