The narrative on Çanakkale in Turkey is often compressed into a framework that narrows the historical truth rather than expanding it, rendering it politically innocuous. In this framework, Çanakkale is reproduced around the concepts of heroism, sacrifice and epic, but this production, consciously or unconsciously, renders its actual historical, economic and political content invisible. Because when Çanakkale is taken literally, it becomes not only a victory of the past, but also a harsh question directed at the present order.
Those who still describe Çanakkale as a mere “victory” are either misreading the issue or deliberately narrowing it. Because Çanakkale is not just a military success; it is a rupture that affected the global balance of power and changed the course of world history. Understanding this rupture is not only a matter of historical knowledge, but also of reading the present correctly.
HISTORICAL FACT: ÇANAKKALE IS NOT A FRONT, IT IS A GEOPOLITICAL LOCK
The 1915 military campaign in the Dardanelles was not merely an attempt to eliminate the Ottoman Empire, as superficial narratives claim. The main objectives of the Allied powers were to open a logistic line to Russia, to encircle Germany from the south, to shift the geopolitical balance in their favor by taking the Ottoman Empire out of the war, and to control global trade routes through the Straits. Therefore, Çanakkale was not a front but a geopolitical key point where the world system was tied in knots.
If the Dardanelles had been overtaken, Istanbul would have fallen, the Ottomans would have been out of the war and Russia would have received uninterrupted aid. In this case, the Tsarist regime would have breathed a sigh of relief, the internal crisis would have been postponed and most probably the revolutionary process in 1917 would have followed a different course. Therefore, Çanakkale was a turning point that affected not only the fate of the Ottoman Empire but also the fate of Russia and indirectly the whole world.
Russia's disconnection from the outside world deepened the economic and military crisis, accelerated the dissolution of the front, and this process directly fostered the conditions that made the February Revolution of 1917 and then the October Revolution possible. To put it bluntly, Çanakkale is one of the important links in the geopolitical process that paved the way for Lenin. However, this connection is systematically pushed to the background in Turkey. Because as soon as this link is established, Çanakkale ceases to be a romantic national narrative and becomes a global anti-imperialist moment.
One name in particular stands out in this historical moment: Mustafa Kemal. He is not just a frontline commander, but a leader who can take the initiative in the fateful moments of war, combine military wisdom with strategic intuition, and create a new historical subject out of a crumbling empire. His decisions at Conkbayırı were not only tactical successes, but critical interventions that prevented the collapse of a line and changed the course of the war. His words, “I order you to die, not to attack”, although often romanticized, are in fact an expression of military necessity, historical compression and at the same time absolute determination. Beyond the sacrifice a leader imposes on his soldiers, this statement has become the summary of a society's decision on the threshold of its existence. Mustafa Kemal's role at Gallipoli is therefore not just a narrative of heroism, but a historical threshold that made the birth of modern Turkey possible.
CLASS REALITY: POVERTY AND YOUTH EXTINCTION BENEATH THE EPIC
The Çanakkale narrative in Turkey has been largely declassified. A picture is presented as if everyone fought on the front under equal conditions, as if everyone acted with the same consciousness. However, the reality is quite different.
The vast majority of those who fought at Gallipoli were the children of poor peasants. Malnourished, deprived of educational opportunities, often unable to meet even their basic needs, they fought against the modern armies of industrialized empires. This was not only a military struggle, but also a historical episode in which inequality was exposed in its most naked form.
This picture is aggravated by a fact that is often told as a sentimental anecdote in Turkey, but not dealt with in any depth: high school youth being driven to the front. Children at the beginning of their lives were forced to hold a rifle at an age when they should have been holding a pen. For this reason, some high schools were unable to graduate for years and a generation was literally taken from their desks and buried. This is not only the loss of a war, but the interruption of the future of a society. The right to education, along with the right to life, was lost at the front.
This fact is deliberately rendered invisible. Because when it becomes visible, the question becomes inevitable: For which country did those children die and whose interests does the economic and social structure of that country serve today? This question is not only directed at the past, but directly at the class structure of the present.
THE INTERNATIONAL DIMENSION OF WAR: PEOPLES DRIVEN TO THE FRONT BY IMPERIALISM
Gallipoli was not only a battle between the Ottomans and Britain and France. It was also a confrontation in which imperialism drove people from its colonies to the front.
It was not only British soldiers at the front. New Zealanders, Australians, the Anzacs, soldiers from India, and thousands of people recruited from different parts of the empire were thrown into a war that had nothing to do with their own lands. These people were sent to die for the interests of another empire, often without even knowing exactly what they were fighting for.
This makes Çanakkale not only an example of national resistance, but also of how imperialism operates on a global scale. On one side there are poor Anatolian children defending their own land, and on the other side there are colonial peoples dying in a war that has nothing to do with their own country. This picture shows that war is fought not only between fronts but also between systems.
Today, this fact is often dissolved in a ceremonial language. But the issue of the Anzacs and the Indian soldiers is a critical point for understanding the human and political dimension of the war. Because this war should be read not only for the land, but also for how people were instrumentalized.
MANIPULATION EMPTYING THE SOUL
One of the most widely used concepts today is the “Çanakkale spirit”. However, the content of this concept has been largely emptied. The spirit of Çanakkale has been stripped of its political content and reduced to an emotional symbol. In this way, a memory that obeys rather than a consciousness that questions is produced.
However, historically, what Çanakkale points to is quite clear: independence is not only a military matter; it requires economic, political and social sovereignty. Standing against imperialism is possible not only by winning at the front, but also by establishing relations of production and economic independence.
MODERN IMPERIALISM: FROM OPEN OCCUPATION TO STRUCTURAL DEPENDENCY
In 1915 imperialism came with military power. Today it operates with different tools. Financial dependency mechanisms, trade agreements, technology dependency and cultural hegemony have become the main tools of modern imperialism.
If a country consumes without producing, survives on debt and is dependent on foreign countries in strategic sectors, its de facto independence is limited despite its legal independence. While this situation is different from classical colonialism, in essence it expresses a similar dependency relationship.
At this point, the fundamental question is this: Could the forms of dependency rejected at Gallipoli be reproduced today through different means? This question is not a historical evaluation, but a direct criticism of today's political and economic order.
TODAY THE RHETORIC OF INDEPENDENCE AND THE REALITY OF DEPENDENCY
Today Çanakkale is one of the most commemorated and embraced historical events. However, this appropriation often remains at the level of rhetoric. While emphasizing independence, economic dependence deepens. While the national discourse is strengthened, the production structure is shaped in line with the global system.
In an environment where the economy is dependent on foreign countries, the youth is unemployed and worried about the future, and labor is devalued, the contradiction between the Çanakkale discourse and reality becomes more visible. This contradiction is not only an economic problem, but also an ideological one.
THOSE WHO TELL HISTORY AND THOSE WHO DO NOT KEEP HISTORY ALIVE
Today, most of the actors who talk most about Çanakkale do not touch upon the issue of structural independence that it points to. They develop a discourse against imperialism, but at the same time maintain dependent economic models. National emphases are made, but production relations are integrated with the global system.
This is not accidental. Because when the true meaning of Çanakkale is accepted, not only the past but also the political and economic order of the present has to be questioned. For this reason, Çanakkale is often used as a tool, not a consciousness.
VIII. THE RUPTURE BETWEEN HISTORY AND THE PRESENT
The will that emerged at Gallipoli was based on the claim to independence and self-determination. The embodiment of this will was not only the soldier at the front, but the historical mind and leadership that guided that soldier. The role Mustafa Kemal played here was not only a military success, but the beginning of a transformation of mentality. He was not just a commander who fought, but the bearer of an idea that built the future.
Today, precariousness, indebtedness and anxiety about the future have become decisive for large sections of society. This is not only an economic crisis, but also an ideological and social rupture.
When a society loses its connection to its own historical experience, that history becomes merely a ceremonial memory. It is largely at this point that the meaning of Çanakkale today is weakened.
ÇANAKKALE IS NOT A MEMORY, IT IS A MEASURE
To understand Çanakkale is not to glorify it, but to carry the questions it raises to the present. These questions are simple but disturbing. Is there economic independence, to what extent are political decisions autonomous, is labor really valued?
As long as these questions cannot be answered clearly, Çanakkale will remain only a memory of the past. However, Çanakkale is not a memory, but a measure. And this measure is a test waiting to be reapplied in every period.
The outcome of this test is determined not by a victory won in the past, but by the answers given in the present. Because Gallipoli is not only a battle won, but also a refusal. It is a historical response to dependency, surrender and foreign intervention.
The real question is this: Is that answer still valid today, or is it just a word remembered but not practiced?.