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.
Mustafa Kemal Ataturk ( want opinion from Turkish posters)
- Thread starter MVP
- Start date
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.
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.
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
Well-Known Member
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.
Nice info, I didn't know that.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RfuVj9az9JE&
berkkobe
Well-Known Member
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
Well-Known Member
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...
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...
Last edited:
CitizenofCapua
Well-Known Member
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..
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..
Last edited:
addictionary
Well-Known Member
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
Well-Known Member
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.
Last edited:
addictionary
Well-Known Member
Made it clear like a boss.