In his book “THE GREY WOLF” CAPTAIN H. S. ARMSTRONG. points out the origins of Ataturk’s ancestry, born in Salonica, Greece (formerly a part of the ottoman empire) to Donma (Jews converting to Islam) parents, he joined the army and quiickly rose through the ranks, after defeating the Entente powers he established the Enlighten Republic of Turkey.
This is the only Google hit on this book, it is an article bragging about the influence exerted by the Enlightenment ideology of Ataturk over Egypt. The article does not mention his origins particularly, but it does talk about the book, and the strange phenomenon in Egypt prior to and following his death (Covert Deculturization= deceptively stripping away of a people’s culture and replacing it with a new culture) one of many subversion techniques
THE DEPARTURE OF THE GREY WOLF The original title of the book written by British author H.S. Armstrong on Turkish leader Mustafa Kemal Ataturk and translated by the “Kitab el Hilal” magazine in its July 1952 issue is “Grey Wolf”. The Grey Wolf has been the symbol adopted by Turks in their ancient nomadic (pagan) times. Ataturk was seen worthy of this symbol as an appreciation of what he did for the rebirth of the Turkish nation.
The reforms materialized by the Grey Wolf became echoing performances in Egypt. Madam Huda Sharavi and her group became the main supporters of girls in Egypt studying without a scarf. After participating in the World Women’s Conference held in Istanbul in 1935, this distinguished lady started to introduce to the Egyptian society the rights acquired by the Turkish women during the Republic period with appreciation and admiration.
Wearing hats and abandoning the fez generated a source of conflict among Egyptian thinkers. There were people sticking heart and soul to this red headdress, on the pretext that it was the national symbol of Egypt, against the supporters of the hat, Dr. Mahmut Azmi, Selama Musa and Tevfik Hakim in particular. There even appeared circles that ascribed a religious attribute to the fez. It was inevitable for Al Ahram to analyze the Grey Wolf, who had taken his place in the conscience of the Egyptian people, after his departure in 1938.
Our newspaper “Al Ahram” did its best to commemorate Him and his works, and not to lose any opportunity to keep them alive the year he died. For example, Al Ahram gave place to the long article published by the Daily Scotch Newspaper, containing expressions of admiration and appreciation. The author of the article concluded his work as the following: “In my opinion, Turkey would have taken her place among the great nations of the world and become one of the most powerful guarantees of peace in the Mediterranean, if only Ataturk had lived for another 15 years.”
The most splendid article that Al Ahram published the year the Grey Wolf died was the article written by the great writer Aziz Haneki, titled “Turks and Ataturk”, in five pages, on the occasion of the visit of the Turkish Foreign Minister. “The man who took on the management of the country did work, not uttered empty words. Because, this man was so superior to do a year’s work in a day, a day’s work in an hour, and an hour’s work in a moment,” said the writer of the article. Given that, it was inevitable for our paper and the other Egyptian newspapers to run after reports on the personality of Ataturk. However, these reports were all transferred from Western media, particularly the British. The apparent reason for that was that the Al Ahram correspondent was staying at his previous office in Istanbul, not having a separate reporter in Ankara, the new capitol of Turkey.
In its issue on May 05, 1938, Al Ahram announced that a French doctor was invited to Ankara a few weeks ago so as to care for President Ataturk. When fall came, reports started to be received indicating that the health situation of the Turkish President worsened. This time, our correspondent in Istanbul quickly sent a telegram to the newspaper, stating that the Turkish Government, in a statement on October 17, announced that Kemal Ataturk was suffering from a terminal liver disease. In an announcement two days later, it was stated that only a miracle could save the President, giving the impression that the Grey Wolf was living his last days. At such a situation, they were discussing who would replace him. Ismet Inonu, the second man of the government, seemed to be the most probable figure. Making use of this opportunity, Al Ahram published an article introducing the potential President: “Inonu, who feels close to Britain and Russia.” Apparently, the Turkish President maintained his stubbornness in his deathbed, as it was the case when he was healthy. As a matter of fact, two days after the last bad news, in a health report they announced that Ataturk recovered considerably and that side effects completely disappeared. This state was maintained until November 10, 1938 Thursday. In the first page of the next day’s issue of Al Ahram, there was a photograph of Ataturk at the top, a picture of his mother below, and a photo of him with his wife Latife Hanim at the bottom, with the following headline: “Ataturk is Dead”.
The report on the death of the Grey Wolf covered the first and third pages of the Al Ahram issue on November 11, 1938. The most famous writers of this prominent newspaper cautiously wrote commentaries. Great writer Ahmet El Sawi Mohamed’s commentary on the “Few but Deep” column was one in particular. The writer expressed the views of our newspaper in this editorial as follows: “Mustafa Kemal is dead. Accurately speaking, the father of the Turkish nation, Ataturk is dead. The most magnificent man that Turkey has raised in recent centuries is dead. The one who saved Turkey from captivity, and lit the fire of revolution against occupation and imperialism is dead. The commander who carried Turkey from battlefields to liberation is dead. The only leader who managed to secure his nation’s place in our hearts, a great reformist with a resolute will, who advanced the dreams of his nation on the path to reforms is dead. The great man who tore to pieces the agreements that states had agreed upon, and taught nations to respect his nation is dead. The introverted and enormous man who managed to turn a weakened, broken, exhausted and weary nation, moaning under defeat, frustration and captivity, into a powerful, developing, friendly, proud, dignified, progressing, determined and enthusiastic nation is dead. He is the savior of a land and the reformist of a nation. The name of Ataturk will remain to be a source of dignity and pride for every Turkish citizen.”
The death of the Grey Wolf, on which the Egyptian public opinion so deeply and significantly dwelled, did not find much reflection in the official circles of Cairo. Probably, King Faruk did not consider the death of a man, who removed sultanate in Turkey and established the Republic, something to be mentioned. King Faruk contended with sending Sait Zulfikar Pasha to the Turkish mission in Cairo, to convey his condolences. This attitude was criticized by the Egyptian media. The writer of the “Few but Deep” column in Al Ahram reproached the King in the December 6, 1938 issue of the newspaper: “However, Britain participated in the funeral by sending an influential Field Marshal along with 400 marines and infantrymen; France by sending the Ministry of Interior, a delegation of its most senior commanders and 200 soldiers; and even the traditional enemy Greece by sending its Prime Minister, two ministers and 150 soldiers.” Nobody could find an answer to this criticism of Al Ahram’s famous writer. Apparently, the officials of the Egyptian Government wanted to close the “Grey Wolf” file. But, history did not agree. (Al-Ahram Newspaper – Cairo – 08/06/2006)
Who and/or what comprised Egyptian public opinion [during that period Egypt was infested with (mostly British and French) masonic lodges, so called Communists, and powerful Jewish businesses] most of the publications at the time had foreign influence, even the religious organizations and publications. notice in the images above the prevailing Communist masonic seal of one of the lodges from that era in Cairo. Note the date on the seal 1918 one year prior to the 1919 revolution lead by Saad Zaglool and the Wafd party (members included a few Jews but many were also members of various lodges.) the peaceful revolt was to among many things divert attention from the failure of The Faisal-Weizmann Agreement was signed on January 3, 1919, by Emir Faisal (son of the King of Hejaz) and Chaim Weizmann (later President of the World Zionist Organization) as part of the Paris Peace Conference, 1919 settling disputes stemming from World War I. It was a short-lived agreement for Arab-Jewish cooperation on the development of a Jewish homeland in Palestine and an Arab nation in a large part of the Middle East. The parties committed to carrying into effect the Balfour Declaration of 1917, in exchange for The Zionist movement assistance of the Arab residents of Palestine and the future Arab state to develop their natural resources and establish a growing economy.
Officially the Faisal-Weizmann agreement did not survived more than a few months. according to western media the peace conference results did not provide the vast Arab state that Faisal desired mainly because the British and French had struck their own secret Sykes-Picot Agreement of 1916 dividing the Middle East between their own spheres of influence after the expected downfall of the Ottoman Empire during World War I. The agreement was concluded on 16 May 1916 by the French diplomat François Georges-Picot and Briton Mark Sykes.