What Do You Think About Ataturk?

[yns_mr]

i wanna know your oppinnion about Ataturk.

[Janus]

Well, he helped to liberate his nation from the imperialists so that's one major achievement and the state that he created is a bit better than some of the other Muslim dominated nations out there. But that's as far as he went, in my opinion.

[ComradeOm]

A smart man and progressive member of the bourgeoisie. Not much more to say.

[Enragé]

oppressive tyrant who at all costs wanted to emulate the west to be able to "modernize".

[bayano]

what? arent there any armenians on this board? the armenian genocide continued after the young turks and when ataturk took the stage. an interesting figure, but a scumbag nonetheless

[bcbm]

Helped removes the imperialists and develop the modern Turkish state with a commitment to secularism, but was also responsible for atrocities against the Armenians and Greeks within Turkey, and was something of an authoritarian prick with a personality cult.

[Led Zeppelin]

What on earth are you people talking about? How did he "help to remove the imperialists"? What imperialists?

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2006, 08:27 AM
What on earth are you people talking about? How did he "help to remove the imperialists"? What imperialists?
Well there's the Greeks, French and Italians that he kicked out of the country. Plus removing the influence of the Entente powers of course.

[bcbm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2006, 02:27 AM
What on earth are you people talking about? How did he "help to remove the imperialists"? What imperialists?
Turkey was occupied by the Allied powers after the first world war and Ataturk was part of the Turkish war of independence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_War_of_Independence

[Led Zeppelin]

From the link:


Usually the events are referred to as a series of wars such as the Greco-Turkish War and the Turkish-Armenian War. In fact Turkish independence was never really under threat, as the Treaty of Sevres called for a truncated Turkish state to be established. Instead the wars were fought to acquire territory inhabited by an ethnically mixed populace for the new Turkish Republic from Greece, as well as Armenia and Kurdistan which did not last as independent states as the Sevres Treaty stipulated due to Turkish military action.
Italics added

He didn't "get rid of the imperialists", he was an imperialist himself.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

From a communist perspective, he was a bourgeois revolutionary..

[bcbm]

Originally posted by Marxism-[email protected] 29 2006, 01:01 AM
From the link:


Usually the events are referred to as a series of wars such as the Greco-Turkish War and the Turkish-Armenian War. In fact Turkish independence was never really under threat, as the Treaty of Sevres called for a truncated Turkish state to be established. Instead the wars were fought to acquire territory inhabited by an ethnically mixed populace for the new Turkish Republic from Greece, as well as Armenia and Kurdistan which did not last as independent states as the Sevres Treaty stipulated due to Turkish military action.
Italics added

He didn't "get rid of the imperialists", he was an imperialist himself.
I'd say he was both, as he fought to remove foreign forces occupying the land as well as stealing other land. Nobody is saying he was great or perfect, although he was certainly a step-up from the Ottomans in some areas. Whether an independent or truncated Turkish state would've been better is up for debate.

And if Ataturk was an imperialist, what does that make Lenin?


The Kemalist Turks enjoyed significant Soviet support, as both countries collaborated to destroy the fledgling Armenian Republic.

[Free Left]

I'd say he was both, as he fought to remove foreign forces occupying the land as well as stealing other land.

Where and when did he steal other land? He was a unique Turkish leader because he did not want more land, he was glad when the Ottoman empire was dismantled.

[bcbm]

Originally posted by Free [email protected] 29 2006, 05:29 AM

I'd say he was both, as he fought to remove foreign forces occupying the land as well as stealing other land.

Where and when did he steal other land? He was a unique Turkish leader because he did not want more land, he was glad when the Ottoman empire was dismantled.
Read ze quoted text in ze post above mine. Actually... its in my post.

[RedJacobin]

Ibrahim Kaypakkaya, the Turkish Maoist leader who died under torture, said that Ataturk represented the comprador bourgeoisie and landlords, and therefore wasn't a progressive bourgeois revolutionary. Furthermore, Kaypakkaya said that Ataturk's ideology was fascist (in his attacks on workers) and racist (in his policy towards the Kurds and other national minorities).

Apparently, this was a big break with the rest of the Turkish left that continued to see him as a progressive figure.

[Led Zeppelin]

Originally posted by black banner black gun+Jul 29 2006, 11:24 AM--> (black banner black gun @ Jul 29 2006, 11:24 AM) And if Ataturk was an imperialist, what does that make Lenin?


The Kemalist Turks enjoyed significant Soviet support, as both countries collaborated to destroy the fledgling Armenian Republic. [/b]
Which year was this in?


fats
Ibrahim Kaypakkaya, the Turkish Maoist leader who died under torture, said that Ataturk represented the comprador bourgeoisie and landlords, and therefore wasn't a progressive bourgeois revolutionary. Furthermore, Kaypakkaya said that Ataturk's ideology was fascist (in his attacks on workers) and racist (in his policy towards the Kurds and other national minorities).


I agree with that.

[Free Left]

Ibrahim Kaypakkaya, the Turkish Maoist leader who died under torture, said that Ataturk represented the comprador bourgeoisie and landlords, and therefore wasn't a progressive bourgeois revolutionary. Furthermore, Kaypakkaya said that Ataturk's ideology was fascist (in his attacks on workers) and racist (in his policy towards the Kurds and other national minorities).

Of course he would say that about Attaturk if he died under torure by him!


He didn't "get rid of the imperialists", he was an imperialist himself.

If he was an imperialist he would have tried to gain more land in military ventures after the Greco-Turkish War.

[bcbm]

Originally posted by Marxism-Leninism+Jul 29 2006, 11:25 AM--> (Marxism-Leninism @ Jul 29 2006, 11:25 AM)
black banner black [email protected] 29 2006, 11:24 AM
And if Ataturk was an imperialist, what does that make Lenin?


The Kemalist Turks enjoyed significant Soviet support, as both countries collaborated to destroy the fledgling Armenian Republic.
Which year was this in? [/b]
Well, the Bolsheviks expressed interest in annexing the Armenians as early as 1919 in meetings with Ataturk, and it developed into military conflict in 1920.

[Leo]

Of course he would say that about Attaturk if he died under torure by him!

Kaypakkaya wasn't killed by Ataturk. Ataturk died in 1938, Kaypakkaya was killed in 1972.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by Leo [email protected] 29 2006, 06:35 PM

Of course he would say that about Attaturk if he died under torure by him!

Kaypakkaya wasn't killed by Ataturk. Ataturk died in 1938, Kaypakkaya was killed in 1972.

I was trying to think of the name the other day, but I couldn't. Anyway, who was the communist who's head was lopped off after Ataturk ordered it? It was back in the early 1920's....because I remember reading something about said communist appealing to Lenin and the Soviet Government to break their links with Ataturk, but they didn't. But for the life of me, I can't remember his name.

And shouldn't Ataturk be written like this Atatürk?

[Led Zeppelin]

Originally posted by black banner black gun+Jul 29 2006, 06:27 PM--> (black banner black gun @ Jul 29 2006, 06:27 PM) Well, the Bolsheviks expressed interest in annexing the Armenians as early as 1919 in meetings with Ataturk, and it developed into military conflict in 1920. [/b]

The difference is that the USSR was socialist while Turkey was semi-capitalist (or feudal).


Free Left
If he was an imperialist he would have tried to gain more land in military ventures after the Greco-Turkish War.

That isn't the definition of an imperialist. If you take-over areas for exploitation you are an imperialist, it doesn't matter how many areas you take-over.

Given the fact that Turkey wasn't a highly developed capitalist nation it would be ignorant to say it was imperialist in the "highest stage of capitalism" sense of the term. It was feudal imperialist, like the Russian empire.

[bcbm]

Originally posted by Marxism-Leninism+Jul 30 2006, 02:49 AM--> (Marxism-Leninism @ Jul 30 2006, 02:49 AM)
black banner black [email protected] 29 2006, 06:27 PM
Well, the Bolsheviks expressed interest in annexing the Armenians as early as 1919 in meetings with Ataturk, and it developed into military conflict in 1920.

The difference is that the USSR was socialist while Turkey was semi-capitalist (or feudal). [/b]
Ohhh, so its okay to "take-over areas for exploitation" if you&#39;re a socialist, but otherwise it makes you an imperialist? <_<

[Led Zeppelin]

Ehh, no, the Soviet Union didn&#39;t exploit Armenia, they liberated the Armenian proletariat and peasantry from capitalism.

[bcbm]

Originally posted by Marxism&#045;[email protected] 30 2006, 04:27 AM
Ehh, no, the Soviet Union didn&#39;t exploit Armenia, they liberated the Armenian proletariat and peasantry from capitalism.
And negotiated away Armenian land against the wishes of the Armenians?

[Led Zeppelin]

Originally posted by black banner black gun+Jul 30 2006, 10:32 AM--> (black banner black gun &#064; Jul 30 2006, 10:32 AM)
Marxism&#045;[email protected] 30 2006, 04:27 AM
Ehh, no, the Soviet Union didn&#39;t exploit Armenia, they liberated the Armenian proletariat and peasantry from capitalism.
And negotiated away Armenian land against the wishes of the Armenians? [/b]
By "the Armenians" do you mean the Armenian feudal landlords and capitalists who constituted the state? Because I really doubt anyone conducted a poll amongst the masses in Armenia during that time.

[bcbm]

Originally posted by Marxism&#045;Leninism+Jul 30 2006, 04:36 AM--> (Marxism-Leninism @ Jul 30 2006, 04:36 AM)
Originally posted by black banner black [email protected] 30 2006, 10:32 AM

Marxism&#045;[email protected] 30 2006, 04:27 AM
Ehh, no, the Soviet Union didn&#39;t exploit Armenia, they liberated the Armenian proletariat and peasantry from capitalism.
And negotiated away Armenian land against the wishes of the Armenians?
By "the Armenians" do you mean the Armenian feudal landlords and capitalists who constituted the state? Because I really doubt anyone conducted a poll amongst the masses in Armenia during that time. [/b]
Well, considering the Armenian SSR&#39;s flag had a mountain on it that was in part of the land given away to capitalist Turkey... I&#39;d say they weren&#39;t too thrilled.

[Led Zeppelin]

I&#39;m sure the local soviet didn&#39;t disagree with the decision, if they did you probably would&#39;ve said so by now.

[Sadena Meti]

And to top it all off, Kemal Ataturk had an entire menagerie, all called Abdul&#33;

(Monty Python&#39;s Flying Circus, Episode 23, Fish Licence sketch. Happen to watch it yesterday).

[bcbm]

Originally posted by Marxism&#045;[email protected] 30 2006, 07:45 AM
I&#39;m sure the local soviet didn&#39;t disagree with the decision, if they did you probably would&#39;ve said so by now.
No, they clearly agreed, which is why they put the land that was ceded on their flag and pissed off Turkey. :rolleyes: Oh, an they never bothered to recognize the treaty and continue not to, since it gave away important areas of the Armenian homeland.


Monty Python&#39;s Flying Circus, Episode 23, Fish Licence sketch. Happen to watch it yesterday

On PBS?

[Leo]

I was trying to think of the name the other day, but I couldn&#39;t. Anyway, who was the communist who&#39;s head was lopped off after Ataturk ordered it? It was back in the early 1920&#39;s....because I remember reading something about said communist appealing to Lenin and the Soviet Government to break their links with Ataturk, but they didn&#39;t. But for the life of me, I can&#39;t remember his name.

His name is Mustafa Suphi, he is the founder of the Turkish Communist Party.


And shouldn&#39;t Ataturk be written like this Atatürk?

Yah, that&#39;s correct.

[Led Zeppelin]

Originally posted by black banner black gun+Jul 30 2006, 04:42 PM--> (black banner black gun &#064; Jul 30 2006, 04:42 PM)
Marxism&#045;[email protected] 30 2006, 07:45 AM
I&#39;m sure the local soviet didn&#39;t disagree with the decision, if they did you probably would&#39;ve said so by now.
No, they clearly agreed, which is why they put the land that was ceded on their flag and pissed off Turkey. :rolleyes: Oh, an they never bothered to recognize the treaty and continue not to, since it gave away important areas of the Armenian homeland. [/b]
Who gives a shit what they did to piss of Turkey?

And please explain how the Armenian SSR didn&#39;t recognize the treaty while the USSR did.

EDIT: This discussion has become rather pointless. It has been proven that Lenin was not an imperialist like Ataturk, which was the original discussion topic.

[bcbm]

Originally posted by Marxism&#045;[email protected] 30 2006, 10:49 AM
And please explain how the Armenian SSR didn&#39;t recognize the treaty while the USSR did.

The (Moscow-controlled) government may have, but many Armenians didn&#39;t and don&#39;t.


his discussion has become rather pointless. It has been proven that Lenin was not an imperialist like Ataturk, which was the original discussion topic.

Because he invaded and auctioned off land against a people&#39;s will in the name of socialism? :rolleyes:

[Led Zeppelin]

Originally posted by black banner black gun+Jul 30 2006, 05:00 PM--> (black banner black gun @ Jul 30 2006, 05:00 PM)
Marxism&#045;[email protected] 30 2006, 10:49 AM
And please explain how the Armenian SSR didn&#39;t recognize the treaty while the USSR did.

The (Moscow-controlled) government may have, but many Armenians didn&#39;t and don&#39;t. [/b]
Given the fact that you did not conduct an opinion poll during the time, and probably can&#39;t prove your rather absurd claim, you are wrong.

I think the majority of people in Armenia supported the decision of the Soviet Government.

[bcbm]

Originally posted by Marxism&#045;[email protected] 30 2006, 11:03 AM
Given the fact that you did not conduct an opinion poll during the time, and probably can&#39;t prove your rather absurd claim, you are wrong.
Absurd claim? Yes, the people would never disagree with the government, let alone one forced on them during an invasion&#33; Every source I&#39;ve found says exactly what I am saying: Armenia does not recognize the treaty to this day and many Armenians felt it to be a major catastrophe.

[Led Zeppelin]

Can you please post your sources for me to read?

[bcbm]

http://www.atlas-of-conflicts.com/areas/ar...treaty_kars.php (http://www.atlas-of-conflicts.com/areas/armenia-and-karabakh/treaty_kars.php)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Kars
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_SSR#...he_Soviet_Union (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_SSR#Armenia_is_absorbed_into_the_Soviet_U nion)
http://www.ourararat.com/
http://www.armeniaemb.org/DiscoverArmenia/...overArmenia.htm (http://www.armeniaemb.org/DiscoverArmenia/DiscoverArmenia.htm)
http://www.armenianheritage.com/peararat.htm

[RedKnight]

I have read that Kemal Attaturk was a homosexual.

[emma_goldman]

Is it true you can&#39;t say something against Ataturk in Turkey?

:(

[Leo]

Is it true you can&#39;t say something against Ataturk in Turkey?

Yah, it is true <_<

[emma_goldman]

Originally posted by Armchair Socialism+Jul 29 2006, 10:38 PM--> (Armchair Socialism &#064; Jul 29 2006, 10:38 PM)
Leo [email protected] 29 2006, 06:35 PM

Of course he would say that about Attaturk if he died under torure by him&#33;

Kaypakkaya wasn&#39;t killed by Ataturk. Ataturk died in 1938, Kaypakkaya was killed in 1972.

I was trying to think of the name the other day, but I couldn&#39;t. Anyway, who was the communist who&#39;s head was lopped off after Ataturk ordered it? It was back in the early 1920&#39;s....because I remember reading something about said communist appealing to Lenin and the Soviet Government to break their links with Ataturk, but they didn&#39;t. But for the life of me, I can&#39;t remember his name.

And shouldn&#39;t Ataturk be written like this Atatürk?[/b]
No surprise. Ataturk passed what was called the "Maintenance of Order Law" :lol: that allowed him to shut down any groups that said things against his government.

Communist groups were certainly targeted. :(

[emma_goldman]

Originally posted by Leo [email protected] 30 2006, 10:48 PM

Is it true you can&#39;t say something against Ataturk in Turkey?

Yah, it is true <_<
:angry:

Do you know what the punishment is?

[Leo]

Do you know what the punishment is?

Torture and imprisonment, the usual <_<

[Devrim]

Originally posted by emma_goldman+Jul 30 2006, 10:49 PM--> (emma_goldman @ Jul 30 2006, 10:49 PM)
Leo [email protected] 30 2006, 10:48 PM

Is it true you can&#39;t say something against Ataturk in Turkey?

Yah, it is true <_<
:angry:

Do you know what the punishment is? [/b]
I think that it is covered under article 301 of the new penal code, which concerns &#39;insulting Turkishness and the Turkish nation. Nobody has been succesfully prosecuted for it yet. It carries a three year minimum prison sentence.

Devrim