İnönü, Karabekir, Orbay and Okyar in their bilateral relations with Atatürk between 1918 and 1938

After the signing of the Armistice of Mudros on October 30, 1918, the Ottoman Empire ended de facto, and the activities of the occupying states began on the Anatolian territories. As a result of the submissive policy of Istanbul and the mobility of the collaborators in the country, the Turkish nation united around Mustafa Kemal Pasha and began their struggle to protect their existence and independence. At the end of this struggle, which was started by a small group by disregarding their lives, the imperialist powers were expelled from Turkish lands and a new Turkish state was founded. Subsequently, the scientific struggle replaced the military struggle, and successive reforms were carried out in order to establish the modern and independent Republic of Turkey. It is certain that while Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, the natural leader of the national struggle and revolutions in this process, saw eye to eye with his close colleagues, he also had differences of opinion which cause ruptures in bilateral and political relations. After the victory of the National Struggle, the regime of the new state to be established, the place of the caliph and the sultan in this order; It is not an easy matter to decide, even for the leading staff of the period. However, the person who had the clearest idea of the period was undoubtedly Mustafa Kemal Atatürk. Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, who was a supporter of an independent republic based on national sovereignty, was also going to take an active role in this new regime in which there was no place for the caliph and the sultan. While some of his close colleagues followed his path, some of them had different ideas and parted ways with Mustafa Kemal Atatürk. Based on the fact that this distinction was important enough to determine the political structure of the following years, in this thesis, the bilateral relations of Atatürk, who carried out the liberation, establishment and modernization process, and İsmet İnönü, Kazım Karabekir, Rauf Orbay and Ali Fethi Okyar, who have military, political, economic and diplomatic backgrounds, are explained. Considering the fact that this distinction is important enough to determine the political structure of the following years, in this thesis, Atatürk, who carried out the liberation, establishment and modernization process; bilateral relations with İsmet İnönü, Kazım Karabekir, Rauf Orbay and Ali Fethi Okyar, who have military, political, economic and diplomatic backgrounds, are discussed. Among these friends, İsmet İnönü, Kazım Karabekir, Rauf Orbay and Ali Fethi Okyar, who have important military, political and diplomatic services, stand out. For this reason, in the thesis, which was prepared based on the fact that the said distinction was important enough to determine the political structure of the following years, the bilateral relations of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, the pioneer of modernization, and his four friends were discussed. This study, which deals with the twenty-year mobility between 1918-1938 in line with the ideas of Atatürk, İnönü, Karabekir, Orbay and Okyar, has been prepared with the awareness of the necessity of being neutral. In the thesis, which tries to create a unity by including the processes that Atatürk's acquaintance with these four names began, for the same purpose, after November 10, 1938, the political lives of İnönü, Karabekir, Okyar and Orbay were also included. Today, the interest in the bilateral relations between the above-mentioned names, who are defined as the people who are among the leaders of the national struggle, is increasing. In the studies carried out as a result of this interest, sometimes ideological approaches and sometimes conclusions reached only through memories caused these relations to be misinterpreted. However, the historian should have the skills to remain neutral and to evaluate the subject with which they deal in its spatial and temporal contexts. For this reason, the main purpose of the study is to shed light on the missing or wrongly known issues by examining the memories of the names discussed with an objective and scientific approach, together with the parliamentary minutes, archive documents, research works and periodicals.