Greatest statesman, general, politican of the 20th century, and a man I deeply admire. Anyone recommend a good biography? Everytime I read about him I am amazed at his prescience and thinking.
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
I haven't read it, but Lord Kindross wrote one. I read his history of the Ottoman Empire and it was quite good, and I've heard that his Ataturk biography is quite good as well. I've been meaning to read it myself, actually.
Didn't realise you were Turkish.. im sure there would be "you" but the girls would be far less pretty :-(
(I love Turkish women)
(I love Turkish women)
If there wasn't an Ataturk (and the whole organization of course)
there would be ''us'' probably, but we would be either of the following:
- a slave of the ottoman sultan
- a slave to a european imperialist power
- a slave to a fundamentalist/theocratic state.
I won't say we're the greatest democracy but nevertheless Ataturk et al. established the foundations of a modern country.
A small example is, in 1923 only %8 of the country was literate but today its over %90 of the population. Education is only one of the many reforms of the Turkish revolution.
Although his wave of reforms have made a powerful Turkey, sadly, this also caused both the western powers and the majority of islamic countries to turn against us. Because they never wanted an educated, strong, industrialized, democratic Turkey who can act on her own. We have no intention to stop, however, his legacy and revolution still lives in most of our people.
Iraq for one thing has to follow Attaturks example. He had to make HUGE steps in order to get some order in there ironically.
Amanullah of Afghanistan would've served to learn a lesson about gradually introducing democracy, it left him deposed :-/
Amanullah of Afghanistan would've served to learn a lesson about gradually introducing democracy, it left him deposed :-/
Yes, although Ataturk's aim was to establish a modern democracy, I cannot say all the means of his goverment were so democratic for that matter. Some of the leaders of fundamentalists were executed for example, and many things were banned, such as prayers in arabic. (note- most of these bans and death penalty were removed in time).
For Iraq, you probably cannot make so harsh laws in the ''atmosphere'' of the 21st century world, (Ataturk's time was back in 1920's-30's afterall). However the new Iraq will have the advantage of being supported by many western powers (which is something Turkey never had), therefore if they can use this to their advantage, and utilize reforms similar to Ataturk's, I hope we can see another ''civilized'' middle eastern country, although it will take some time (my opinion-30 years at least).
Last edited:
I hate to say it, but I think Attaturk is not necessarily a good man. He was a great man, and a highly influential one, but as a founder of a country....
"Who today remembers the Armenians?"- Not a quote from Attaturk, but from what happened when he was in charge.
I am sorry but you are totally wrong, not only he was not in charge of anything at that time, even the turkish republic was not founded. If you are talking about 1915, Ataturk was an officer in Gallipoli fighting english/french and anzac forces (ANY history book will acknowledge this).
On the contrary, Ataturk had a number of speeches condemning the ottoman goverments policy on armenians. Are you sure you are not confusing Ataturk with enver pasha?
If you insist, however, I will have to consider this as just another ugly plot to degrade the turkish revolution and taint his name. Imperialist west is really pissed off not to have been able to beat a ''lower'' nation, i guess. Doesn't matter... we don't need anything from you, we learned to survive on our own.
Though i think this is a very interesting discussion, given your statement there is not a great point in exchanging information, for you seem to be totally convinced on the correct analysis and eager to resort to "ugly plots" if contradicted.
sorry Yunus, but i find all this nationalistic fervor pretty discusting.
it reminds me some Polish threads in this site. too many patriots in this world.
"Imagine there's no country's, it isn't hard to do. Nothing to kill and die for, and no religion too". J.Lennon.
But in this case what he says is moderately well documented.
The Ottoman State was responsible for the Armenian Genocide. Attaturk, and the fledgling Turkish state were not.
That said I personally think Turkey should acknowledge the genocidal nature of the massacres, but given the current compensation climate I can understand why they do not want to possibly make themselves liable to monetary claims.
If you want to make a case versus Ataturk use the Kurds, not the Armenians 
Ataturk was a nationalist, and as such couldn't tolarate other nationlities in his nation. Doesn't change the fact that he was a great statemen, but it is his taint.
Yunus, is it true that it is the army which is defending the democracy against the parties?
Ataturk was a nationalist, and as such couldn't tolarate other nationlities in his nation. Doesn't change the fact that he was a great statemen, but it is his taint.
Yunus, is it true that it is the army which is defending the democracy against the parties?
Are you serious? Have Turkish schools omitted teaching the Treaty of Lausanne?
As for the west, I was always under the impression that Turkey considered itself part of the west. Perhaps it's time to paint a placard and demonstrate next time Turkey tries to enter the EU.
As much of a shock as this might come Yunus, great men are usually not perfect. Furthermore, in the pursuit of a greater benefit to the state, sometimes great men to terrible things.
No one person in history is one-sided; neither perfect, nor a demon. Save the nationalism for football.
While it was going on until 1923, yes, I think I was confusing Ataturk with Pasha. Sorry.
That said, I think the last part makes no sense whatsoever.
The situation in Turkey is a bit complicated.
We have the Islamic fundamentalists who are being supported by Saudi Arabia and Iran. They are organized in various forms but not necessarily illegally; they have companies, schools, political parties, industries, etc. Their activities have increased dramatically in the last 20 years, especially education. There are so many schools funded secretly by S.Arabia and Iran..god knows what they are teaching them, but you can be sure that the next generations will not be like the pro-western children of ataturk.
anyway, there are also secular and democratic forces which is supported by majority of people. You can say that turkish military is a guardian of this. This is why military is so popular in Turkey, they are not only defenders of borders, they also guarantee that our social life will not be moved back to darkness of middle ages by islamic fundies.
This is also the reason why EU wants to disempower Turkish military, so that we will crumble with all the fundies, terrorists, hostile nations around us.
I should say that I have simplified the overall situation but basically this is the situation.
Sounds familar, those SA and Iranian are trying to do the same here. While I doubt they will succed in they mission to pervert the society they are a problem.
What about the Kurds? Are they allowed-forced to serve in the army?
Also, this is the problem with strong militaries, what mechanism are there to prevent the army from doing things they shouldn't?
Power corrupts... you know the rest.
What about the Kurds? Are they allowed-forced to serve in the army?
Also, this is the problem with strong militaries, what mechanism are there to prevent the army from doing things they shouldn't?
Power corrupts... you know the rest.
Two very interesting and important questions in understanding the situation, I think. It will take a long post but I will try to explain things probably not very much known.
According to laws of Turkish republic, every male at age 20+ must serve at military for 18 months as recruits (if you are graduate of university 9 months or 16 months as an officer). This is also valid for Kurds. They serve under same conditions with Turks, Circassians, Lazs, Georgians, and others. Basically there is no discrimination for that matter.
As you know there had been a Kurdish seperation movement starting from 1980's in Turkey. This movement has not been successful although there is a significant Kurdish population in Turkey. The reasons for failure are very interesting, and are not limited to their fight with army.
Basically, there is the fact that many kurdish factions in the region has interests within Turkey's current equilibrium. A seperation was not a desirable outcome for many of them. First, PKK/KADEK (kurdish seperatist movement) was a marxist organization, thus many kurds (who are mostly a conservative community) was not pleased with their ideology. Secondly, many kurdish landlords (namely 'aga') enjoy a good deal of privileges in rural areas and they are also leaders of their clans; they represent and rule thousands. PKK made the mistake of threatining and/or targeting many of these landlords in order to increase their power. Furthermore, acts of terrorism and violence by PKK also caused the reaction of many kurds both in cities and rural areas. Thus, in the end many Kurdish factions started to fight against the seperation movement! ('Korucu' organization is an example of Kurds fighting against PKK). I know this may sound strange, but it is an interesting reality. This combined with the activities of army led to the failure of PKK. Today, there are 3-4,000 members left who fled to N.Iraq.
As I explained in my previous post, the fundamentalist movement supported by Iran and S.Arabia is heavily opposed by Turkish military. Thus, this organization is the major target of fundies. They have been trying to infiltrate the ranks of army for many years. The response is, any personnel that inflicts a suspicion of any ties with religious organizations is immediately expelled; It is normal in Turkey to see 50-60 officers expelled every year for ''disciplinary'' reasons. The fundamentalist parties have been trying to change these laws within the parliament, but this is opposed by social-democrat and kemalist parties as well as the military itself.
I would like to mention the complex social and ethnic structure of Turkey which comes into play at this point. I would estimate that around %30 of population are descendants of what is called ''outer-Turks''. These are mostly Turks and other communities from europe that fled to Anatolia with the collapse of Ottoman empire starting from 1800's (Balkan turks, criman tatars, albanians, bosnians, etc.). There is also circassians expelled from russia which make around %5 of population. These communities are to a great extent secular and anti-fundamentalist in their socio-cultural expressions. There are also many communities within Anatolia with similar understanding (Alevi turks, etc.).
Now, the design of Ataturk was such that the higher ranks of army was organized mostly by these people, although it is open to all. Thus, even today the great deal of generals of the army have a strong secular understanding although ethnicities don't play a role any more, rather they are loyal to kemalism (principles of Ataturk) and/or secular in their nature.
I don't want to go into more detail because it has already been a very long post, I fear I may be boring. Anyway, although military is effective and posses a good deal of power, the design and equilibrium of the system prevents the possibility of big time corruption and the infiltration by fundamentalists.
According to laws of Turkish republic, every male at age 20+ must serve at military for 18 months as recruits (if you are graduate of university 9 months or 16 months as an officer). This is also valid for Kurds. They serve under same conditions with Turks, Circassians, Lazs, Georgians, and others. Basically there is no discrimination for that matter.
As you know there had been a Kurdish seperation movement starting from 1980's in Turkey. This movement has not been successful although there is a significant Kurdish population in Turkey. The reasons for failure are very interesting, and are not limited to their fight with army.
Basically, there is the fact that many kurdish factions in the region has interests within Turkey's current equilibrium. A seperation was not a desirable outcome for many of them. First, PKK/KADEK (kurdish seperatist movement) was a marxist organization, thus many kurds (who are mostly a conservative community) was not pleased with their ideology. Secondly, many kurdish landlords (namely 'aga') enjoy a good deal of privileges in rural areas and they are also leaders of their clans; they represent and rule thousands. PKK made the mistake of threatining and/or targeting many of these landlords in order to increase their power. Furthermore, acts of terrorism and violence by PKK also caused the reaction of many kurds both in cities and rural areas. Thus, in the end many Kurdish factions started to fight against the seperation movement! ('Korucu' organization is an example of Kurds fighting against PKK). I know this may sound strange, but it is an interesting reality. This combined with the activities of army led to the failure of PKK. Today, there are 3-4,000 members left who fled to N.Iraq.
I will try to explain this with regard to struggle against fundamentalism, but if you mean corruption in other senses I do not have so much knowledge only that they are subject to laws like any other state organizations.
As I explained in my previous post, the fundamentalist movement supported by Iran and S.Arabia is heavily opposed by Turkish military. Thus, this organization is the major target of fundies. They have been trying to infiltrate the ranks of army for many years. The response is, any personnel that inflicts a suspicion of any ties with religious organizations is immediately expelled; It is normal in Turkey to see 50-60 officers expelled every year for ''disciplinary'' reasons. The fundamentalist parties have been trying to change these laws within the parliament, but this is opposed by social-democrat and kemalist parties as well as the military itself.
I would like to mention the complex social and ethnic structure of Turkey which comes into play at this point. I would estimate that around %30 of population are descendants of what is called ''outer-Turks''. These are mostly Turks and other communities from europe that fled to Anatolia with the collapse of Ottoman empire starting from 1800's (Balkan turks, criman tatars, albanians, bosnians, etc.). There is also circassians expelled from russia which make around %5 of population. These communities are to a great extent secular and anti-fundamentalist in their socio-cultural expressions. There are also many communities within Anatolia with similar understanding (Alevi turks, etc.).
Now, the design of Ataturk was such that the higher ranks of army was organized mostly by these people, although it is open to all. Thus, even today the great deal of generals of the army have a strong secular understanding although ethnicities don't play a role any more, rather they are loyal to kemalism (principles of Ataturk) and/or secular in their nature.
I don't want to go into more detail because it has already been a very long post, I fear I may be boring. Anyway, although military is effective and posses a good deal of power, the design and equilibrium of the system prevents the possibility of big time corruption and the infiltration by fundamentalists.
Last edited: