The incident, which took place on 3 May 1944 and was referred to as the case of “Racism – Turanism”, represents a crossroads in the history of Turkish nationalism. This distinction can be considered as a break of the Kemalist (Formal Nationalism) fault line in Turkish nationalism on the basis of different perspectives on the definition of historical, geographical and nationality. In addition, the projection of Turkey in the Second World War, the international political conjuncture formed depending on other factors can also be seen as a crossroads of nationalism in Turkey. In the early republican period, more intense and concrete objections were developed to the official nationalism shaped by the state and put into practice, especially after the death of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk. Those who make these objections are Turkist-Turanist intellectuals who try to bring a different interpretation to Turkish nationalism from the official ideology. The Turkist-Turanist intellectuals, especially after the process known as Racism and Turanism, were positioned against the power and brought harsh criticism to the power. In this study, the two main eclectic problematic, 3 May 1944 Racism-Turanism case will be examined by taking the center. The first is the ideological coordinates of informal Turkish nationalism, which develops conceptual, theoretical and actual objections to Kemalist nationalism. Secondly, in line with its position on nationalism of the era of political power is the position taken by the intellectuals in Turkey. In this context, “historical comparative research method” was used as a method to understand the historical, social and political change of Turkish nationalism together with its actors. However, by analyzing the discourse of the actors of the period regarding the case of racism and Turanism on 3 May 1944, the process of differentiation and differentiation in Turkish nationalism will be tried to be determined.

The 1960s were a period in which political ideas had influence in the political life of Turkey. The center-right was represented by the Justice Party (AP), the center-left by Republican Party (CHP), the doctrinal left by the Turkey Labour Party (TKP), and the doctrinal right section was filled upon the entry of Alparslan Türkes into the CKMP. After the entrance of Türkes, CKMP will have a different character and the party will go in a different direction. The involvement of Türkes, who has been an important political subject in Turkey since May 27, 1960, in active politics has attracted a lot of attention from the Turkish public and various sections have expressed their opinions on this issue. While the Turkish nationalist and the Turkist public welcomed this event, the publications of the centreright/centre-left viewed the event from different perspectives. When these evaluations are applied, it will be realized that the determinations are of an interesting nature in the context of time and ground.

Alparslan Turkes who was one of the most important names of Turkish political life in the Republican Era was a closely monitored actor not only in Turkey but also on a global level because of his significance. During his 37 years of active political life, the United States was one of the states that closely monitored Turkes. In this study, it will be tried to put forward what the US perspective was about Alparslan Turkes and the Nationalist Movement Party led by him. In this context, reports of both the CIA and the US diplomatic missions in Turkey will underlie this research. 32 documents covering the period between 1960-1984 reveal a historical truth blatantly obvious. Because academic and media circles in knowledge production and dissemination in Turkey were long hegemonized by the adversaries of Turkish nationalism, a perception that Turkes was an actor trained and directed by the US in the Cold War period has been tired to be created. The extent to which this effort to create perceptions is not based on any concrete information or document is evident through the documents we have discussed in this study. These documents indicate that MHP and Turkes were noted by the US as the most important actors that threatened American interests in Turkey. Turkes was the most cautious and distant actor among the Turkish politicians and this was clearly observed and documented by the Americans.

The Turks are one of the oldest and most established civilizations starting from Central Asia to the present day and have a state philosophy in which the state is defined as a sacred being. Their geography, steppe culture, religious beliefs and nomadic lifestyles have led them to live in different parts of the World and the establishment of many states in their regions. Under the influence of political culture and state tradition, the idea of dominating the world and maintaining the unshakable order established by God on the earth led the Turks to the idea of dominating the world. Under the influence of political culture and state tradition, the idea of dominating the world and maintaining the unshakable order established by God on the earth led the Turks to the idea of dominating the world. In this context, the study is explained by explaining the concept of state in Turks. Then, how the state was defined in the old Turks and what features were loaded on the state were tried to be explained based on Orkhon Inscriptions. The idea of sacred state in Turks, geography, nomadic life, steppe culture and other elements of political culture have been tried to be defined. This is because the political culture in the Turks has led to the idea that the continuity of the state should be ensured and the independence of the nation in the steppe geography is connected to the idea of the existence of the state. The basic assumption of the study is that being a state in the Turks is also a projection of identity. In this respect, the relationship between statehood and national identity consciousness and the function of “state asinda concept in the formation of Turkish identity have been the subject of this study. This point constitutes the methodological framework of the study, the historical comparative literature method.