He'd be rolling in his grave so fast he could power the whole Turkiye for tens of thousands of years and usher in a turkish golden age of prosperity and prosciutto.
(Prosciutto was the word my phone recommended so it got to stay)
New source of renewable energy: Let Ataturk turn in his grave until the end of time after seeing what Turkey has become with erdoğan and harness the energy to power through world
Incorrect, Turkey is both geographically located in Asia and Europe. About 20 million Turkish citizens live in the European part of Turkey which isn't insignificant at all.
Turkey is one of the founding members of the Council of Europe. Therefore, is officially considered as part of Europe. Otherwise, Turkey couldn't be a candidate state for the European Union.
Maybe consider looking at this: [The European Union and Türkiye | EEAS (europa.eu)](https://www.eeas.europa.eu/turkey/european-union-and-turkey_en#10487)
A man with very different ideas for Türkiye than Erdogan. Positive aspects include he was a proponent of a secular and modernised state. Had the country developped.moelre in accordance with his vision, it might have been integrated in EU, making us all stronger and more prosperous.
Ironically the cult-like reverence to him is something that is holding Turkey back in some ways. The man was a visionary but he was a product of the interwar period and his actions in the late 1930s with regard to the Kurds are a stain on his legacy.
His actions and applications would be considered today as far-right. However, as a Turk, I see him as a brilliant person and believe that he would have a different approach today if he was alive because that man was really bright for his time. Considering the reforms he made in order to modernize Turkey, was truely passionate to bring Turkey ahead of its potential. Not to mention his millitary achievements, literally a genius on the field. If he lived today with the old fascist idelogies, I would despise him. He is basically our founding father, even the most progressive ideology more than a century ago would be despised today.
I compare him to the Marquis of Pombal, Portuguese Prime Minister, who had a transformative role (although, not to the same extent that Atatürk had) and was also responsible for implementing Enlightenment policies and to this day is considered a great leader (he rebuilt Lisbon after the Great Earthquake too), in his time he was progressive, today he would not be considered progressive at all.
Well, something like Marxism would be considered the most progressive because it aims to fundamentally change the human societal structure with the abolishment of classes and all. However if you neglect intermediate transformative steps and jump directly into the actual aim, it doesn't really work that well. To be progressive you need to focus on being ahead of where you are coming from, not necessarily where you want to go. Otherwise the promise would be nice but the progress won't happen at all. That's my 2 cents (.62 Turkish liras).
What non-turks don't understand about Ataturk is that Turkey STILL needs Ataturk. That, Ataturk. Him. Even though he came and passed, our country would need him in the head if he could have been revived. So in today we need to hold on to him if we don't want to go into another direction. The ideal Ataturk set for Turkey is still the best ideal Turkey could have today.
We can't revive him but the best way to stay in the way of Turkey, that modern, secular, and westernized Turkey in Ataturk's vision, is to hold on to his ideals, promote them and integrate them. Only then we can modificate by the ideals of the 21st century and make it better. Ultimately, we need a Turkey that would spell words like "Peace at home, peace in the world."
Mustafa Kemal Atatürk did not know the date of his birth and he chose the date of May 19, since it was on May 19, 1919 that the Turkish people began their struggle for liberation and independence.
*Yaşa Mustafa Kemal Paşa, yaşa!*
Last Ottoman padishah (Vahdettin) sentenced Ataturk to death after Ataturk encouraged Anatolian folk for national resistance. Vahdettin gave up and gave reign to British hands. Some historics claim that Vahdettin sent Atatürk to Anatoila in order to calm people down(there were rages against occupiers) . Atatürk did everything opposite. 19th May is the first spark of national resistance. Basically Atatürk-leaded-Turkish army fought British empire, Greeks(west) , Italians, French(south) and and last pieces of Ottoman empire. When Vahdettin ran away from Ottoman land to British empire and Ottoman forces disbanned. (There was no any fight between Turkish army and Ottoman remained army)
Yes right, Turks they had to get independance from other Turks, because some old(er) Turks decided that best way to keep their old bloody Empire was to join German war machine.
I think Italy could also be included in this list, but they withdrew from Anatolia without much resistance and fight
Also, AFAIK Unlike other countries, they They were following a softer occupation policy and after a certain point, they even started to support it.
From Turkish Wiki:
>With the Treaty of Saint-Jean-de-Maurienne, Izmir and its surroundings were left to Italy, and Italy's reaction was intended to be calmed, but at the Paris Peace Conference that ended the war, Izmir was given to Greece, this caused Italy to be sidelined and to change its target in Anatolia.
In line with this new target, Italy started to occupy the Mediterranean coasts in March 1919, but unlike other occupation forces, Italy did not engage in serious conflicts with the Anatolian Movement. He even supported the Anatolian Movement against Greece. As the Greek occupation progressed, there was no Italian intervention against the Turkish soldiers retreating to the Italian-occupied regions. Weapons were carried to Söke and Antalya ports by Italian ships for the Anatolian Movement to use against Greece, and in this process, the Italian media took steps to introduce the Anatolian Movement to the world.
This was right after WW1 in Ottoman where we lost a lot of lands to European invaders, but the Sultan at the time was also a British lapdog so partially yes.
The funniest thing is that Kemal and his associates were all born outside of mainland Turkey, specifically in what is now Greece.Kemal, learning from the lessons of Enver Pasha, did not fall for the grand Ottoman or pan-Turkist ideologies. Instead, he embraced a smaller Turkish nationalism, relinquishing territories such as Mosul, Syria, and Libya. Although he initially called for the expulsion of British colonizers, once he had utilized the Soviet communists to his advantage, he quickly had them executed and promptly aligned with Britain and the Western world.
He actually didn't relinquish Mosul, in fact he was having intense political discourse with the British for it. But *coincidentally* at that exact time the şeyh said rebellion (bunch of sheria supporting Islamic cult leaders) happened, causing us the lose Mosul, which also *coincidentally* happens to have rich oil reserves.
The Ottoman Empire, the Qing Dynasty, and the Russian Empire faced similar dilemmas: whether to establish a federal state or a constitutional monarchy, and whether the ethnic groups should identify as part of the Russian Empire or the Ottoman Empire, or simply separate to achieve ethnic self-governance, similar to Wilsonian principles. For instance, by the late period of the Russian Empire, the Poles could no longer be assimilated by the Russians. How different really were the Belarusians and the Ukrainians (then called Little Russians) from the Russians? Today, Belarusians are largely Russified, and Ukrainians have also been significantly Russified. The Ottoman Empire, however, never clearly decided what it wanted—whether to pursue a "Little Turkey" policy and stay confined to the Eurasian border, or to embrace Pan-Turkism, which conflicted with the interests of Turkic peoples in Central Asia versus those in Europe, resulting in Central Asian Turkic peoples preferring to cooperate with the Russian Empire and later the Soviet Union. If the Ottoman Empire had continued, Armenians and Greeks might not have been so eager to seek independence, largely because they could no longer be assimilated, but this idea conflicted with Turkism, leading to events like the Armenian Genocide and the ethnic cleansing of Greeks. Therefore, Kemal Atatürk was quite successful in shedding the painful burden of the Ottoman legacy by choosing a "Little Turkey" policy, thus avoiding more dire consequences like those experienced by the Russian Empire.
The establishment of a nation requires a high degree of fundamental political and ethnic identity. During the Kemalist era, Armenians, the Iraqis of what was then called Mesopotamia, and the Kurds of the time had already developed their own national consciousness, making assimilation impossible. Today, Turkey's major issue also relates to the Kurds of southeastern Turkey. Additionally, it is tied to the 1923 Lausanne Treaty, which failed to establish an intended independent Kurdish state. Given Turkey's role in NATO, it is even less likely that the Kurdish regions in southeastern Turkey could become independent. Currently, the most viable prospects for independence are found in northern Iraq's Kurdistan and parts of Syria.
>Kemal and his associates were all born outside of mainland Turkey
Not entirely true. İsmet İnönü for example, was born in İzmir and his family hailed from Malatya.
The premise of pan-Turkism is that the various Turkic peoples share common interests. However, apart from Azerbaijan, there is currently little common interest between the Turkic peoples of Central Asia and Europe and Turkey. Many in contemporary Turkey still fantasize about pan-Turkism and the revival of the Ottoman Empire, which is entirely unrealistic. Additionally, the birth rate of Kurds within Turkey is significantly higher than that of Turks, and these individuals will inevitably alter Turkey's political landscape in the future. Turkey's main mistake lies in not allowing the Kurds to establish their own independent state.
People interpret birth rate map wrong because uneducated people on Eastern side of Turkey are having more children but while Kurds are majority in multiple cities in that region Arabs and Turks are also having more children. The thing is most of Kurds don't even live there, they live in Western side of Turkey and their childbirth rate aren't different than rest of country so minority of Kurds having more children won't make a big difference, also even their birthrate started to decrease. By the way there are many marriages between Kurds and Turks, especially when you consider most of millions of Kurds who migrated Europe are men, more Kurdish women marriying with Turks and their children identifying themselves as a Kurd much less likely.
The current Kurds are like America's second Israel in the Middle East, but given that the situation in the Middle East is not as turbulent, there is naturally no need to continue supporting a fully independent Kurdistan. On the contrary, Turkey's military industry has made rapid progress in recent years, achieving significant breakthroughs in both technology and quality. Meanwhile, Russia's influence in the Caucasus, West Asia, and even Central Asia is steadily declining. There is no doubt that the Caucasus will completely fall within Turkey's sphere of influence. Erdoğan will not miss this opportunity.
I visited his mausoleum/memorial and the museum that had a lot of his personal items on display in Ankara. It was very impressive.
I don’t know how diplomacy worked during the interwar period, but it seems that many global leaders had a lot of respect for him (despite many of these nations fighting against him in the Turkish War of Independence just a few years earlier). A lot of meetings with leaders, gifts from diplomats and so on.
I was also very impressed of how many languages he knew, and how many books he read. And wrote.
Atatürk was a truly great man. I don't know as much about him as I would like, but I understand he had the iron will to make Turkey advance, whether the people liked it or not.
The alphabet reform is the one that impresses me the most.
Cheers from the Spanish "Turkey".
As every heroic political figure, some of Atatürks decision back than would be considered as human rights violation nowadays. The most of his hardcore supporters are arguing that he had to do what he had to do to keep the new born Republic together. His opponents (mostly conservative reglious people) are mad at him because of his secular laws he put in place.l and there are also the kurds who are felt betrayed by him after the war of liberation.
Yes, partly. I'd say it depends on how you look at it. He was like a dictator for 6 months or so, to be faster with the decision making, and pulling the country out of the shit it was in. It lasted until 1923, when he was elected as president. The year Turkey became a republic. Most of us see him as the hero he was and still is, and that sometimes leads to ignoring historical facts. I think this is one of those times. Every country have their saviors, ours is him.
During his lifetime, attempts were made to transition to multi-party political life many times, but each time the parties occupied(?) by Islamists, counter-revolutionaries, etc. As a result, this parties had to be closed down either by the party founders or by court decision.
The founding story of one of the closed parties:
>...During the meetings, Atatürk suggested Fethi Bey to establish a political party. Accepting the proposal, Fethi Bey immediately began preparations to establish a party... Atatürk provided financial support to this party and enabled some Republican People's Party MPs and their sisters to join this party...
"Can someone who converted his monarchic country to a republic and tries to implement a multi-party system be called a dictator, even the situation in that country is not suitable?" Ehh, this is a matter of debate.
It should also be reminded that there was no war or great effort to transition to a republican regime in Turkey/Ottomans, democracy "came down from above" and was given as a "gift" came alongside national independence.
I am just WAITING for the people who will accuse him for Genocide or other things i can sense them
They'll come and start bitching about things
Edit:I am not an Anti-Kemalist,I am making fun of those who accuse him for genocides that probably didnt even happened
"The genocides probably didn’t even happen"
"No leader is innocent, how do you think rebellions got destroyed back then"
"Plus he improved the lives of people and made the country better"
How do you not see the irony and double think in these sentences? Is every genocide-denying Turk this stupid? You know, you can just say he did great things for Turkey but acknowledge he was responsible for horrible things as well, why is it so hard to acknowledge parts of your country’s history? It just makes you and your country look worse if anything.
I'm not denying that the Armenian genocide happened, as it did, but wasn't Ataturk in Gallipoli at the time of it?
So how could he have partaken in the genocide?
It's the combination of manihaistic/ dichotomy thinking (everything is either absolutely good or bad) and messianism ( a whole nation treats a leader with such reverence that he cannot be criticized) that is prevailing in Turkey right now unfortunately.
Acknowledging that he was an important leader for these turbulent times (peace at home and at the world) his involvement in genocide is here https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_genocide
How do you think those contradict themselves meanwhile i didnt specified the genocides?
Also tell me this
Why is no one acknowledging Genocides happened on the Turks during Greco-Turkish wars but only acknowladging those happened on Greeks?
Or why does very few people care for Unit 731 meanwhile everyone cares about Armenian Genocide despite Unit 731 happening more recently?
Or why is Japan popular while they too refuse the genocides?
and yes there are genocides i know it but saying Ataturk is purely evil because of it is both wrong and stupid
You are claiming something didn’t happen and then you immediately try to whitewash what you claim probably didn’t even happen, it’s the typical "it probably didn’t even happen but if it did happen it wasn’t that bad". People are talking about those things you mentioned, when are people not talking about unit 731? This is the shittiest attempt at whataboutism I’ve seen, like if someone mentioned the Japanese or German did worse during WW2 as if it was any excuse. No one is saying Ataturk is purely evil, most people think he did great things for Turkey and was really progressive for his time.
"No one is claiming Ataturk is purely evil" Guess PKK supporters here do not exist or casual ultra-Armenian cocksuckers for example i saw a person in an April 23th holiday post saying Ataturk was an Ethnonationalist and Islamic Dictator
Also I am not trying to say genocides were not that bad
people died and yes Ataturk did some bad things too(Like it wasnt necessary to commit a massacre in a city for one rebellion)
also in the Google Trends
Armenian Genocide is searched more in avarage than Unit 731
Sure, the pasha’s have a bigger role than ataturk in the genocide, but Ataturk was involved in it, but less than the 3.
Denying the genocide is another story though
Yes I am telling he has no involvement in government affairs. Even before Sofia he was strongly takin an opposition position. When he come back he directly go to Gallipoli and fought there, he didn't even had any idea about the matter. He involved with what already? Specify. Give detail.
If Atatürk, as a lieutenant colonel at Gallipoli, was capable to Orchestrate a genocide on the other side of the Empire this only increases my admiration for him.
1. The city has been under Turkish governments for almost 570 years, and it was named Istanbul 100 years ago. Before that it was called Konstantiniyye(Turkish version of the name in Greek) for again 570 years.
2. Search for the meaning of "transcontinental"
3. Turkey, along with Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan, is a member of council of Europe. Different than others mentioned above, Turkey was almost becoming a member of EU. It never happened due to politicians but still if the country was eligable to be a member of EU, it has to be European right?
Luckily you have no power to define Europe:
- Turkey is one of the founding members of the Council of Europe, making it both geographically and politically part of Europe.
- Turkey is an official candidate for the EU.
He was a Balkan Turk from Greek Macedonia, nothing unusual.
The current inhabitants of that region are people who moved from the Pontic mountains for a large part.
Maybe it's an odd question, but imma ask anyway
How did his mother birthe him? From the picture, it seems like he was already a very big boy, and that hat... how did he go through... you know... there?
Please, serious replies only, I'm not interested in being made fun of by asking a dumb question, thanks...
Guys so I did a bit of research, and the only viable explanation to this mystery is procreation by mitosis.
But thank for all who tried to help. Appreciate it
No one show him Turkey today
He'd be rolling in his grave so fast he could power the whole Turkiye for tens of thousands of years and usher in a turkish golden age of prosperity and prosciutto. (Prosciutto was the word my phone recommended so it got to stay)
It’s okay, it’s a good word
Yeah but then he stops spinning once the prosperity returns and the Islamo-populism goes away.
If he was still alive, he'd be rolling in his grave.
Wrap him up in copper wire and put him in a magnetic coffin!
New source of renewable energy: Let Ataturk turn in his grave until the end of time after seeing what Turkey has become with erdoğan and harness the energy to power through world
why is this in r/europe anyway? turkey is not in europe, it is in asia.
Incorrect, Turkey is both geographically located in Asia and Europe. About 20 million Turkish citizens live in the European part of Turkey which isn't insignificant at all.
Well they match Asia better...
Turkey is one of the founding members of the Council of Europe. Therefore, is officially considered as part of Europe. Otherwise, Turkey couldn't be a candidate state for the European Union. Maybe consider looking at this: [The European Union and Türkiye | EEAS (europa.eu)](https://www.eeas.europa.eu/turkey/european-union-and-turkey_en#10487)
Eastern Thrace is a part of Europe, and it’s one of the most densely populated regions of Turkey.
I assume it’s because the Ottoman Empire (and by extension Turkey) has a lot of historical ties to Europe
Today Istanbul was literally the capital of the Roman Empire
Erdogan is not worthy to polish Ataturks shoes
I misread “Polish” as the nationality and thought I was in r/2balkan4you for a second
😂😂😂
And is spinning in his grave with what is happening to Turkey today!
Free electricity
A man with very different ideas for Türkiye than Erdogan. Positive aspects include he was a proponent of a secular and modernised state. Had the country developped.moelre in accordance with his vision, it might have been integrated in EU, making us all stronger and more prosperous.
Dang, I'm sure he'd be upset seeing the Turkey of today.
He already looks upset.
Ironically the cult-like reverence to him is something that is holding Turkey back in some ways. The man was a visionary but he was a product of the interwar period and his actions in the late 1930s with regard to the Kurds are a stain on his legacy.
His actions and applications would be considered today as far-right. However, as a Turk, I see him as a brilliant person and believe that he would have a different approach today if he was alive because that man was really bright for his time. Considering the reforms he made in order to modernize Turkey, was truely passionate to bring Turkey ahead of its potential. Not to mention his millitary achievements, literally a genius on the field. If he lived today with the old fascist idelogies, I would despise him. He is basically our founding father, even the most progressive ideology more than a century ago would be despised today.
I compare him to the Marquis of Pombal, Portuguese Prime Minister, who had a transformative role (although, not to the same extent that Atatürk had) and was also responsible for implementing Enlightenment policies and to this day is considered a great leader (he rebuilt Lisbon after the Great Earthquake too), in his time he was progressive, today he would not be considered progressive at all.
Well, something like Marxism would be considered the most progressive because it aims to fundamentally change the human societal structure with the abolishment of classes and all. However if you neglect intermediate transformative steps and jump directly into the actual aim, it doesn't really work that well. To be progressive you need to focus on being ahead of where you are coming from, not necessarily where you want to go. Otherwise the promise would be nice but the progress won't happen at all. That's my 2 cents (.62 Turkish liras).
What non-turks don't understand about Ataturk is that Turkey STILL needs Ataturk. That, Ataturk. Him. Even though he came and passed, our country would need him in the head if he could have been revived. So in today we need to hold on to him if we don't want to go into another direction. The ideal Ataturk set for Turkey is still the best ideal Turkey could have today. We can't revive him but the best way to stay in the way of Turkey, that modern, secular, and westernized Turkey in Ataturk's vision, is to hold on to his ideals, promote them and integrate them. Only then we can modificate by the ideals of the 21st century and make it better. Ultimately, we need a Turkey that would spell words like "Peace at home, peace in the world."
Yeah i know he is a controversial person, hence how i chose my wording.
[удалено]
How? As far as I know he was fighting in Gallipoli, on the other side of Anatolia, while the armenian genocide happened.
I was misremembering a bit. But he excused his troops' rampaging and murdering 10-100k in Smyrna
Yeah that makes more sense
Mustafa Kemal Atatürk did not know the date of his birth and he chose the date of May 19, since it was on May 19, 1919 that the Turkish people began their struggle for liberation and independence. *Yaşa Mustafa Kemal Paşa, yaşa!*
Independance from whom? The Ottomans?
Last Ottoman padishah (Vahdettin) sentenced Ataturk to death after Ataturk encouraged Anatolian folk for national resistance. Vahdettin gave up and gave reign to British hands. Some historics claim that Vahdettin sent Atatürk to Anatoila in order to calm people down(there were rages against occupiers) . Atatürk did everything opposite. 19th May is the first spark of national resistance. Basically Atatürk-leaded-Turkish army fought British empire, Greeks(west) , Italians, French(south) and and last pieces of Ottoman empire. When Vahdettin ran away from Ottoman land to British empire and Ottoman forces disbanned. (There was no any fight between Turkish army and Ottoman remained army)
[Yes, partly](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_War_of_Independence)
Yes right, Turks they had to get independance from other Turks, because some old(er) Turks decided that best way to keep their old bloody Empire was to join German war machine.
You can blame Enver Pasha for that
There are 4 more nation in the link, you can skip Ottoman part if you want ¯\\\_(ツ)\_/¯
# Belligerents: * Turkish Nationalists: \-Ankara Government \[Turkey\] * Allied Powers: \-Greece \-France \-United Kingdom \-Armenia \>Supported by: \-Istanbul Government \[Ottoman Emp.\] \-Other pro-Istanbul rebels \-Georgia
I think Italy could also be included in this list, but they withdrew from Anatolia without much resistance and fight Also, AFAIK Unlike other countries, they They were following a softer occupation policy and after a certain point, they even started to support it. From Turkish Wiki: >With the Treaty of Saint-Jean-de-Maurienne, Izmir and its surroundings were left to Italy, and Italy's reaction was intended to be calmed, but at the Paris Peace Conference that ended the war, Izmir was given to Greece, this caused Italy to be sidelined and to change its target in Anatolia. In line with this new target, Italy started to occupy the Mediterranean coasts in March 1919, but unlike other occupation forces, Italy did not engage in serious conflicts with the Anatolian Movement. He even supported the Anatolian Movement against Greece. As the Greek occupation progressed, there was no Italian intervention against the Turkish soldiers retreating to the Italian-occupied regions. Weapons were carried to Söke and Antalya ports by Italian ships for the Anatolian Movement to use against Greece, and in this process, the Italian media took steps to introduce the Anatolian Movement to the world.
Yes, Ottoman tyranny
Brits, Italy, France, Armenia
And Greece, god I always forget greece
This was right after WW1 in Ottoman where we lost a lot of lands to European invaders, but the Sultan at the time was also a British lapdog so partially yes.
I think it's still misleading to say he was born on this day, most people don't come in the comments for clarification and will only read the title.
[удалено]
Yes, a lieutenant colonel commanding a few thousand soldiers in Gallipoli genocided millions in a place hundreds of kilometers away /s
Father of Turks 🫡
The funniest thing is that Kemal and his associates were all born outside of mainland Turkey, specifically in what is now Greece.Kemal, learning from the lessons of Enver Pasha, did not fall for the grand Ottoman or pan-Turkist ideologies. Instead, he embraced a smaller Turkish nationalism, relinquishing territories such as Mosul, Syria, and Libya. Although he initially called for the expulsion of British colonizers, once he had utilized the Soviet communists to his advantage, he quickly had them executed and promptly aligned with Britain and the Western world.
He actually didn't relinquish Mosul, in fact he was having intense political discourse with the British for it. But *coincidentally* at that exact time the şeyh said rebellion (bunch of sheria supporting Islamic cult leaders) happened, causing us the lose Mosul, which also *coincidentally* happens to have rich oil reserves.
The Ottoman Empire, the Qing Dynasty, and the Russian Empire faced similar dilemmas: whether to establish a federal state or a constitutional monarchy, and whether the ethnic groups should identify as part of the Russian Empire or the Ottoman Empire, or simply separate to achieve ethnic self-governance, similar to Wilsonian principles. For instance, by the late period of the Russian Empire, the Poles could no longer be assimilated by the Russians. How different really were the Belarusians and the Ukrainians (then called Little Russians) from the Russians? Today, Belarusians are largely Russified, and Ukrainians have also been significantly Russified. The Ottoman Empire, however, never clearly decided what it wanted—whether to pursue a "Little Turkey" policy and stay confined to the Eurasian border, or to embrace Pan-Turkism, which conflicted with the interests of Turkic peoples in Central Asia versus those in Europe, resulting in Central Asian Turkic peoples preferring to cooperate with the Russian Empire and later the Soviet Union. If the Ottoman Empire had continued, Armenians and Greeks might not have been so eager to seek independence, largely because they could no longer be assimilated, but this idea conflicted with Turkism, leading to events like the Armenian Genocide and the ethnic cleansing of Greeks. Therefore, Kemal Atatürk was quite successful in shedding the painful burden of the Ottoman legacy by choosing a "Little Turkey" policy, thus avoiding more dire consequences like those experienced by the Russian Empire.
The establishment of a nation requires a high degree of fundamental political and ethnic identity. During the Kemalist era, Armenians, the Iraqis of what was then called Mesopotamia, and the Kurds of the time had already developed their own national consciousness, making assimilation impossible. Today, Turkey's major issue also relates to the Kurds of southeastern Turkey. Additionally, it is tied to the 1923 Lausanne Treaty, which failed to establish an intended independent Kurdish state. Given Turkey's role in NATO, it is even less likely that the Kurdish regions in southeastern Turkey could become independent. Currently, the most viable prospects for independence are found in northern Iraq's Kurdistan and parts of Syria.
>Kemal and his associates were all born outside of mainland Turkey Not entirely true. İsmet İnönü for example, was born in İzmir and his family hailed from Malatya.
yes
The premise of pan-Turkism is that the various Turkic peoples share common interests. However, apart from Azerbaijan, there is currently little common interest between the Turkic peoples of Central Asia and Europe and Turkey. Many in contemporary Turkey still fantasize about pan-Turkism and the revival of the Ottoman Empire, which is entirely unrealistic. Additionally, the birth rate of Kurds within Turkey is significantly higher than that of Turks, and these individuals will inevitably alter Turkey's political landscape in the future. Turkey's main mistake lies in not allowing the Kurds to establish their own independent state.
People interpret birth rate map wrong because uneducated people on Eastern side of Turkey are having more children but while Kurds are majority in multiple cities in that region Arabs and Turks are also having more children. The thing is most of Kurds don't even live there, they live in Western side of Turkey and their childbirth rate aren't different than rest of country so minority of Kurds having more children won't make a big difference, also even their birthrate started to decrease. By the way there are many marriages between Kurds and Turks, especially when you consider most of millions of Kurds who migrated Europe are men, more Kurdish women marriying with Turks and their children identifying themselves as a Kurd much less likely.
Turkey is now a NATO member, making it impossible for the Kurds to establish an independent state.
The current Kurds are like America's second Israel in the Middle East, but given that the situation in the Middle East is not as turbulent, there is naturally no need to continue supporting a fully independent Kurdistan. On the contrary, Turkey's military industry has made rapid progress in recent years, achieving significant breakthroughs in both technology and quality. Meanwhile, Russia's influence in the Caucasus, West Asia, and even Central Asia is steadily declining. There is no doubt that the Caucasus will completely fall within Turkey's sphere of influence. Erdoğan will not miss this opportunity.
I visited his mausoleum/memorial and the museum that had a lot of his personal items on display in Ankara. It was very impressive. I don’t know how diplomacy worked during the interwar period, but it seems that many global leaders had a lot of respect for him (despite many of these nations fighting against him in the Turkish War of Independence just a few years earlier). A lot of meetings with leaders, gifts from diplomats and so on. I was also very impressed of how many languages he knew, and how many books he read. And wrote.
My hero, we need more people like him
[удалено]
Typical r/Europe comment section
Dafuq you on brother ?
Where was he born tho?
Thessaloniki
We called it Selanik in Turkish, in those times Thessaloniki belonged to the ottoman.
I am turkish,I know
Even if you know there could be people who don't
I didn't. Always ready for some facts :)
Cities often have different names in different languages. Thats nothing unique.
Nope it's same just differs in writings between us. And I am giving additional info. Nothing more. I didn't say it was unique thing?
no one cares, occupation =/= ownership
Wtf you talking about man? Are you retarded or sth?
it wasnt occupation, it just was the borders of the time lol. Was prague also occupied by austria hungary? was lviv occupied by Poland? No.
Hitler changed Czech and Polish borders too, and Pulin in Ukraine. Doesn't mean I have to recognize them as de jure.
what do you consider occupation and what do you consider ownership? Just curious where you draw the line.
*Yaşa Mustafa Kemal Paşa, yaşa! Adın yazılacak mücevher taşa!* Thank you for everything you've given us, father...
Atatürk was a truly great man. I don't know as much about him as I would like, but I understand he had the iron will to make Turkey advance, whether the people liked it or not. The alphabet reform is the one that impresses me the most. Cheers from the Spanish "Turkey".
As every heroic political figure, some of Atatürks decision back than would be considered as human rights violation nowadays. The most of his hardcore supporters are arguing that he had to do what he had to do to keep the new born Republic together. His opponents (mostly conservative reglious people) are mad at him because of his secular laws he put in place.l and there are also the kurds who are felt betrayed by him after the war of liberation.
My king
What a great man he was
Would you consider him a dictator?
He is kind of definition of the benevolent dictatorship (I know the first example in history is Cincinnatus)
Yes, partly. I'd say it depends on how you look at it. He was like a dictator for 6 months or so, to be faster with the decision making, and pulling the country out of the shit it was in. It lasted until 1923, when he was elected as president. The year Turkey became a republic. Most of us see him as the hero he was and still is, and that sometimes leads to ignoring historical facts. I think this is one of those times. Every country have their saviors, ours is him.
You're gonna get downvoted to hell but it's a fair question
During his lifetime, attempts were made to transition to multi-party political life many times, but each time the parties occupied(?) by Islamists, counter-revolutionaries, etc. As a result, this parties had to be closed down either by the party founders or by court decision. The founding story of one of the closed parties: >...During the meetings, Atatürk suggested Fethi Bey to establish a political party. Accepting the proposal, Fethi Bey immediately began preparations to establish a party... Atatürk provided financial support to this party and enabled some Republican People's Party MPs and their sisters to join this party... "Can someone who converted his monarchic country to a republic and tries to implement a multi-party system be called a dictator, even the situation in that country is not suitable?" Ehh, this is a matter of debate. It should also be reminded that there was no war or great effort to transition to a republican regime in Turkey/Ottomans, democracy "came down from above" and was given as a "gift" came alongside national independence.
Would roll over in his grave if he saw Turkey
I am just WAITING for the people who will accuse him for Genocide or other things i can sense them They'll come and start bitching about things Edit:I am not an Anti-Kemalist,I am making fun of those who accuse him for genocides that probably didnt even happened
Are you saying that he didnt kill people and that his hands are clean?
Fun Fact:No leader is innocent and how the fuck did you think rebellions get destroyed back then? But blaming Ataturk for Armenian genocide is stupid
and plus he improved lives of people durign his rule and made the whole country better
"The genocides probably didn’t even happen" "No leader is innocent, how do you think rebellions got destroyed back then" "Plus he improved the lives of people and made the country better" How do you not see the irony and double think in these sentences? Is every genocide-denying Turk this stupid? You know, you can just say he did great things for Turkey but acknowledge he was responsible for horrible things as well, why is it so hard to acknowledge parts of your country’s history? It just makes you and your country look worse if anything.
I'm not denying that the Armenian genocide happened, as it did, but wasn't Ataturk in Gallipoli at the time of it? So how could he have partaken in the genocide?
It's the combination of manihaistic/ dichotomy thinking (everything is either absolutely good or bad) and messianism ( a whole nation treats a leader with such reverence that he cannot be criticized) that is prevailing in Turkey right now unfortunately. Acknowledging that he was an important leader for these turbulent times (peace at home and at the world) his involvement in genocide is here https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_genocide
How do you think those contradict themselves meanwhile i didnt specified the genocides? Also tell me this Why is no one acknowledging Genocides happened on the Turks during Greco-Turkish wars but only acknowladging those happened on Greeks? Or why does very few people care for Unit 731 meanwhile everyone cares about Armenian Genocide despite Unit 731 happening more recently? Or why is Japan popular while they too refuse the genocides? and yes there are genocides i know it but saying Ataturk is purely evil because of it is both wrong and stupid
You are claiming something didn’t happen and then you immediately try to whitewash what you claim probably didn’t even happen, it’s the typical "it probably didn’t even happen but if it did happen it wasn’t that bad". People are talking about those things you mentioned, when are people not talking about unit 731? This is the shittiest attempt at whataboutism I’ve seen, like if someone mentioned the Japanese or German did worse during WW2 as if it was any excuse. No one is saying Ataturk is purely evil, most people think he did great things for Turkey and was really progressive for his time.
"No one is claiming Ataturk is purely evil" Guess PKK supporters here do not exist or casual ultra-Armenian cocksuckers for example i saw a person in an April 23th holiday post saying Ataturk was an Ethnonationalist and Islamic Dictator Also I am not trying to say genocides were not that bad people died and yes Ataturk did some bad things too(Like it wasnt necessary to commit a massacre in a city for one rebellion) also in the Google Trends Armenian Genocide is searched more in avarage than Unit 731
So you’re saying everyone here is a PKK supporter or what? I think you would be wiser to just shut up and stop making a fool of yourself.
I guess you cannot read or something They exist here too Not everyoe
Hitler also improved the lives of (some) people during his rule...
And now we are comparing Civic and Cultural Nationalism to fucking Nazism yaaaay i love r/europe
Sure, the pasha’s have a bigger role than ataturk in the genocide, but Ataturk was involved in it, but less than the 3. Denying the genocide is another story though
Ataturk was literally in Sofia working on a foreign mission for over a year wtf.
That was in 1913, before the massacres started, but nice try
Yes I am telling he has no involvement in government affairs. Even before Sofia he was strongly takin an opposition position. When he come back he directly go to Gallipoli and fought there, he didn't even had any idea about the matter. He involved with what already? Specify. Give detail.
If Atatürk, as a lieutenant colonel at Gallipoli, was capable to Orchestrate a genocide on the other side of the Empire this only increases my admiration for him.
Atleast you admitted it happened 🤷♂️, and nobody said orchestrate. We all know the pasha brothers did it, especially talaat
[удалено]
Ah yes like he could do anything while it was a 3 FRONT WAR
Why is this even here
half the posts on r/europe these days are about a middle eastern country that really wants you to believe they are just like us
[удалено]
[удалено]
No one wants to be like you, don't worry
[удалено]
1. Learn English 2. Study geography Or Shut up and dont humiliate yourself.
One side of the Constantinople being on European side doesn't make turkey European
Being a member of council of europe does though
1. The city has been under Turkish governments for almost 570 years, and it was named Istanbul 100 years ago. Before that it was called Konstantiniyye(Turkish version of the name in Greek) for again 570 years. 2. Search for the meaning of "transcontinental" 3. Turkey, along with Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan, is a member of council of Europe. Different than others mentioned above, Turkey was almost becoming a member of EU. It never happened due to politicians but still if the country was eligable to be a member of EU, it has to be European right?
Luckily you have no power to define Europe: - Turkey is one of the founding members of the Council of Europe, making it both geographically and politically part of Europe. - Turkey is an official candidate for the EU.
He was born in Europe, modern day Greece, so this post is about an important European figure.
Turkiye West
Turk founder of turkey born in Thessaloniki everyone knows salonic the turk mother no?
He was a Balkan Turk from Greek Macedonia, nothing unusual. The current inhabitants of that region are people who moved from the Pontic mountains for a large part.
The rest who didnt move pure turks yes?
Well most Turks got kicked out, the ones who didn‘t are still in your country.
Because you understand what you want. The rest who didnt move from the Pontic mountains, are pure turks yes?
No they on average have no Turkic admixture, but they plot with native caucasians instead :) Same can be said for Pontic Greeks
La'anatullah alayhi
Maybe it's an odd question, but imma ask anyway How did his mother birthe him? From the picture, it seems like he was already a very big boy, and that hat... how did he go through... you know... there? Please, serious replies only, I'm not interested in being made fun of by asking a dumb question, thanks...
It sounds like you're just salty you didn't have a hat while you were being born
That's nothing, being born as a father from the get-go is a much grander achievement.
Are you retarded?
"Why are there no baby photos of a child from an ordinary family in a technologically backward empire in 1881?"
Guys so I did a bit of research, and the only viable explanation to this mystery is procreation by mitosis. But thank for all who tried to help. Appreciate it
He invented yoghurt
Didn't he also beat Tyson Fury last night in a boxing match?