Mustafa Kemal Ataturk ( want opinion from Turkish posters)

[jazzyapma]

For the record, I'm actually generally very pro-Ataturk because it is largely his foundational ideas that make Turkey an entirely unique country in the world. My point about Armenians was merely because, whether the OP realized this or not, starting a thread asking for Turkish opinions about Ataturk is basically like walking into the Vatican and asking for opinions about Jesus.

Turkiye isn't the same country which was 20 years ago. It's been drastically changed during last 12 years of AKP government. Atatürk is not untouchable now. At least %20 would be against Atatürk's ideas and support neo-ottoman and pan-islamist way. After decades of confinement governments ruling under the ideas of Atatürk, radical islamists broke free.

 

[The Blue Elephant]

Well let's be clear here, you live in a country that actually has a law prohibiting any insult to the memory of Ataturk, going so far as to ban books that are critical of Ataturk or discuss any controversial issue related to him. I understand that I am not Turkish but I don't believe Turkey is really impartial about his role in the Armenian genocide.

I don't believe he ordered the genocide, or even that he necessarily knew about the day to day of it, but Armenians do have a decent argument that he tolerated it and certainly emphasized atrocities against Turks and downplayed atrocities committed by Turks. I know I've read Armenian texts that assert that this is the root of present Turkish denial that the genocide ever happened.

In Norway slingshots are illegal, in Germany denying the holocaust is illegal, these are just two I know on top of my head there are many European countries that have restrictions on rights.

 

[ema]

Well let's be clear here, you live in a country that actually has a law prohibiting any insult to the memory of Ataturk, going so far as to ban books that are critical of Ataturk or discuss any controversial issue related to him. I understand that I am not Turkish but I don't believe Turkey is really impartial about his role in the Armenian genocide.

I don't believe he ordered the genocide, or even that he necessarily knew about the day to day of it, but Armenians do have a decent argument that he tolerated it and certainly emphasized atrocities against Turks and downplayed atrocities committed by Turks. I know I've read Armenian texts that assert that this is the root of present Turkish denial that the genocide ever happened.

Since the thread is not about Armenian genocide claims, I'll pass this argument. I could only say that it's not a subject you can solve with the claims or the denials of each sides. Hell, even, "the history science" is hardly a science when it comes to all this kind of highly political issues that full of nationalistic feelings in a religiously polarized world conjuncture. In my opinion, a real honest person, a historian or not, would get lost in all the claims and arguments of both sides before even being close to a healthy judgement about whether Turks did a genocide or not. Because it's not The Holocaust, it's certainly not clear. But people will just believe what they want to believe, like pro-PKK Kurds believe it in a heartbeat and Azeris reject it strongly.

Well let's be clear here, you live in a country that actually has a law prohibiting any insult to the memory of Ataturk, going so far as to ban books that are critical of Ataturk or discuss any controversial issue related to him.

Yes, there are stupid laws like those. But it's not the reality. I'll continue below.

For the record, I'm actually generally very pro-Ataturk because it is largely his foundational ideas that make Turkey an entirely unique country in the world. My point about Armenians was merely because, whether the OP realized this or not, starting a thread asking for Turkish opinions about Ataturk is basically like walking into the Vatican and asking for opinions about Jesus.

You would see with your own eyes that this statement is not true if only a very important part of Turkish people that are anti-Atatürk were also basketball fans like the Turkish posters here. Because then you would see how there is a strong and extensive hate for Atatürk amongst the Turks. But unfortunately I don't know many people that are both anti-Atatürk and NBA fans(let alone Jazz fans). So you won't see them here. Jazzyapma mentioned them as at least 20% but I'd say they are at least 35-40% percent if you don't think solely on Islamists.

For the ridiculous Atatürk laws, as a matter of fact, I was gonna mention those kind of stupid things if I had the time in my first post. First of all, you really can't understand Turkish state of mind and the political/governmental silliness of us without being a Turk or at least living in Turkey for a decent time. Even though those kind of laws are(we have even have laws about compulsory fedora wearing) like weird American laws in some states and are only on the paper for the most part, we also had far more serious and damaging laws than those, like banning Turban wearing, just for the sake of Kemalism and the fear of Sharia. So, think about what would millions of women and their relatives think about Atatürk and his followers that banned their freedoms of religion.

I'm not a Kemalist, not even a pro-Atatürk as much as you are, I'm certainly not a pro-Sharia, I'm not a Sunni/Alevi/Shia, but I'm just a regular person with mixed beliefs and opinions in a unique/weird country which is a system/equation with extremely many unknowns, so much so that, you cannot get a clear picture of it even when you want to think in terms of the just major political dispositions. Kemalism and Sheria may seem like the end points for the outsiders in this giant abstract mess but in fact it's not even close. Even pro-Hezbollahs or pro-Al-Qaedas and Pastafarians would show up and say hello.

Anyway, so you can believe me when I say, it's not the same to ask us(or at least me) about Atatürk and to ask Vatican people about Jesus. Actually every Turk in his/her life has to get through countless arguments and controversial theories about Atatürk, starting from the first school to the every corner of the daily life. I know I have experienced it and I know I still do it.

 

[addictionary]

Well let's be clear here, you live in a country that actually has a law prohibiting any insult to the memory of Ataturk, going so far as to ban books that are critical of Ataturk or discuss any controversial issue related to him. I understand that I am not Turkish but I don't believe Turkey is really impartial about his role in the Armenian genocide.

It is as jazzyapma said. But we always had strong reasons for it. You see, Atatürk has always been the symbol of the Turkish modernizing revolution, and therefore, he also has always been the target of the communities and even state enemies that were against the revolution's earnings or somehow try to corrupt society and see taking Atatürk image from them as a way to it. Maybe it's not radical Islamism as we know today, but the reactionists against Turkish Rev. have always been here and powerful as a threat to the process since the Rep.o.Turkey has been found. The radical Islamists formed political parties before too, like since 1970's. But the supreme court banned them for their actions against laicism, regime etc. AKP, the ruling party today, came to power by promising the communities that supposedly suffer from government acts in the history and of course the Kurds as an ethnic people with serious numbers and the conservative background to gain favor of easily for those religion traders (a raw translation to a term we use to describe the politicians in here that exploit people's conscience and weakness against religious rules and ideals. So anyway, these guys are major freedom killers of their senses on the life-sight, but they can act democratically to reach their goals. That is exactly what Erdoğan said when he was a small fish in the lake, trying hard to gain more support and popularity: "Democracy cannot be the goal. It can only be a tool." Meaning the conservatives should use democracy to gain other communities' support and flush them down the toilet when the power is gained and they are a toilet paper stuck under the shoe. They do not respect human rights. They don't have moral codes that support freedom and democracy. They can easily digest the idea of an old pervert raping and leaving pregnant a 9 year old little girl and simply walk away with it. They (a minister) can easily digest the idea of giving some change to a cancer patient that seeks for help to let her f-off. Etc.... etc...

I don't believe he ordered the genocide, or even that he necessarily knew about the day to day of it, but Armenians do have a decent argument that he tolerated it and certainly emphasized atrocities against Turks and downplayed atrocities committed by Turks. I know I've read Armenian texts that assert that this is the root of present Turkish denial that the genocide ever happened.

For the record, I'm actually generally very pro-Ataturk because it is largely his foundational ideas that make Turkey an entirely unique country in the world. My point about Armenians was merely because, whether the OP realized this or not, starting a thread asking for Turkish opinions about Ataturk is basically like walking into the Vatican and asking for opinions about Jesus.

Atatürk as far as I know was fighting against English troops and ANZAC (Australian and New Zealand Army Corps)in Gallipoli during WWI. He only stated that the new state has no bonds with the old one and therefore wasn't responsible for the genocide. I am not an expert of the issue but this whole hate of Armenian generations against Atatürk is pure ignorance and it is basically because the Armenian government and educational system teaches their kids to hate the symbolic leader of the country that those terrible events happened in 1915.

 

[ema]

It is as jazzyapma said. But we always had strong reasons for it. You see, Atatürk has always been the symbol of the Turkish modernizing revolution, and therefore, he also has always been the target of the communities and even state enemies that were against the revolution's earnings or somehow try to corrupt society and see taking Atatürk image from them as a way to it.

Those laws have fulfilled their time and functions long time ago, they are as much stupid as the laws that now AKP trying to bring, such as punishing insulting Islamic values.

 

[ema]

In Norway slingshots are illegal, in Germany denying the holocaust is illegal, these are just two I know on top of my head there are many European countries that have restrictions on rights.

Sarkozy is trying to pass a legislation for years to punish those who publicly deny Armenian genocide claims.

And there was a hilarious Minaret referendum in Switzerland. I have a Jon Stewart video about it, I'll post if I can find it.

 

[LogGrad98]

Is there a decent, relatively fair and balanced biography on Ataturk? I would be interested in reading more than wikipedia.

 

[ema]

Is there a decent, relatively fair and balanced biography on Ataturk? I would be interested in reading more than wikipedia.

Hmm, I've never read a biography of him that written by a foreign writer. But a quick research reveals that the two most read biographies are Andrew Mango's and Patrick Kinross'.

https://www.amazon.com/Ataturk-Biography-founder-Modern-Turkey/dp/158567334X/ref=zg_bs_917084_3

https://www.amazon.com/Ataturk-Biography-Mustafa-Father-Modern/dp/0688112838/ref=zg_bs_917084_2

 

[jazzyapma]

Hmm, I've never read a biography of him that written by a foreign writer. But a quick research reveals that the two most read biographies are Andrew Mango's and Patrick Kinross'.

https://www.amazon.com/Ataturk-Biography-founder-Modern-Turkey/dp/158567334X/ref=zg_bs_917084_3

https://www.amazon.com/Ataturk-Biography-Mustafa-Father-Modern/dp/0688112838/ref=zg_bs_917084_2

IMHO Lord Kinross' biography is one of the best objective ones. He was assigned by the British government to write that book.

 

[ema]

IMHO Lord Kinross' biography is one of the best objective ones. He was assigned by the British government to write that book.

Nice info, I didn't know that.

And there was a hilarious Minaret referendum in Switzerland. I have a Jon Stewart video about it, I'll post if I can find it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RfuVj9az9JE&

 

[berkkobe]

Now lets go ask an Armenian about Ataturk.

There is no relation between Armenian Genocide which is fake and Ataturk. It's up to Ottoman Empire where Ataturk was only a soldier.

 

[CitizenofCapua]

I lost my post when i click "go advanced" button. LOL

OK i found it!;

I want to talk about more on why Armenians and Greeks are hating on Ataturk;

Before Ataturk formed the Turkish Republic most of the western was comprising of nation states. It started with French revolution and then throughout the years many country transferred into nation states and when Ataturk formed the Turkish Republic it was the best model they can take for the new regime.

Ottoman Empire was a transcontinental empire that has a multinational structure with many interchanges between the ethnical groups throughout the decades. But they were holding together that nonhomogenous structure together with being a great power in the world especially at 15th-17th century. When they started to lose power the revolts started against Ottoman Empire with the motivation of nationalism. First Serbians then Greeks then Bulgarians etc. Anyways, to be hold on to their territories in Balkans and Caucasia and to break that nationalist wind, they gave many privilages to non-muslims minorities so they were happy with their life. By the way thats how they were classifying people in Ottoman; with their religion not with their ethnical group. There were muslims and non-muslims.

Anyways, when Ataturk decided to form a country that has a Turkish identity like the other examples in the Europe, Armenians and Greek minority didnt like the idea of being a sub-identity in this new structure. Armenians was also carrying the goal to have their own nation state and decades ago Anatolia was an Orthodox region at Byzantine Empire era and before. Even today you can see many signs of Orthodox culture in Turkey. Most obvious example is their Patriarchate (its like Vatican for them) is in Istanbul and they have a Patriarch (its like their pope) named I. Bartholomeos and he is a very cool person. So in a nutshell, Istanbul and other provinces in Anatolia was very important places for them and orthodox groups like Greeks and Armenians were seeing Turks as occupents.

I want to keep it short but its a damn long story and there is nothing i can do about it...

To be continued...

 

[CitizenofCapua]

Continuing..

After WW1, the winner countries (alliances) that have colonial empires like England and France within, had already shared whole Middle East with rule and pysical boundaries between them and it was a well known fact that whole ME is/was a treasure house for oil like today.

They created artifical countries like Syria, Iraq without taking their demografical structure into account that they believe will cooperate with them during the colonization process. But groundwork was weak of that structures and even today we can see how fragile they are. They are very open to sectarian and ethnical violence.

With this same divide and rule mentality colonial empires wanted to capitilize the post war condition of Turkey. They encouraged Armenians at the East to fight against Turks with promise of having their own nation state and Greece at East to widen their lands through that once Orthodox lands. Google "megali idea(great idea)", it means; the idea of uniting whole lands that once Greek and Orthodox in the history, under the flag of Greece again. Alliances (England, France, Italy), Greece and Armenians had already shared Anatolian provinces with written agreements between themselves. Then just 1 year after WW I the Independence or salvation War for Turks has started; Turks fought against Greeks at western front, fought against Armenians at eastern front and against France at southern front.

I'll keep it short.. Turkey won that war that lead by Ataturk and that lead to the foundation of new modern Turkey. So thats why Turks seeing him as a savior, seeing him as an anti-imperialist figure and respecting him like French people respecting De Gaulle. And for the same reason, Armenians and Greeks hating him. Also wars especially after 19th century has never been kind to civilians. Unfortunately there is not an contrary example of this. Tell me if you know one..

 

[addictionary]

I lost my post when i click "go advanced" button. LOL

OK i found it!;

I want to talk about more on why Armenians and Greeks are hating on Ataturk;

Before Ataturk formed the Turkish Republic most of the western was comprising of nation states. It started with French revolution and then throughout the years many country transferred into nation states and when Ataturk formed the Turkish Republic it was the best model they can take for the new regime.

Ottoman Empire was a transcontinental empire that has a multinational structure with many interchanges between the ethnical groups throughout the decades. But they were holding together that nonhomogenous structure together with being a great power in the world especially at 15th-17th century. When they started to lose power the revolts started against Ottoman Empire with the motivation of nationalism. First Serbians then Greeks then Bulgarians etc. Anyways, to be hold on to their territories in Balkans and Caucasia and to break that nationalist wind, they gave many privilages to non-muslims minorities so they were happy with their life. By the way thats how they were classifying people in Ottoman; with their religion not with their ethnical group. There were muslims and non-muslims.

Anyways, when Ataturk decided to form a country that has a Turkish identity like the other examples in the Europe, Armenians and Greek minority didnt like the idea of being a sub-identity in this new structure. Armenians was also carrying the goal to have their own nation state and decades ago Anatolia was an Orthodox region at Byzantine Empire era and before. Even today you can see many signs of Orthodox culture in Turkey. Most obvious example is their Patriarchate (its like Vatican for them) is in Istanbul and they have a Patriarch (its like their pope) named I. Bartholomeos and he is a very cool person. So in a nutshell, Istanbul and other provinces in Anatolia was very important places for them and orthodox groups like Greeks and Armenians were seeing Turks as occupents.

I want to keep it short but its a damn long story and there is nothing i can do about it...

To be continued...

Continuing..

After WW1, the winner countries (alliances) that have colonial empires like England and France within, had already shared whole Middle East with rule and pysical boundaries between them and it was a well known fact that whole ME is/was a treasure house for oil like today.

They created artifical countries like Syria, Iraq without taking their demografical structure into account that they believe will cooperate with them during the colonization process. But groundwork was weak of that structures and even today we can see how fragile they are. They are very open to sectarian and ethnical violence.

With this same divide and rule mentality colonial empires wanted to capitilize the post war condition of Turkey. They encouraged Armenians at the East to fight against Turks with promise of having their own nation state and Greece at East to widen their lands through that once Orthodox lands. Google "megali idea(great idea)", it means; the idea of uniting whole lands that once Greek and Orthodox in the history, under the flag of Greece again. Alliances (England, France, Italy), Greece and Armenians had already shared Anatolian provinces with written agreements between themselves. Then just 1 year after WW I the Independence or salvation War for Turks has started; Turks fought against Greeks at western front, fought against Armenians at eastern front and against France at southern front.

I'll keep it short.. Turkey won that war that lead by Ataturk and that lead to the foundation of new modern Turkey. So thats why Turks seeing him as a savior, seeing him as an anti-imperialist figure and respecting him like French people respecting De Gaulle. And for the same reason, Armenians and Greeks hating him. Also wars especially after 19th century has never been kind to civilians. Unfortunately there is not an contrary example of this. Tell me if you know one..

This sounds like the so called genocide or the killings and forced migration happened also after 1919 which is the year Turkish war started. After that, the Kuvayı Milliye forces started gathering following the 3 major conferences that gathered the Anatolian forces together. As far as I know, the genocide that the Armenians are talking about happened in 1915 and Atatürk or Mustafa Kemal in those years had nothing to do with it. But he stood against paying any compensation for the acts the Ottoman Empire did on them in 1915, since the Anatolian forces also fought the puppet Ottoman Empire Dynasty that aided the invaders. His whole "bad" guy situation is rejecting the responsibility for the events is what I know.

 

[CitizenofCapua]

This sounds like the so called genocide or the killings and forced migration happened also after 1919 which is the year Turkish war started. After that, the Kuvayı Milliye forces started gathering following the 3 major conferences that gathered the Anatolian forces together. As far as I know, the genocide that the Armenians are talking about happened in 1915 and Atatürk or Mustafa Kemal in those years had nothing to do with it. But he stood against paying any compensation for the acts the Ottoman Empire did on them in 1915, since the Anatolian forces also fought the puppet Ottoman Empire Dynasty that aided the invaders. His whole "bad" guy situation is rejecting the responsibility for the events is what I know.

What happened in 1915 is whole another story and Ataturk got nothing to do with it. Some uninformed Armenians doing that mistake. I tried to explain why other Armenians with some knowledge hating on Ataturk. Ataturk was like an obstacle for their main goal, which was having a nation state that includes Eastern Anatolia provinces within their borders. With the support of powerful imperialist countries and current condition of Turkey that day, they found a great opportunity to accomplish that goal. But they couldnt able to do it and Ataturk was the figure/symbol of not being able to make that dream come true, cause he was the man on the fore at Turkish Independence War so thats why they're hating him.

P.S. To put it mildly, Ataturk was a pragmatist man for his nation and the guys from other nations like Armenia and Greece didnt like his this speciality. If it wasnt for him they would be in a better position than they do right now and Turkey would be in a way worse position for sure.

 

[addictionary]

What happened in 1915 is whole another story and Ataturk got nothing to do with it. Some uninformed Armenians doing that mistake. I tried to explain why other Armenians with some knowledge hating on Ataturk. Ataturk was like an obstacle for their main goal, which was having a nation state that includes Eastern Anatolia provinces within their borders. With the support of powerful imperialist countries and current condition of Turkey that day, they found a great opportunity to accomplish that goal. But they couldnt able to do it and Ataturk was the figure/symbol of not being able to make that dream come true, cause he was the man on the fore at Turkish Independence War so thats why they're hating him.

P.S. To put it mildly, Ataturk was a pragmatist man for his nation and the guys from other nations like Armenia and Greece didnt like his this speciality. If it wasnt for him they would be in a better position than they do right now and Turkey would be in a way worse position for sure.

Made it clear like a boss.

 

[LogGrad98]

IMHO Lord Kinross' biography is one of the best objective ones. He was assigned by the British government to write that book.

Thanks, kindling it now.