History is shaped in the shadow of documents, but as archives close, interpretations multiply. In Turkey, the full opening of state archives could call into question official narratives and “common misconceptions” or, conversely, reinforce existing views. In a politically polarized country, this can profoundly affect public perception. For example, sensitive periods such as the Ottoman-Republican transition are often discussed by revisionist historians. Below, I will take the examples you have given and make an analysis based on the available sources. This reflects a balance of official history theses and conservative interpretations, speculating on what might change if the archives were opened. Remember, history is contextual, not objective - even new documents are subject to interpretation.
1. The Allegation that Atatürk and Abdülhamid II were “buddies”
This claim has become popular in conservative circles in recent years, arguing that Abdülhamid II's memoirs speak positively about Atatürk. For example, some sources claim that Abdulhamid “not like ordinary soldiers” and prayed for success.
Revisionists emphasize that Abdülhamid founded modern schools and that Atatürk grew up in this system, and they compare the two. “complementary figures” as a secret alliance - as if there is a secret alliance.
However, official history and academic studies show the opposite. The young Mustafa Kemal was an opponent of Abdülhamid's rule during his years at the Military Academy; he was linked to the Committee of Union and Progress, imprisoned for his criticism and exiled to Tripolitania.
Atatürk's youthful struggle was aimed at putting an end to the rule of Abdul Hamid. On platform X, this claim is also mocked, with users rejecting the idea of “buddy-buddy” by recalling Abdülhamid's period of censorship and repression.
What would happen if the archives were opened? Perhaps secret correspondence will reveal it, but the available British and Ottoman documents do not support a close relationship. If the new evidence does not confirm the “bromance”, the claim will remain a myth; if it does, Atatürk's early opposition can be revised. As a result, polarization in society increases: One section “unity” sees, the other cut “propaganda” He says.
2. The Allegation that Vahdettin Supported the War of Independence
This is one of the most heated debates. Revisionists argue that Vahdettin sent Ataturk to Samsun. “to save the homeland” and that he had a secret plan. In the Nutuk “Pasha, you can save the state” The word "Vahdettin" is used as a basis; some British documents imply that Vahdettin helped the national struggle.
On X, users argue that Vahdettin was under British pressure but actually supportive; some “even issued a fatwa” He says.
Official history, on the other hand. “traitor” as a “slaughterer”: After Mondros, he collaborated with the British, issued fatwas against the Kuvâ-yi Milliye ("massacre is obligatory"), encouraged internal rebellions and fled on a British ship. Reddit and other platforms, “He sent Ataturk for support” allegation “distortion” as the most important thing in the world.
What happens if the archives are opened? If more secret correspondence (e.g. Vahdettin's requests for asylum with the British) were revealed, the claim of support would weaken. Conversely, if new documents prove secret aid, Vahdettin “sacrifice” as a new interpretation of the national holiday. This creates tension even on national holidays; some people “traitor” and other people say. “strategist”.
3. Decisions that Atatürk opposed but were made due to the majority
This example is more abstract; Atatürk was usually the leader in parliamentary decisions, but there were some disagreements during the early Republic. For example, in the secret sessions of the Grand National Assembly in the 1920s, Atatürk's proposals were debated - some of them with the majority voting the other way, such as the Kurdish issue or penal laws.
Atatürk's 1920 inaugural speech emphasizes his stance against the Entente powers, but the parliament was sometimes more conciliatory.
Laws such as the Law on Crimes Committed Against Atatürk were introduced to protect his memory, but his early opposition (for example, to certain economic policies) is controversial.
In X there is little on this topic; usually parliamentary speeches are quoted, but specific “don't oppose” examples are rare.
The revisionists believe that Ataturk “dictator” exaggerating these disagreements to paint an image.
What would happen if the archives were opened? The minutes of secret sessions can shed light on decisions in which Atatürk was in the minority - for example, the debate on Kurdish autonomy. This is the one, “democratic assembly” image or increase accusations of authoritarianism. Social impact: Ethnic debates may flare up, but no fundamental change may occur.
Conclusion What Happens?
If the archives are opened, some myths collapse, others are strengthened - but the history books do not change immediately. Polarization in society increases: Conservatives “Ottoman restoration” sees, the secular sector “Defense of the Republic” it does. The education system will be affected, maybe the new generation will be more critical. But even documents are subject to interpretation; external sources such as the British archives are already open and support existing views. History is there to learn - even if misconceptions are corrected, the question is: What do we do with this knowledge? Perhaps an opportunity for unity, but probably a door to new debates.