urkish sources claiming Turks burnt Smyrna
Falih R?fk? Atay, a Turkish author of national renown is quoted as having lamented that the Turkish army had burnt Smyrna to the ground in the following terms:
Gavur [infidel] ?zmir burned and came to an end with its flames in the darkness and its smoke in daylight. Were those responsible for the fire really the Armenian arsonists as we were told in those days? ... As I have decided to write the truth as far as I know I want to quote a page from the notes I took in those days. ‘The plunderers helped spread the fire ... Why were we burning down ?zmir? Were we afraid that if waterfront konaks, hotels and taverns stayed in place, we would never be able to get rid of the minorities? When the Armenians were being deported in the First World War, we had burned down all the habitable districts and neighbourhoods in Anatolian towns and cities with this very same fear. This does not solely derive from an urge for destruction. There is also some feeling of inferiority in it. It was as if anywhere that resembled Europe was destined to remain Christian and foreign and to be denied to us.[18]
Recently, many Turks have begun to question that nationalist narrative that is taught within their own country. Biray Kolluo?lu K?rl?, a Professor of Sociology, published a paper in 2005 in which he pursues an argument based on the claim that the city was burned by the Turks in an attempt to cleanse the predominantly Christian city in order to make way for a new Muslim and Turkish city, and focuses on an examination of the extensions of this viewpoint on the Turkish nationalist narrative since.[19]
Another work on the subject is the short essay by the historian Professor Re?at Kasaba of Washington University, which briefly goes through on the multiple aspects of the event, without pinpointing clear accusations.[20]
Falih R?fk? Atay, a Turkish author of national renown is quoted as having lamented that the Turkish army had burnt Smyrna to the ground in the following terms:
Gavur [infidel] ?zmir burned and came to an end with its flames in the darkness and its smoke in daylight. Were those responsible for the fire really the Armenian arsonists as we were told in those days? ... As I have decided to write the truth as far as I know I want to quote a page from the notes I took in those days. ‘The plunderers helped spread the fire ... Why were we burning down ?zmir? Were we afraid that if waterfront konaks, hotels and taverns stayed in place, we would never be able to get rid of the minorities? When the Armenians were being deported in the First World War, we had burned down all the habitable districts and neighbourhoods in Anatolian towns and cities with this very same fear. This does not solely derive from an urge for destruction. There is also some feeling of inferiority in it. It was as if anywhere that resembled Europe was destined to remain Christian and foreign and to be denied to us.[18]
Recently, many Turks have begun to question that nationalist narrative that is taught within their own country. Biray Kolluo?lu K?rl?, a Professor of Sociology, published a paper in 2005 in which he pursues an argument based on the claim that the city was burned by the Turks in an attempt to cleanse the predominantly Christian city in order to make way for a new Muslim and Turkish city, and focuses on an examination of the extensions of this viewpoint on the Turkish nationalist narrative since.[19]
Another work on the subject is the short essay by the historian Professor Re?at Kasaba of Washington University, which briefly goes through on the multiple aspects of the event, without pinpointing clear accusations.[20]
Comment